Evolving Technium Landscapes of Mind

Just because we are conscious does not mean we have the smarts to make consciousness ourselves. Whether (or when) AI is possible will ultimately depend on whether we are smart enough to make something smarter than ourselves. We assume that ants have not achieved this level. We also assume that as smart as chimpanzees are, chimps are not smart enough to make a mind smarter than a chimp, and so have not reached this threshold either. While some people assume humans can create a mind smarter than a human mind, humans may be at a level of intelligence that is below that threshold also. We simply don't know where the threshold of bootstrapping intelligence is, nor where we are on this metric. _KevinKelly

Technium
Kevin Kelly has created a "Taxonomy of Minds" as a way of classifying different types of minds and what they might be able to do.

Precisely how a mind can be superior to our minds is very difficult to imagine. One way that would help us to imagine what greater intelligences would be like is to begin to create a taxonomy of the variety of minds. This matrix of minds would include animal minds, and machine minds, and possible minds, particularly transhuman minds, like the ones that science fiction writers have come up with.

Imagine we land on a alien planet. How would we describe or measure the level of the intelligences we encounter there -- assuming they are greater than ours? What are the thresholds of superior intelligence? What are the categories of intelligence in animals on earth? _Read the rest...TaxonomyofMinds

Technium
The actual development of superior minds is more likely to occur via evolutionary mechanisms, rather than from straightforward design from principle. The adaptive landscape graphic above provides a small portion of an evolutionary adaptive landscape. Creatures that achieve the higher peaks may be capable of achieving greater feats, but also may be more subject to extinction when the environment shifts -- or when the adaptive landscape is enlarged by merging with a previously separate adaptive landscape (building a bridge between islands, tunneling through a mountain chain, digging a canal through an isthmus, or the emergence of an intergalactic wormhole).

Rather than waiting until our minds become capable of creating other minds, it is more likely that humans will create an evolutionary landscape from which a more intelligent mind than human minds might emerge.

Recently, in conversations with George Dyson, I realized there is a fifth type of elementary mind:

5) A mind incapable of designing a greater mind, but capable of creating a platform upon which greater mind emerges.

This type of mind cannot figure out how to birth an intelligence equal to itself, but it does figure out how to set up conditions of evolution so that a new mind emerges from the forces pushing it. _Technium

This is the approach to AI which Al Fin cognitive scientists have been promoting and utilising. It would be fooling one's self to imagine that it will be easy to evolve a smarter mind. But at least it is not impossible, as most conventional approaches to AI are proving themselves to be. (conventional AI researchers are attempting quantitative solutions where qualitative solutions apply)

There is something quite amusing here: The human mind itself can flit among the taxonomy of minds, at any given time. Because of how the human brain evolved, and the paths we have taken in development, each one of us is multitudes. Without a doubt, we all need better training in using our minds.

More: An interesting set of links to sources which expect or assume the imminent creation of a super-human machine intelligence (and a consequent "singularity") and a few sources which are critical of such a "hard take-off" to singularity superintelligence

Al Fin is among the skeptics of the "techno-singularity" concept. Rather, Al Fin expects any near-term singularity to be of the "bio-singularity" variety.

Human Intelligence Comes from the Genes

LAMC3 Gene and Effect on Brain Convolutions
The difference between the brain on the left above and the brain on the right, comes from a single gene -- LAMC3 -- which influences the formation of convolutions in the cerebral cortex. Brain convolutions allow for much greater volume of cerebral cortex, which is associated with the higher intelligence seen in apes, cetaceans, and humans (one of the apes). An alteration of the nucleic acid sequence in the LAMC3 gene in humans can apparently lead to the loss of convolutions in the cortex in affected individuals, as seen in the image above.

The folding of the brain is seen only in mammals with larger brains, such as dolphins and apes, and is most pronounced in humans. These fissures expand the surface area of the cerebral cortex and allow for complex thought and reasoning without taking up more space in the skull. Such foldings aren't seen in mammals such as rodents or other animals. Despite the importance of these foldings, no one has been able to explain how the brain manages to create them. The LAMC3 gene – involved in cell adhesion that plays a key role in embryonic development – may be crucial to the process.

