Merged Cognitive Theory, ongoing progress

[barehl]

In the community thread no one seemed to be interested in discussion. So, I guess I'll just post the status. People also seemed very confused about what I was working on. So, maybe a little background.

Markram was involved with the Blue Brain Project back in 2005. He then gave a TED talk in 2009 where he described a large scale brain research project and stated that within 10 years, they could have a working brain simulation. Markram did generate interest and The Human Brain Project started in the EU in October 2013. One of the subprojects was:

• SP3 Systems and Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding how the brain performs its systems-level and cognitive functional activities

However, the governing committee voted to end work on SP3 in early 2014. This caused a revolt among hundreds of scientists who were involved. An open letter was submitted with signature between July and September 2014. The result was that the governing committee of three was disbanded in February 2015 and it was decided that the new committee of 22 would not contain any members who were in charge of projects within the HBP because of conflict of interest. The current HBP goals include:

• Simulate the brain
• Build multi-scale scaffold theory and models for the brain
• Develop brain-inspired computing, data analytics and robotics

The HBP concept is based on the idea of somehow simulating the brain using neural networks. Then analyzing these neural networks to figure out what is happening and develop models or scaffolding. Then apply these models to computing.

My work started one month after the HBP in November 2013. I made a breakthrough in August 2015 and have made progress since then. My work involves analyzing behavior and cognitive ability in organisms and developing a model of evolutionary development based on knowledge theory. Recently, I was able to set a ceiling for the complexity of the remainder of the theory which involves consciousness. I know that what is left is no more than 20% of the total complexity.

It should be understood that the HBP method is bottom up. So, whatever progress is made is functional or operational. However, my method is top down so 80% complete is still non-functional. In other words, even though progress with HBP is at a snail's pace, it is verified since each piece is functional. My work can't be verified until the theory is complete since it isn't functional until it's complete. All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence. Consistent is not the same as confirmed.

 

[theprestige]

When you say "evolutionary development" do you mean how a species changes over successive generations, or how a single organism changes over its lifetime?

Also, what is the "knowledge theory" you are applying in your work? Is it part your work, or an independent body of work that informs your efforts? If independent, can you provide some citations or references?

 

[casebro]

I'd like to read more. Got any cites?

 

[barehl]

When you say "evolutionary development" do you mean how a species changes over successive generations

The evolutionary record runs from round worm to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammal-like reptiles to mammals to primates to monkeys to apes to great apes to humans. Somewhere along that path we went from non-intelligent to generally intelligent. My research involves the evolutionary steps in brain, intelligence, and cognitive development to get from round worms to humans.

This is an addition to evolutionary theory but involving cognitive development. This hasn't been researched much because the fossil record doesn't show cognition, only brain size and shape. And, even recent advances in genetic evolutionary theory aren't understood well enough to detail cognitive development.

Also, what is the "knowledge theory" you are applying in your work? Is it part your work

When I made the first breakthrough over two years ago, it wasn't long before I realized that I had no foundational basis for the theory. You couldn't relate it to other theories or work out formal definitions or equations. So, I began looking in information & decision theory and philosophy. I realized that there was a big gap. I eventually developed knowledge theory.

With knowledge theory you can explain where abstractions come from and how they acquire value. You need it to explain things like the ability to understand. It's part of the basis for learning and overcoming the frame problem.

 

[barehl]

I'd like to read more. Got any cites?

Are you talking about cites of the unpublished theory or cites of published research used to develop the theory?

 

[casebro]

Are you talking about cites of the unpublished theory or cites of published research used to develop the theory?

Well, proof that what seems to be your own personal idea has any legitimacy.

 

[barehl]

Well, proof that what seems to be your own personal idea has any legitimacy.

I mentioned this in the very first post. I'm not quite sure how you managed to miss it.

All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence. Consistent is not the same as confirmed.

I assume that by legitimate you mean confirmed.

 

[theprestige]

I mentioned this in the very first post. I'm not quite sure how you managed to miss it.

To be honest the first post kind of rambles a bit. The first half isn't even about your work.

I assume that by legitimate you mean confirmed.

I'd settle for "consistent with evidence". You would start by explaining your theory in enough detail to make predictions from it. And then point out which observed evidence is consistent with the predictions of your theory. Anyone can claim to have a new theory that matches observations and is 80% on its way to totality. If you don't show your work, what's the point?

 

[barehl]

The first half isn't even about your work.

Yes, that's probably why I said:

So, maybe a little background.

I guess you missed that too.

I'd settle for "consistent with evidence".

You mean you wouldn't settle for this. You'll now start explaining what you actually think you are somehow entitled to.

You would start by explaining your theory in enough detail to make predictions from it.

