"where he leads a team in efforts to reverse-engineer the neocortex"
:grin: What a brilliant Job!

You should try to emulate @Mikie and try to contact Jeff and see if you can convince him to be a guest speaker on TPF. That's a schooling I would love to experience!

Then try to analyze, for example, the retrieval of information by a computer. — L'éléphant

That's called the fetch-execute cycle and happens to the clock pulse of the clock line of the 'control bus' (not really a bus, as the lines operate discretely).
Each line below occurs serially, within a single clock pulse.

1. The processor sets up the address bus with the address of the memory location to be accessed.
2. The read line of the control bus is set high by the processor
3. The data/instruction resident at the memory location currently on the address bus is copied onto the data bus and is sent along to a memory data register, by the processor.
4. The processor will then transfer the data to a general purpose register or directly to RAM space or it will decode and execute, if it is dealing with an instruction rather than a data item.

This all happens WITHIN time slices(durations).

The size of a tree is nontemporal, so is the brightness of a light bulb. — L'éléphant

Sure but it took you a duration to type that, or to even think it, so your perception of a tree size or brightness, is temporal in the sense of your own perception time/duration.

Even if you (can) consider the biggest reference frame of perceiving the universe as single system, then that system will have a temporal aspect to any observer, as it did have a beginning, it does have a duration, and via entropy, it will 'disassemble.'
The idea that the tree height has a non-temporal frame of reference to entities such as us, is relative imo.

@universeness Something’s been bothering me. This discussion has been hovering around on the first page for ages, and I find the title annoying. Is it meant to be Emergence? If so I can change it.

It now occurs to me that my discussion with you is futile. So, I'm ending it here.

AGI will make errors and correct and learn from them hundred of thousands to millions of times faster than human brains can. — 180 Proof

I get it. That was my point. But I was trying to point out to you that human errors are errors peculiar to humans. Which is what makes it interesting to me. Just as a computer could be made perfect, humans organically develop and along the way this development picks up natural selections, mutations, and accidents, which make for an exciting phenomenon.

I'm not trying to compare the abilities of humans and computers. I'm trying to explain why human consciousness (it's redundant to say this) is human.

:up:

Sure, if you feel that change would better fit it's content.

That's ok, you are free to bail out anytime you wish.

neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins titled A Thousand Brains which summarizes 'lessons learned' from his own company's research on AGI. — 180 Proof

Have you watched this?

I watched it last night. It's 2 hours 35 mins, but worth the investment.
The term emergence/emergent was used quite a bit.
I enjoyed the little insight it gave me into the work of neuroscientists and Jeff's 'thousand brains theory.'
Brain reference frames and movement models, the brains use of maps/graphs, cortical columns, grid cells, place cells, vector cells, etc, etc.
This video is easily due it's own thread but I don't know if TPF is an adequate place for such a thread.
Obviously a neuroscience site would fit much more.
Few here would be willing to invest the time involved imo.
I certainly think it's content would help make theists feel more and more uncomfortable as they continue to try desperately to hold on to their woo woo, ancient fables and present them as facts.
God did this! Just seems more and more 'silly.'
I would personally need, to watch this video a few times to gain better insight however.

Additional: I will now have to update my personal, previous, Paul Maclean model of the human triune brain, to Jeff's thousand brain model based on cortical columns.
WHEN I SAW HIM draw the little circles on paper and start to draw connecting communication lines between them. I said HEY, that looks like he is starting to draw a topology of a fully connected mesh network of computer nodes!! The amount of crossover between the mechanisms this video describes and computer science is very strong imo.
@noAxioms, @Count Timothy von Icarus, @Alkis Piskas, @bert1, @Isaac, @Benj96, and of course anyone else here on TPF, that might find Jeff Hawkins work (as introduced to me by @180 Proof) as interesting as he, and now I, do.

I will have to now buy Jeff's 'thousand brains book.' YOU keep adding to my homework sir! :rofl:
I recently completed The memoirs of Ulysses Simpson Grant.
My current read is my second reading of Brian Green's 'The Elegant Universe.' (I first read it 15 years ago)
After that, I have TPF member @Vera Mont's book 'The Ozimord project,' to read, then Sean Carrol's 'The Biggest Ideas in the Universe, VOL 1! (two more to come!), and now!
Jeff Hawkins 'A thousand brains.'
This is beginning to impact my weekend drinking time!!!!!! :halo:

:clap: :cool: Enjoy!

I'll give this video a look eventually. Thanks!