An analysis of the gene shows that it is expressed during the embryonic period that is vital to the formation of dendrites, which form synapses or connections between brain cells. "Although the same gene is present in lower organisms with smooth brains such as mice, somehow over time, it has evolved to gain novel functions that are fundamental for human occipital cortex formation and its mutation leads to the loss of surface convolutions, a hallmark of the human brain," Gunel said. _Medicalxpress

Thousands of genes take part in the intricate developmental dance of forming the central nervous system in all its complexity. But specific genes play more dominant roles in differentiating human brains from brains of "lower" animals.

Genes control the size of particular systems and components of the brain which are instrumental in providing for more rapid mental processing and more complex processing. Some brains can hold more ideas in the mind simultaneously, while performing transformative operations on those ideas. "Human calculators" capable of computing solutions to complex arithmetical and mathematical problems in their heads, are one obvious example. But the mental machinations of scientific theorists, elite diagnosticians, and top level novelists, illustrate the same type of differentiation of mental ability -- largely originating at the genetic level.

James Watson -- one of the discoverers of the modern genetic theory of DNA inheritance -- received almost universal condemnation for expressing a few elementary facts of human genetic biodiversity. Here is some background information concerning that shameful episode of modern human culture and its prejudices:

GNXP: James Watson tells the Inconvenient Truth

Slate: Created Equal [AF Note: After being threatened with a similar fate as that of Watson, the much beaten-down Saletan (author of the slate piece above) published a "mea culpa" and submitted to the PC inquisition]

Useful PDF article from Robert Plomin discussing Genes and Intelligence

It is critical to understand how many genes are involved in weaving the fabric of higher intelligence. It is not a question of finding THE GENE for intelligence. Rather it is a question of understanding how all the many genes which create the potential for intelligence, work together.

And it is important to become a bit more sophisticated about how a crucial variability in gene expression can occur -- even when conventional genetic analyses fail to distinguish between two genomes.

Humans are not all the same. In fact, no two humans are exactly the same -- even identical twins. This is true for reasons of gene expression, in all its many levels of complexity -- both known and unknown. These differences can also originate from differences in experience and culture, as in when identical twins are separated at birth and raised in entirely different environments. But even then, the powerful impact of genes on the life outcome of the separated twins is all to obvious.

IQ is not everything. Executive Function (EF) is also crucial to life success. But EF is perhaps even more heritable than IQ. That is why it is so crucial to take advantage of a child's critical developmental windows for boosting the components of competent thinking, acting, and planning when one can. After that time period passes, it is mostly too late for those at the greatest genetic disadvantage.

Better Genes, Better Brains

Better brains tend to run in families. The crucial brain determinants of life success -- IQ and Executive funtion -- are between 60% and 80% heritable. Exciting new tools for studying the genomics of the brain, such as the Allen Human Brain Map (read more here), are being used in conjunction with imaging tools such as diffusion tensor imaging, to study the individual nature of how human brains manifest underlying genomes.

A recent study from Australia looks at how genetics influences the efficiency of how human brains are wired -- and how well they work.

“Some brains are wired better than others, and 60% of the differences can be explained by genetic factors,” said lead author Alex Fornito from the Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre at the University of Melbourne. “The novelty is that we now have new methods to identify different aspects of brain network organisation. Previously it was very difficult to try and map these connections.”

...“We found some of the strongest effects in the prefrontal cortex, where up to 80% of the differences between people were attributable to genes. The prefrontal cortex plays a vital role in planning, strategic thinking, decision-making and memory.”

Previous work has shown that people with more efficient brain connections score higher on tests of intelligence, and that brain network cost-efficiency is reduced in people with schizophrenia, particularly in the prefrontal cortex. _Cosmos

Finding the links between genes and intelligence, or between genes and impulse control, requires extensive research and great deal of time. At the US NIMH, the Functional Neurogenomics Program is dedicated to teasing out the numerous connections between the genome and all aspects of brain function. Likewise, in research centers around the world, scientists are hard at work discovering how differences in our genes create differences in our brains, which create differences in the worlds which each of us experiences.

