colinhales.bsky.social
Neuroscientist/Engineer. Researcher at the University of Melbourne. Mission: the creation of inorganic brain technology for machines that learn and handle novelty in the manner of natural intelligence. Main expertise: Brain electromagnetism.
167 posts
299 followers
833 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The hypothesis of their equivalence is now 70 years old and remains a hypothesis despite 70 years of failed testing that implicitly presupposes it true!
Surely after all this time, testing based on its falsehood might be done?
But no. Because that testing doesn't use computers for AI.
Cargo cult.
comment in response to
post
The naivety she has about the topic is a signifier of the huge gulf separating physicists (bottom of the physical sciences) from neuroscience (top of). She has no awareness of the 35 year old science of consciousness. "What is it like to "be" standard model entities?" Doesn't occur to her.
comment in response to
post
It's literally what you do in comedy sketches to characterise gross incompetence as satire. But it's real. It's hard to watch. Dunning Kruger effect gone mad.
comment in response to
post
Have received an invite from BBS ... Already have some good material...
comment in response to
post
I'm sure of 2 things:
1) it will be worth listening to.
2) the role of EM field in the actual creation of information and it's integration, and in its provision, literally, of any/all global workspace, and how "what it is like to be brain EM field" might be answered ... Will not rate a mention. Sigh
comment in response to
post
To be at the top of the consciousness game is to say something original that still leaves consciousness mysterious, then write a book about it and then cruise around a talk circuit wallowing in the lack of progress.
Jaded? What? Me? 😜
comment in response to
post
It'll be really interesting in the future to examine the presence or lack of interhemispheric EM field coupling. Was this in your thoughts?
comment in response to
post
How do you come back from this?
comment in response to
post
From the immediate interior of atoms up, a brain is literally made of EM field. EM field structure regularity at & above the cellular scale that distinguishes brains from other organs. Structural EM field signal to chemical EM field noise rules!
Keep bringing the physics facts to neuroscience! 🙏
comment in response to
post
Alas it completely fails to account for the 1st-person perspective ... What it is like to "be" that collection of cells and what aspect of cell activity necessitates it arises.
The explanatory gap is being shown to us in ever-sharper relief ... So that's good.
comment in response to
post
For well over a decade I have been trying to get this message out. The main route is via the glitch identified in the following image.
Q. What's in the empty spot?
A. Artificial intelligence that is NOT a general purpose computer.
Please take the trouble to think about it.
comment in response to
post
Yes. Action potentials (somatic, dendritic) and ephaptic coupling are EM phenomena. Chemistry is EM field activity. We are made of EM field from the immediate interior of atoms up. The causality is circular all the way down. The complexity is that of an EM field. There is no escape! 😊
comment in response to
post
There are 4 quadrants in the standard model of particle physics. The EM quadrant is one of them. It contains all atoms and everything made of them. It is fundamental. Every measurement ever made in neuroscience is an EM field phenomenon. It's not something you can argue about. You must face it!
comment in response to
post
The ultimate source of causation in the brain is electromagnetic field interaction. The Lorentz force. The entire tissue is literally an EM field from the immediate interior of atoms up.
Until everybody faces this brute fact of physics, there will be no clarity on causality in the brain.
comment in response to
post
Drives me crazy that we scientists are not explicitly fully trained in scientific behaviour pathologies.
That podcast has done a long overdue service to science. Well done.
comment in response to
post
It's not pseudoscience. In the spectrum of science disorders it is formally a cargo-cult science. All of it, not just IIT. I can be more technically specific ... But you work it out! We should all be all over this glaring mess.
This podcast will clarify:
nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/scientia-c...
comment in response to
post
The waves are quasi-static EM field produced by travelling waves of activation of the neurons producing the EM field.
I'm building 20000x scale inorganic versions of the cell membrane that does this.
It blows me away how invisible this obvious phenomenon is in mainstream neuroscience.
comment in response to
post
Iris and colleagues are notable in being the first group in 70 years to seriously try to formally assess the circumstances (amount of general purpose compute) needed to reach equivalence with human natural general intelligence.
Had we known this in 1956, AGI would be known as not Turing computable.
comment in response to
post
I had to scour Australia to find it. I scanned in the whole thing.
comment in response to
post
.... It's the EM field inside tissue (also an EM field object from the immediate interior of atoms up) that is the common feature. That's what the EEG is measuring.
"BEING" EM field of the right organisation does the 1PP.
We could have concluded this 50 years ago via the standard model.
comment in response to
post
Recurrent connectivity in an atmosphere of EM field makes the brain's causality nested and circular at every level. Tracing causality within tissue was ... is ... a-priori a non-starter.
comment in response to
post
Here's a podcast with SFI's author David Krakauer.
Are you a complexity scientist? Listen to find out.
braininspired.co/podcast/203/
comment in response to
post
When formal complexity and edge-of-chaos processing becomes the background atmosphere of neuroscience's grip on brains, we'll all know how causality operates and how our descriptions contact it. We're getting there, slowly!
comment in response to
post
It constantly amazes me how no futurist or writer has ever managed to predict quite the kind of insanity running the world just now, all concocted under the blaze of the headlights of the climate change truck. Time for Thomas Kuhn to step in, I think. Normal it ain't.
comment in response to
post
What would a machine that appeared to understand irony sound like?
That's the question you asked, and the only thing LLMs do. And an irony the LLM will never see.
comment in response to
post
When the audience is in delta you know you've lost them😜
comment in response to
post
"Gamma Band"
That's your name. 😜
comment in response to
post
Just click on the pack. Select all and follow all.
I'm glad you can see some merit in my approach! Appreciated. I've been at it for 20years now ... 😊
comment in response to
post
What @janellebelle.bsky.social said! ^^^^.
Confabulation is the better word.
comment in response to
post
I wrote a book on this. Published 2014.
The entirety of scientific evidence arrives as contents of the consciousness of the scientific observer.
The science of consciousness is literally the science of the scientific evidence acquisition moment.
comment in response to
post
Physics is currently predictive of how nature appears to a presupposed observer inside the universe, made of what it is made of.
The big mistake: that describing what the universe is made of has anything to do with the above "predictive descriptions" or that physics can't deal with it. We can.
comment in response to
post
From across the Pacific it signifies great irony in the death of public good, compassion, largesse, reason, creativity, courage, honesty, curiosity, ...so many things that make a life worth having.
comment in response to
post
If the science task happens it must prove that your definition of AGI is wrong and deny the physics basis of its own intellect as a possible source of it.
That is the structure of the logical glitch at the heart of this.
I look forward to the $20K going somewhere good! 😊
comment in response to
post
That's why I called BS in the original IIT article.
No more axioms. No more assumed "isms".
We do the empirical science suited to a unique unprecedented possibility that brains are unique in nature. REPLICANT science.
Only then can we have the certainty assumed for 65+ years of broken science.
comment in response to
post
But nobody can cite anything but UNPROVED HYPOTHESES. Sorry to yell but this is the real point!
If the science was properly structured then there'd be REPLICANT science that tests for the falsehood, as well as science that tests for the truth of the unique unprecedented status of brains:
comment in response to
post
.. replacing it with the physics of a general purpose computer. Brain signalling physics is gone.
If there is a special case where "physics irrelevance" only exists for brains, and the whole of AI is critically dependent on it .. then we show have one, everyone should know and be able to cite....
comment in response to
post
Exactly. Not duplicates. Functional replicants. Burning. Flying. Digesting. Hearting. Braining.
If you don't have the actual physics essential to it the replicant degrades/fails.
That's the whole point!
Only in the case of the brain do we throw ALL the natural physics out....cont'd