In his discussion, in the video, with 3 other folks involved in the area, you will find that Jeff, does not currently hold the same opinion as you do, regarding the threat of AI developments towards AGI.
He certainly thinks that significant threat exists but I would also suggest, that he thinks we humans, are capable of countering them. He could of course be quite wrong in that view.

Maybe I'm misreading your remark, but I haven't opined that "AI development" (i.e. AGI) is a "threat". IMO, it's human civilization with its shiny new tools (e.g. intelligent, thermonuclear and/or nano-technological), however, that threatens human existence in the near-term.

I just heard that:
Geoffrey Hinton, (the godfather of AI,) 75 has just resigned from his post with Google. He helped to design the systems that became the bedrock of AI. But the Turing prize winner now says a part of him regrets making them.
There certainly does seem to be two intrenched camps on either side of the current AI debate.

You did not misread my remark, but perhaps I continue to misunderstand your position regarding AGI.
Perhaps it's your regular use of 'posthuman,' or/and your, in general, more pessimistic view of the future of humanity.

Let me put it this way: I think AGI is the future of humanity. :nerd:


A few 'optimistic' old posts ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768537
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/770469
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/502217

:lol: Well done in finding 3 out of your almost 12,000 posts. :joke:
I am sure you could find more, if you had to.
I won't suggest 6 examples of your less positive comments to 'move in front,' and invite such a race.
The fact that you continue to push back against my accusation that you can be quite pessimistic about the future of humanity, and our ability to be better than our more base 'jungle rules and jungle thinking' style manifestations, such as territoriality, tribalism, theism, capitalism, malevolent hierarchy, xenophobia, etc, etc.
Means that you, imo, are one of those who are part of the solutions and not part of the problems.

:sweat: Do you really want hundreds of more 'optimistic' posts?! Anyway, ty. :up:

I enjoy your more 'optimistic' posts whenever I come across one. If I need cheered up, I can always write more of my own. If you ever watch the Jeff Hawkins vid above, I would be interested in discussing it's content with you.

:up:

Btw, we just differ over what constitutes an 'optimistic' view of our automated (IMO, prospective "post-scarcity") future. In a nutshell, anthropocentric you: "super-humanity" with exponentially more biophysical-metacognitive options than our current human condition affords us; de-anthropo-centric me: "post-humanity" with exponentially fewer biophysical-metacognitive defects than our current human condition constrains us with.

Or in (visionary) "science fiction" terms – my view is more "Starchild-Monolith" (or "Culture Minds") and your view is more "United Federation of Planets-Star Fleet", no? :nerd:

Yes, I would broadly agree with your analysis. It would be fun to drill more into how much of an individual identity you think could still be maintained, after a merging with future tech. My projected future, or I might even be so bold to say, the future I see currently, slowly emerging, will be very turbulent and may continue to be an 'ever on the precipice, existential risk,' as dangerous as we have faced since the invention of nuclear weapons. But I DO think we will eventually, get to a stage, where the following will be a description of a typical human existence.

1. Birth into a mainly secular humanist, globally united society, where an individual can take their basic needs and personal protections for granted, from cradle to grave.
2. We will become an interplanetary species.
3. Tech will be used initially as physical and mental benevolent medical support, and personal security support, and your 'first stage' of life, will be as a natural human existence, with a lifespan max of around 200 years, based on maintaining and growing and nurturing your 'natural identity,' developed since your birth.
4. Your second stage of life will happen, when your first stage is close to it's natural end or if it ends via accident, but you can be saved via tech. This is the point when an individual human. can CHOOSE to 'merge' with tech to become neo/nova sapien, and gain all those 'biophysical-metacognitive.' options you mentioned, and YES, I think we will fight as much as possible, to maintain as much of the 'human identity,' we had in our 'first stage' of life. Not all anthropomorphising is ill-advised.
5. Artificial lifeforms, biologically engineered lifeforms, mech/orga variants, genetically enhanced animal/ aquatic and insect lifeforms etc, etc will eventually exist along side us. Perhaps we will have encountered some alien life by that time as well. Perhaps all of the lifeforms on Earth (natural and 'created,') will eventually become interplanetary/interstellar.
6. I don't think the threat of extinction will remain the main picture. I think the main picture will consist of an eventual diversification, that will produce variety in a number that will dwarf the number of varieties produced by evolution and natural selection.

The vastness of the universe, can easily accommodate such.

:chin: Well ...

1. I suspect runaway climate change will balkanize the globe even more than it is today because the capacities for mitigating the catastrophic 'warming' effects are now and will be even more so unevenly distributed (even when AGI comes online). In the best case scenarios, however, I agree with your "cradle to grave" techno-"secularism" – what I imagine as automated post-scarcity societies (APS).