This is not merely an academic problem. The endeavour holds keys to unlocking many of the most vexing problems of human societies worldwide.

Genes and IQ: The Connection is Real, But Complex

Robert Plomin, at King's College London, is reporting on a study of 4,000 British children which suggests that over 200 genes are responsible for superior reasoning ability and IQ. More:

SCIENTISTS have identified more than 200 genes potentially associated with academic performance in schoolchildren.

Those schoolchildren possessing the "right" combinations achieved significantly better results in numeracy, literacy and science.

The finding emerged from a study of more than 4000 British children to pinpoint the genes and genetic combinations that influence reasoning skills and general intelligence.

One of its main conclusions is that intelligence is controlled by a network of thousands of genes with each making just a small contribution to overall intelligence, rather than the handful of powerful genes that scientists once predicted.

The researchers believe their work could eventually lead to genetic tests to predict babies' academic potential.

"This kind of research could help us develop genetic tests to predict which kids are at risk of developing problems with their schooling, so that we could intervene to help them," said Robert Plomin, professor of behavioural genetics at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, who will describe his work today at a meeting of the Royal Society.

_Australian

Scientists have known for years how important gene patterns are to the development of the brain. Specific gene variants can have a crucial effect on the wiring of the brain, and on the speed and efficiency of brain functioning. Individual genes have been identified, which are felt to have an influence on human intelligence, but it is the larger pattern of gene combinations which must be studied and understood.

Human intelligence and cognition are too complex to rely on any one gene. But the computational methods to make sense out of the massive interplay of the hundreds of genes which may affect intelligence have not always been available, or trustworthy.

But slowly, as scientists learn to study the interactions of hundreds of genes, the relationship between human intelligence and gene variants can become more clear. It is an important area of study. Only by thoroughly understanding how our genes make us what we are -- in partnership with our environment -- can we find the best ways to grow into the sort of humans who can boldly step into the hazardous future, and go where things are really scary. But in a good way.

Emory's Smart New Mice are Cognitive Knockouts

Image Source

The hippocampus plays a key role in our ability to remember what happens to us, and in navigating our way through the world around us. There is a great deal about the hippocampus which remains unknown. Consider the hippocampal area CA2, pictured above. Recent research from the medical school at Emory University has found that in mice, knocking out a gene (RGS14) radically changes the activity of hippocampal CA2 -- leading to mice with markedly enhanced spatial learning and object recognition abilities, when compared with their littermate controls.

Here is more:

Mice with a disabled RGS14 gene are able to remember objects they'd explored and learn to navigate mazes better than regular mice, suggesting that RGS14's presence limits some forms of learning and memory.
The results were published online in the Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Since RGS14 appears to hold mice back mentally, John Hepler, PhD, professor of pharmacology at Emory University School of Medicine, says he and his colleagues have been jokingly calling it the "Homer Simpson gene."
RGS14 is primarily turned on in one particular part -- called CA2 -- of the hippocampus, a region of the brain known for decades to be involved in consolidating new learning and forming new memories. However, the CA2 region lies off the beaten path scientifically and it's not clear what its functions are, Hepler says.
RGS14, which is also found in humans, was identified more than a decade ago. Hepler and his colleagues have previously shown that the RGS14 protein can regulate several molecules involved in processing different types of signals in the brain that are known to be important for learning and memory. They believe RGS14 is a key control protein for these signals. _SD

Although the researchers have not identified any problems in the RGS14 knockout mice in terms of development or behaviour, it is too early to know whether such a simple gene knockout procedure in humans would be safe or effective -- for purposes of cognitive enhancement.

The finding is intriguing in the sense that the deletion of a single gene can have such a profound effect on the cognitive prospects of a mouse. A mutation in the right place could have the same result, in terms of improved learning. How many similar transformational surprises are waiting in the human genome?