Yes, I will when it is published. It won't be published until it is finished and there is a suitable environment. This would be 2021 at the earliest.

And then point out which observed evidence is consistent with the predictions of your theory.

This doesn't make any sense. I can't very well point out what experimental evidence might be consistent before those experiments are performed.

Anyone can claim to have a new theory that matches observations and is 80% on its way to totality.

Yes, I suppose that's true. If you believe that I just made up a claim then why did you start posting in this thread? And why don't you stop? Let me be more clear. I'm not going to play games with you. I got enough of that in the community thread.

 

[Mojo]

All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence.

What's the evidence, and how is your theory consistent with it?

 

[Mojo]

When I made the first breakthrough over two years ago, it wasn't long before I realized that I had no foundational basis for the theory. You couldn't relate it to other theories or work out formal definitions or equations. So, I began looking in information & decision theory and philosophy. I realized that there was a big gap. I eventually developed knowledge theory.

With knowledge theory you can explain where abstractions come from and how they acquire value. You need it to explain things like the ability to understand. It's part of the basis for learning and overcoming the frame problem.

Can you explain this knowledge theory, and how it enables you to do this?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

"I have an idea."
"What is your idea?"
"Fie on you, sir! I'll not play these games!"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Would simulating the human brain in order to perform experiments on it be ethical? I'm not sure I see the distinction between that and performing experiments on a non-simulated human brain.

 

[jrhowell]

Yes, I will when it is published. It won't be published until it is finished and there is a suitable environment. This would be 2021 at the earliest.

All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds. If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?

 

[Mojo]

All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds. If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?

I'll be really disappointed if I wait four years only to be told that it is "consciousness is thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the other end."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds. If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?

Because he's already started describing himself as an unappreciated genius for it. Specifically, comparing himself favorably to Elon Musk in the latest Mars thread. But you can't be a martyr until you get martyred, so this is his three days in the underworld.

Would simulating the human brain in order to perform experiments on it be ethical? I'm not sure I see the distinction between that and performing experiments on a non-simulated human brain.

I think performing those experiments will be required to determine their ethicality. Otherwise how could you argue that the brain you've simulated is accurate enough to deserve an ethical standing?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

So you created a thread in the community subforum complaining that everyone's overlooking how groundbreaking your new theory is going to be. When asked what your theory entails, you said you couldn't give any details until you had published it.

You abandoned that thread and started this one, where you announce that you are doing groundbreaking work that will revolutionize science.

And again, when people ask you to say something about your work, you not only decline, but you get salty.

Now, I'm no world class developer of my own knowledge theory and revolutionary model of consciousness, but if you don't really want to talk about your theory, then why start these threads? Attention? Looking for some persecution so you get to play Galileo? Attention?

Wish I knew.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, that's probably why I said:

I guess you missed that too.

Not at all. The "background" you gave was for some other work, being done by other people, attacking the problem from a different direction. It doesn't appear to have any connection to your work.

You mean you wouldn't settle for this. You'll now start explaining what you actually think you are somehow entitled to.

You said, "All I can say right now is that the theory is consistent with evidence." I mean I will settle for exactly that: An explanation of how the theory is consistent with the evidence.

Yes, I will when it is published. It won't be published until it is finished and there is a suitable environment. This would be 2021 at the earliest.

Then why bring it up now? Without the theory, and without the evidence, what do you imagine can be discussed here?

This doesn't make any sense. I can't very well point out what experimental evidence might be consistent before those experiments are performed.

When you said that the theory is consistent with the evidene, I took this to mean there is already existing evidence to discuss--experiments or observations that have already taken place. Is that not true?

Yes, I suppose that's true. If you believe that I just made up a claim then why did you start posting in this thread? And why don't you stop? Let me be more clear. I'm not going to play games with you. I got enough of that in the community thread.

I started posting in this thread to better understand your idea. Your style of presentation is problematic, but I think the problems can be easily resolved.

 

[barehl]

All you are doing is attacking anyone who responds.

That isn't the case and you know it, or at least you should know it. If you were genuine in your response you could have asked me if the theory had any predictions where experiments have already been done.

If you won't discuss your theory then why start a thread about it now instead of waiting until it is ready in 2021?

Okay, we're back to that again; it's a waste of time. Once the theory is published there won't be any discussion here. So, by saying that you want to wait until it is published you are actually saying that you don't want to ever discuss it. Why not be honest and just say that instead?

 

[barehl]

I'll be really disappointed if I wait four years only to be told that it is "consciousness is thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the other end."

If had spent four years working on a theory like that I would be much more disappointed than you. In fact, I don't see how I could do that unless I was mentally unbalanced.