2. I imagine that in about fifty years we will start 'spreading out' in earnest across the inner solar system, mostly orbital, moon & asteroid habitats rather than planetary 'colonies'.

3. Okay (re: APS).

4. Assuming that "the human identity" is a manifestation of the human condition. Thus, I imagine as technosciences, extraterresrial habitation & AGI —> ASI accelerate the disappearance of the current human condition, "human identity" also will disappear. (Re: posthumanity (e.g. body-mods & brain-augments for living in space; AI-mediated-hiveminds; orga-mecha mergers, etc) —> transcension)

5. I predict that by the end of this century our (AGI-controlled) space probes will discover robust exo-biomes and thriving xeno-species beneath the ice carapaces of a number of Jupiter's & Saturn's moons. By then, however, ASI will determine how best to protect (enhance) terrestrial life from (by) extraterrestrial and artificial life-forms.

6. Three natural mass extinction-events come to mind which could affect the entire inner solar system (now and always): (A) gamma ray bursts, (B) planetary colliding coronal mass ejections (re: the Carrington event) and (C) micro-singularities. A non-terrestrial diaspora, of course, increases the likelihood of our species surviving extinction events but in no way guarantees it.

Thanks for the very interesting response.

1. I understand your 'balkanise the globe' projection but I don't agree with your bracketed ('even when AGI comes on-line.') I think AI progress, will help us very significantly, with climate change and I am also boosted by two others 'impressions,' I have. Global youth seems more aware of the threats that our historical and current stewardship of the Earth has caused, and seem more determined (compared to earlier generations) to organise themselves, to reverse those effects. Even many members of the traditionally nefarious rich and powerful, are beginning to realise that they cannot feed as well, from a dead or even balkanised global population. I do also accept that there is nonetheless, a dangerous global apathy and substantial 'fake news force,' to contend with.
I agree with your 'post-scarcity' epoch and hope it ends global hunger and vastly improves peoples lives BUT, it will then result in an increased need for better population control (at least on Earth).

2. Yes, I think 'stepping stone' space habitats, stations etc will become very necessary, before eventual extraplanetary 'large,' probably initially domed settlements, until 'terraforming' can make any kind of impact.

3. :up:
4.

Assuming that "the human identity" is a manifestation of the human condition. Thus, I imagine as technosciences, extraterresrial habitation & AGI —> ASI accelerate the disappearance of the current human condition, "human identity" also will disappear — 180 Proof

I think the human 'first stage (fully natural, organic) life' will change yes, but not in a way that humans alive today would not recognise. I think we will fight hard to make our first, up to around 200 years of existence to be much as it is today. I think the current experiences we have that forms 'who we are' and 'who we might become,' are very much revered by a great number of us.

"human identity" also will disappear. (Re: posthumanity (e.g. body-mods & brain-augments for living in space; AI-mediated-hiveminds; orga-mecha mergers, etc) — 180 Proof

From your link: Today, we examine the possibility that the reason for the Great Silence is that all the aliens have evolved beyond the need to explore!
Your suggestion that any 'changes' in 'humanity,' especially what I would consider human stage 2 life need not become a disappearance of 'human identity' but an 'updating' of it. I know you think I am arguing semantics here but I think it's a valid semantic debate.

The Universe today article you cited was a fun read and it's main proposals were dramatised somewhat in the guise of 'the first ones' in Babylon 5:

But remember the first ones, all went to explore beyond the rim and became 'intergalactic.' The universe is so much bigger and unknown that any AGI or ASI will be able to 'comprehend,' in my 'humble' but still very very very atheist opinion. I don't find the posit of 'beyond the need to explore,' very likely.

5. I like that prediction, I hope it happens that way, I certainly would not advocate for any discovered microbial sized or any sized, biological structures being destroyed to make way for any colony from Earth.

6. Well, there are comments like this, from such as the physics stack exchange:
Gamma rays can be stopped by the few inches of lead shielding nuclear reactors, the Trillions of yotta grams that make up the sun will be absolutely fine for the job.
You also don't need to worry about venus losing it's atmosphere, the worry with a GRB is that it destroys the ozone layer not that it flat out strips away our atmosphere.
The shortest GRB's can be two seconds long so earth could definitely be behind the sun for the entire duration of one.

All I am suggesting is that there seems to have always been many existential threats to the Earth and its 'life' based contents. Despite these, life on Earth endures. The threats you cite are very real and very valid. We will have to pay attention and make very serious, united, global efforts in the future to protect our future selves and our home planet. I think that we are left with nothing stronger at the moment than our individual hope that we will survive, in some form or another. I know that in some posts you have suggested that you are not a big fan of the notion of human 'hopes.'