We should not expect that any environmental intervention could come close to achieving a similar transformation of these specific cognitive skills as the genetic deletion achieved. Considering the somewhat conservative nature of evolution since the last great extinction event, it is unlikely that we have evolved in a way to take the greatest advantage of the potentials of our brains. In other words, our brains are likely to have many such genetic tweaks that are waiting to be discovered, to give us a leg up on our present and future challenges.

At this time it is still possible to envision a "next level" of human development. But such a hypothetical plane of development can only be reached by genetic means. How radical must such a transformation be? That depends upon where one starts. If humans continue on the present descent into Idiocracy, there will come a time when it will be too late to reverse the trend.

The easiest choice is to go back to sleep. Because, if you choose to be awake, the things you are forced to experience may be more than you can bear.

H/T Brian Wang

More on the "molecular conspiracy against plasticity" occurring in CA2

The Limits of Intelligence; The Farce of Artificial Intelligence

Sato, et al

The only working model of human-level intelligence, as far as we know, is the human brain. We have no evidence of any higher form of intelligence anywhere in the universe. Yet scientists from widely varied areas of cognitive studies continue to make unlikely claims that they will achieve reverse-engineering of the human brain within 10 or 20 years. The problem with humans attempting to use machines to emulate intelligence, is that humans do not understand intelligence very well at all.

Recent progress in "memristor synapses" has given reverse-engineers of the brain hope, that they may finally be developing a hardware substrate that is better capable of emulating brain function. But even if that is true, how close do these developments place us to the goal of reverse-engineering a functioning human brain? Bluntly put, not close at all.

Scientists are slowly gaining an appreciation for how human memories are encoded -- within and by the hippocampus. For example, new memory formation requires the hippocampus to be able to produce new nerve cells of various types from stem cells. Some neuroscientists apparently feel that this understanding will help them to discover new "drug targets" for treating memory dysfunction, such as dementia. We should hope so, because dementia and brain atrophy of one form or another waits for virtually all of us -- if we live long enough.

But successful treatment of dementia does not help us to understand how our intelligence works -- except insofar as it provides tools for further research into the intricate mechanisms of human learning, memory, and creative imagination.

The encoding and decoding of human memories (more) has virtually nothing in common with what is generally thought of as "computation." Consequently the substrate of ordinary computation -- such as digital computers -- should not be seen as likely substrates for reverse engineering a human brain.

Human intelligence evolved over millions of years by natural selection, in the course of solving a variety of problems of survival. Human brains are not well evolved to solve the most pressing problems currently facing human societies. The average IQ for human populations is just below 90 points, and on a downward, dysgenic trajectory. Most humans are simply not intelligent enough to solve complex problems -- except those for which the human brain is evolved to solve. Most of the "big" problems of today do not fall within that category.

Even most humans with IQs in the 130 to 180 ++ range are generally not well suited to understand the basis for their own intelligence on any logical level -- much less most or all of them. If the potential to understand our own intelligence rests within the developing embryo and infant child, its critical window of development inevitably passes without the proper training. And so it goes, almost certainly, for a significant number of potential human abilities -- lost out of ignorance. But I digress.

Artificial intelligence research suffers from the lack of individuals with a special combination of trained aptitudes. Brilliant researchers abound in the disparate disciplines of computer science, neuroscience, cognitive psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, electrical engineering, and a wide array of creative, inventive, and speculative arts and sciences. But workers with the right combinations of skills and attitudes are extremely rare. The potential accomplishments of the uni-disciplinary approach to higher education evaporate very quickly when it comes to solving the extremely hard problems with which we are faced.

Solving the problem will require a different way of thinking about the problem. But that is a virtual impossibility for most people -- no matter how "intelligent."

Contemplate what may be involved in the efficient teaching and learning of "lateral thinking." The most rewarding known examples of lateral thinking occurred by accident. But de Bono claims to be able to teach the skill. It is virtually certain that such teaching is more effective if initiated during childhood -- and more effective in some children than in others.

Modern human knowledge is "full of holes", like a Sierpinski gasket. No matter how conscientiously we set about to fill in the holes, we only create more holes. Humans need to learn to relish this creation of holes, because the more holes we create, the more we have filled in. But the development of such a relishing of the fractal world of knowledge must likely begin in childhood.

