tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post1114363271629647982..comments2017-11-07T13:01:41.795+01:00Comments on Entropic and Fractal Intelligence: Generating consciousnessSergio Hernandezhttps://plus.google.com/107797149522609875320noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-20457232127168693752017-11-01T12:03:22.699+01:002017-11-01T12:03:22.699+01:00Entrancing... You're thinking why the two are ...Entrancing... You're thinking why the two are comparable makes idealize sense. <br /><br />It is consoling to realize that by expanding entropy over a period skyline you are viably applying Buddy, which is now acknowledged as a standout amongst the most (if not the most) key standards in nature. It isn't quite recently some subjective advancement that by chance delivers fascinating outcomes. <br /><br />Reagrds,<br /><a href="http://trephelix.com/" rel="nofollow">Trep Helix</a>Trep Helixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16808282943044266213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-3825757499417416402016-09-19T20:03:49.282+02:002016-09-19T20:03:49.282+02:00Well, I am not the one to have a impartial answer ...Well, I am not the one to have a impartial answer to why isn't people talking of it, but I think there are some logical reasons:<br /><br />First: I haven't published the details of the algorithm itself, not in the blog and, more importantly for academics, not in a scientific paper.<br /><br />I am bad at writting papers, my mind works with drawings and intuitions, so converting it into a math paper is hard to me. I am too lazy for that and, not working at any university makes it irrelevant to me to have any "impact index" at all.<br /><br />About releasing the details of the algorithm, I always release what is no longer my "best version" of it, so now that I have made it distributed over a network, added memory and the "consciousness module" is "drawed out" and waitting for coding time, may be I will make a post with a full pseudo-code of the "basic" fractal.<br /><br />With "basic" I mean you could fully understand and code it, play with different problems and potentials, but just to find out that there are some problems that needs more "modules" to make the fractal more flexible. For instance, you quicly find problems where controlling "risk" is mandatory, others that can not be solved without intelligence+memory, and multi-objetive optimisations that need "consciousness" to mix its goals properly.<br /><br />All those "modules" are not finished, they are working for me on some problems but still need to be generalized to all problems.<br /><br />Second: the fractal algorithm can not really be converted into "simple" math formulas, it is not like a complex path integral or similar, instead it creates a "Mandelbrot like drawing", a "shape" you can not express by other means that the actual algoritm.<br /><br />Just imagine you have the code to generate the Mandelbrot set fractal, and now you need to convert this shape into classic maths... you can't! Even with modern fractal theory, you really have nothing except you can get a "fractal dimension" and other coefs for it, but you can not analise its shape in any usable way. Fractal are for math as little cat videos are for the internet, nice and useless.<br /> <br />Third: it is just too good and simple to be accepted. Big claims need big proofs, and may be the only "big proof" some people would accept is solving an "unsolvable" problem first.<br /><br />Global function maximising (http://entropicai.blogspot.com.es/2016/02/serious-fractal-optimizing.html) could be one, but I already did it and it haven't moved too much. Again, releasing a pseudo-code of it would help. I promisse to do!<br /><br />So who knows, I always spect a big impact every time I post about some new "trick", but it *almost* never happend. Only once a "big player" in science communication in spanish -Francis Villatoro- did pay attention to my work (http://francis.naukas.com/2014/06/28/inteligencia-artificial-basada-en-la-entropia/), but it was all.<br /><br />Surely it is the way it has to be, at least it is ok for me.Sergio Hernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108694861191833007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-57645528792684644132016-09-19T14:44:04.658+02:002016-09-19T14:44:04.658+02:00That's true, I haven't thought of it that ...That's true, I haven't thought of it that way. It boils down to statistical probabilities of systems, and the most probable macrostates.<br /><br />My question is, why isn't everyone talking about this? This is huge... Keep up the good work. Regards. -JJuan G. Cruz Ayoroahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03694567181560082735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-65289917184739760432016-09-19T11:09:18.589+02:002016-09-19T11:09:18.589+02:00Entropy maximisation is a tautology as you can ref...Entropy maximisation is a tautology as you can reformulate it as "all closed systems tends to evolve toward the macrostates with the higher probabilities", so if PLA is to be equivalent, it is a tautology too: "closed systems tends to evolve following the trace with the higher probability of being traced, where the path integral you mentioned represents this probability".<br /><br />So naming any of both principles as the "most fundamental" is at least tricky, as basically they means that systems evolve toward the most probable macrostate... it is *really* a basic principle!<br /><br />So a principle that basically says nothing except what "most probable" means, is responsable of generating almost all known physics, including intelligent behaviour -if you spice it with a potential- and, may be, even consciousness...I find it really remarcable!Sergio Hernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108694861191833007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-36113682381807955502016-09-19T02:47:48.245+02:002016-09-19T02:47:48.245+02:00Fascinating... Your reasoning why the two are equi...Fascinating... Your reasoning why the two are equivalent does make perfect sense. <br /><br />It is reasurring to know that by maximizing entropy over a time horizon you are effectively applying PLA, which is already accepted as one of the most (if not the most) fundamental principles in nature. It is not just some arbitrary optimization that by chance produces interesting results.Juan G. Cruz Ayoroahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03694567181560082735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-36456266125150524652016-09-18T17:07:43.419+02:002016-09-18T17:07:43.419+02:00Hi Juan, PLA has been on my mind while researching...Hi Juan, PLA has been on my mind while researching the fractal AI, but after some tries to implement it by reversing time direction and coming back to the "present" state by minimizing action (read about it here http://entropicai.