Some more comments on your comments ...

1. The oceans are already too warm to reverse catastrophic climate change. AGI will triage the global population centers so that 1 in 4 (2bn) people might survive to the end of the next century.

2. 'Planetary colonization' (e.g. megaengineering, terraforming) does not make economic, engineering or scientific sense IMO. No "stepping stones", my friend, just dispersion of Earth's species as a hedge against terrestrial extinction risks. And because of hard radiation (e.g. cosmic rays) and astronomical transit durations, 'deep space exploration' is only feasible for (tinier-the-better) intelligent machines.

4. Babylon 5?! :rofl: (sorry) Nothing remotely to do with the transcension hypothesis.

5. :up:

6. "Global efforts?" Never were, never will be. And no need for that: AGI —> ASI will drive the big blue bus out of the ditch we're stuck in despite our fractious human nature. No doubt, over the next century or so, 3 out of 4 (6bn) of us will be left behind in the ditch so that the rest of our biological descendents can survive (predominantly due to the efforts of our machine descendents 'herding a billion cats').

Has @Jamal or his mod minions, decided to 'diminish' this thread?
I apologise in advance for such a terrible accusation if it's just a tech hitch.
In truth I am not that bothered anyway. It's lived a long life in the league of page one threads.
It seems to be getting pushed down the pages, regardless of any new posts on it. :lol:

1. Any exemplar, reliable scientific studies you know of that claim this as fact?
2. Not yet, I agree but tech advances may/I think will, change this. I will stick with my stepping stones projection/prediction.
4. I quote from the article ", the Transcension Hypothesis ventures that an advanced civilization will become fundamentally altered by its technology. In short, it theorizes that any ETIs that predate humanity have long-since transformed into something that is not recognizable by conventional SETI standards."

Same in B5, the humans required 'Vorlon' tech and the power of the alien tech (the great machine) they found on the planet that B5 orbited, Epison III. Without that, 'the first ones,' would have remained invisible to them. G'Kar explains it quite well below:


6.

"Global efforts?" Never were, never will be. — 180 Proof

See! Your more pessimistic sentences are still alive and kicking! :grin:

No doubt, over the next century or so, 3 out of 4 (6bn) of us will be left behind in the ditch so that the rest of our biological descendents can survive (predominantly due to the efforts of our machine descendents 'herding a billion cats'). — 180 Proof

LOOK! there's another one! :joke:

Has Jamal or his mod minions, decided to 'diminish' this thread?
I apologise in advance for such a terrible accusation if it's just a tech hitch.
In truth I am not that bothered anyway. It's lived a long life in the league of page one threads.
It seems to be getting pushed down the pages, regardless of any new posts on it. — universeness

Yes, I “sunk” it, which means new posts no longer push it up the page. As you say, it’s had a long enough life, and it’s now more like a private conversation.

Typed like a true emotionless AI!
It may diminish, but will be freshly remembered by a significant few of the highest quality!

1. Any exemplar, reliable scientific studies you know of that claim this as fact? — universeness

Plenty. This article cites some of them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html

I don't have a great deal of confidence in a New York Times article. I am cynical enough to treat all newspaper articles, as deserving only a base level of confidence that it is true.
Unfortunately, I could not read the article without agreeing to subscribe to the newspaper.
Do you have any better links to support the proposal that your point below has very strong evidence behind it?

1. The oceans are already too warm to reverse catastrophic climate change. AGI will triage the global population centers so that 1 in 4 (2bn) people might survive to the end of the next century. — 180 Proof

It's a forecast, not a prediction, like AGI itself. I'm just as cynical about news articles except when they cite the sources of the scientific studies they are summarizing. I'm not at all cynical, however, about accelerating climate change due to anthropogenic global warming. Here's an article published today that's clearly trying to avoid being "alarmist" and yet the implications are obvious (you can check out the sources cited therein for yourself):

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/world/ocean-surface-temperature-heat-record-climate-intl/index.html

Thanks for the CNN link. As you suggest, the article was not being too heavily alarmist, but was offering significant warning. I cannot post any quotes from it as I try not to accept cookies.
From my own past reading on this (mostly about coral reef damage/bleaching and melting ice in the arctic and antarctic regions), I agree that the current situation in Earth's Oceans is very bad. I do not however think that we have reached the point of no return and I remain hopeful that your prediction of a human population fall from the current 8 billion to 1 or 2 billion, within the not to distant future, is unlikely, BUT I cannot provide convincing evidence that you are completely wrong.