Which brings us back to the creation and upbringing of children, their training and the societal milieu in which they are to be raised. We are botching the job rather badly at this time.

More on these topics later.

Beyond Kurzweil and Myers: A Useful Brain Emulation Viewpoint

George Dvorsky provides a measured and reasonable approach to the question of machines emulating the human brain in this well written article on "making brains". While quite short and lightly documented, Dvorsky's piece provides a useful outline of the problem, and a fairly sound description of a good approach for attacking the problem.

While I believe that reverse engineering the human brain is the right approach, I admit that it's not going to be easy. Nor is it going to be quick. This will be a multi-disciplinary endeavor that will require decades of data collection and the use of technologies that don't exist yet. And importantly, success won't come about all at once. This will be an incremental process in which individual developments will provide the foundation for overcoming the next conceptual hurdle.

But we have to start somewhere, and we have to start with a plan...The idea of reverse engineering the human brain makes sense to me. Unlike the rules-based approach, WBE works off a tried-and-true working model; we're not having to re-invent the wheel. Natural selection, through excruciatingly tedious trial-and-error, was able to create the human brain—and all without a preconceived design. There's no reason to believe that we can't figure out how this was done; if the brain could come about through autonomous processes, then it can most certainly come about through the diligent work of intelligent researchers.

...A number of critics point out that we'll never emulate a human brain on account of the chaos and complexity inherent in such a system. On this point I'll disagree. As Bostrom and Sandberg have pointed out, we will not need to understand the whole system in order to emulate it. What's required is a functional understanding of all necessary low-level information about the brain and knowledge of the local update rules that change brain states from moment to moment. What is meant by low-level at this point is an open question, but it likely won't involve a molecule-by-molecule understanding of cognition. _SentientDevelopments

Dvorsky goes on to describe the type of multi-disciplinary approach he has in mind, and bravely makes a prediction as to how long the effort will likely take: 50 to 75 years. This is a much longer timespan than Kurzweil and most AI researchers are giving, but I suspect it is closer to a realistic mark.

There are a couple of small criticisms I have to make. Dvorsky expects a workable brain emulation to be built within a "digital substrate":

.... if you believe that there's something inherently physical about intelligence that can't be translated into the digital realm, you've got your work cut out for you to explain what that is exactly—keeping in mind that any informational process is computational, including those brought about by chemical reactions. Moreover, intelligence, which is what we're after here, is something that's intrinsically non-physical to begin with.

Here, it seems that Dvorsky has it backwards. It is the persons who believe that intelligence can be made to work in a different physical substrate than the brain who bear the burden of proof to show that intelligence can be "transferred" to the "digital realm." We only have one proof of concept of intelligence up until now, which is a bloody ball of fat resting on a stalk rising between the shoulders of homo sapiens.

In another place Dvorsky asserts:

... the brain contains masterful arrays of redundancy; it's not as complicated as we currently think.

In truth, the brain is far more complicated than we can currently imagine. The question should be: Is the relevant functionality within the brain/mind which generates consciousness and intelligence, perhaps "not as complicated as we currently think?" Al Fin cognitive theorists believe that such a thing is possible, as long as we take care not to stumble amongst the numerous overlapping logical levels which present themselves whenever attempting to deal with this problem.

Dvorsky is quite right that the brain emulation problem is going to require extensive multi-disciplinary effort. We will need multi-disciplinary teams, as well as team members who themselves have multi-disciplinary training.

The great online debate between Ray Kurzweil and PZ Myers continues unabated, but it has very little to do with the eventual creation of a machine intelligence modeled after the brain.

If I had to choose one or the other to lead an effort to create an artificial brain, I would choose Kurzweil, hands down. Myers is an academic on the "intellectual" side -- an intellectual being someone who is rarely challenged by reality when he makes a mistake. Kurzweil's inventions and products have to work. That puts Kurzweil firmly in the reality-based camp, regardless of how many in the media and academia call him a kook.