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/using-feynman-integrals.html) I found I didn't really need to worry about it as it was already there "for free".<br /><br />When you use entropy growth to determine your instant decisions, you are not only "pointing yourself toward the maximum potential zone" but also in such a way the final path you will trace by the sucesive decisionss will minimize the time needed to get there, so both potential and actiotn are optimised at the same time.<br /><br />For instance: if you have a zone of high otential in front of you, and there are 2 ways to get there, the fractal will reach it first using the shortest one, then this option -the first step you made to get there- will gain lots futures for its cause, more as more time pass, so finding the second way becomes less probable the more extra time it needs to be found.<br /><br />But there is second reason not to worry: if all futures you are evolving to take the decision share a single "environment", as if they were real agents traveling the space at the same time, the first one to reach a high potential zone can "eat" this potential so, when you finally reach this zone via a second path, you will find the potential to be lower than it was and not as rewarding.<br /><br />So doing one is equivalent to doing the other, as you pointed out in your com, but dealing with potential is more direct and simple than dealing with energy increment integrals (and using fractal do eliminate the concept and need of path integrals at all).<br /><br />At the end everything is based on the potential in one point and not in the diff of potential between two points, this is why you deal with entropy and not with action, it is just simplier. Sergio Hernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108694861191833007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-60348478507000705072016-09-18T14:54:50.772+02:002016-09-18T14:54:50.772+02:00Sergio, I've been thinking and researching abo...Sergio, I've been thinking and researching about these ideas for a few months now, after being inspired by your blog. Thank you for sharing your work. I'm going to share with you something very important I've discovered through my research.<br /><br />There seems to be another powerful way of thinking about this 'maximum entropy principle', and it is called the 'principle of least action' (PLA). "Action" is defined simply as the integral of system energy over time. All natural systems spontaneously choose to evolve in a way that minimzies action (minimum time, and/or minimum system energy). The PLA is already considered one of the most, if not THE most fundamental concept of all of modern physics, and basically all of classical, quantum and relativistic physics can be derived from this concept. What's interesting is that there is a paper that mathematically shows that the PLA is mathematically equivalent to the maximum entropy principle (link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Atanu_Chatterjee5/publication/283316641_On_the_Thermodynamics_of_Action_and_Organization_in_a_System/links/56326a8a08ae242468d9f77e.pdf). Taken together, the maximum entropy principle gives you the direction of motion, while the PLA gives you HOW the system gets there (in the fastest time/or with the lowest energy usage).<br /><br />While the PLA already forms the basis of all modern physics, I would say the major new discovery is that PLA actually applies to all systems, even complex systems such as the human mind, human economic and political systems. In fact, the PLA/maximum entropy principles provide the key to understanding precisely how and why complexity arises in nature. Complexity is nature's way of spreading energy in the fastest, most efficient way (in other words, maximizing entropy while exerting least action). <br /><br />Indeed, I do think understanding this is the key to creating 'artificial' consciousness. Would love to chat more about this.Juan G. Cruz Ayoroahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03694567181560082735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-57046184512945993782016-09-17T21:58:37.052+02:002016-09-17T21:58:37.052+02:00It has grow in my mind the clear idea that univers...It has grow in my mind the clear idea that universe, at all scales, use a single fractal "law" about decision making: at small scales, it tells particles, atoms, molecules, rocks and planets where to move so its behaviour look "physically correct". Also tells the cells, animals, plants, or humans what to decide in order to behave "intelligently", and now, when applied another more time at a biger scale, is telling the psycology of intelligent beings where to move, how to apdapt, making the resulting behaviour to look as "consciousness".<br /><br />My great philosofical question those days is: how would a next-level fractal look like and what would it be trying to maximize? Is there a deeper scale? A goal deeper than being consciousness? What can go next in this list: physic laws, intelligence behaviour, consciousness, .....?Sergio Hernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108694861191833007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6923947282926324208.post-56455779021671420812016-09-17T10:20:44.977+02:002016-09-17T10:20:44.977+02:00"You could think of it as a decision problem:..."You could think of it as a decision problem: the system have to decide where to go in order to maximize the entropy of the universe."<br /><br />Yes!!, that's the key of everything in our Universe. That's the basic law which dictates any change and phenomenon. Your thinking is really interesting, Sergio. Go ahead!!<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Samu.<br />Samuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05545253890973817644noreply@blogger.com