Image: Henrik5000
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
When physicists puzzle out the workings of some new part of nature, that knowledge can be used to build devices that do amazing things -- airplanes that fly, radios that reach millions of listeners. When we come to understand how brains function, we should become able to build amazing devices with cognitive abilities -- such as cognitive cars that are better at driving than we are because they communicate with other cars and share knowledge on road conditions. In 2008, the National Academy of Engineering chose as one of its grand challenges to reverse-engineer the human brain. When will this happen? Some are predicting that the first wave of results will arrive within the decade, propelled by rapid advances in both brain science and computer science. This sounds astonishing, but it’s becoming increasingly plausible. So plausible, in fact, that the great race to reverse-engineer the brain is already triggering a dispute over historic “firsts.”
The backdrop for the debate is one of dramatic progress. Neuroscientists are disassembling brains into their component parts, down to the last molecule, and trying to understand how they work from the bottom up. Researchers are racing to work out the wiring diagrams of big brains, starting with mice, cats and eventually humans, a new field called connectomics. New techniques are making it possible to record from many neurons simultaneously, and to selectively stimulate or silence specific neurons. There is an excitement in the air and a sense that we are beginning to understand how the brain works at the circuit level. Brain modelers have so far been limited to modeling small networks with only a few thousand neurons, but this is rapidly changing.
Meanwhile, digital computers are increasing exponentially in processing power, memory storage and communications bandwidth. Up until recently, this was accomplished by accelerating the clock speed, which has leaped from kilohertz to gigahertz in my lifetime. But computer clocks have plateaued and now, advances in computing power are coming from increases in the number of processors and improved abilities to distribute a problem across them. The fastest supercomputers have hundreds of thousands of processors, and graphics processing units (GPUs) give desktop personal computers the same speed that supercomputers had ten years ago. If Moore’s Law of exponential growth in computing power does not break down first, at some point computers should become powerful enough, and our knowledge of the brain should be complete enough, to build devices based on the principles of neural computation. Like brains, these devices will be based on probabilistic rather than deterministic logic and will reason inductively rather than deductively.
Now, to the dispute, widely known as the “catfight.” Last November, IBM researcher Dharmendra Modha announced at a supercomputing conference that his team had written a program that simulated a cat brain. This news took many by surprise, since he had leapfrogged over the mouse brain and beaten other groups to this milestone. For this work, Modha won the prestigious ACM Gordon Bell prize, which is awarded to recognize outstanding achievement in high-performance computing applications.
However, his audacious claim was challenged by Henry Markram, a neuroscientist at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and the leader of the Blue Brain project, who announced in 2009 that: "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years.". In an open letter to IBM Chief Technical Officer Bernard Meyerson, Markram accused Modha of “mass deception” and called his paper a “hoax” and a “scam.” This has become a cause célèbre in the blogosphere and remains a hot topic among those of us who inhabit the intersection of brain and computer science.
The crux of the dispute is: What does it mean to model the cat brain? Both groups are simulating a large number of model neurons and connections between them. Both models run much, much slower than real time. The neurons in Modha’s model only have a soma -- the cell body containing the cell nucleus -- and simplified spikes. In contrast, Markram’s model has detailed reconstructions of neurons, with complex systems of branching connections called dendrites and even a full range of gating and communication mechanisms such as ion channels. The synapses and connections between the neurons in Modha’s model are simplified compared to the detailed biophysical synapses in Markram’s model. These two models are at the extremes of simplicity and complex realism.
This controversy puts into perspective a tension between wanting to use simplified models of neurons, in order to run simulations faster, versus including the biological details of neurons in order to understand them. Looking at the same neuron, physicists and engineers tend to see the simplicity whereas biologists tend to see the complexity. The problem with simplified models is that they may be throwing away the baby with the bathwater. The problem with biophysical models is that the number of details is nearly infinite and much of it is unknown. How much brain function is lost by using simplified neurons and circuits? This is one of the questions we might be able to answer if we could get Modha and Markram to directly compare their models.
Unfortunately, the large-scale simulations from both groups at present resemble sleep rhythms or epilepsy far more closely than they resemble cat behavior, since neither has sensory inputs or motor outputs. They are also missing essential subcortical structures, – such as the cerebellum that organizes movements, the amygdala that creates emotional states and the spinal cord that runs the musculature. Nonetheless, from Modha’s model we are learning how to program large-scale parallel architectures to perform simulations that scale up to the large numbers of neurons and synapses in real brains. From Markram’s models, we are learning how to integrate many levels of detail into these models. In his paper, Modha predicts that the largest supercomputer will be able to simulate the basic elements of a human brain in real time by 2019, so apparently he and Markram agree on this date; however, at best these simulations will resemble a baby brain, or perhaps a psychotic one. There is much more to a human brain than the sum of its parts.
Of course, it may not be necessary or desirable to build a cat or a human brain, since we already have fully functional cats and humans. This technology could, however, enable other applications. In 2005, Simon Haykin, director of the Cognitive Systems Laboratory at McMaster University, wrote an influential article called “Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications” which laid the groundwork for a new generation of wireless networks that use computational principles from brains to predictively model the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, and are more efficient at using the bandwidth than current standards. This is not pie in the sky. Plans to deploy early versions of these intelligent communications systems in the next federal auction of the electromagnetic spectrum were discussed at a recent meeting of the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology with President Obama.
Soon to come are similar ways to enhance other utilities, such as the “cognitive power grid,” and other devices, such as the cognitive car. The sensorium and motorium of these cognitive systems will be the infrastructure of the world. Sensors will stream information -- on the use of electricity, road conditions, weather patterns, the spread of diseases -- and use this information to optimize goals, such as reducing power usage and travel time, by regulating the flow of resources. Parts of this system are already in place but there is as yet no central nervous system to integrate this torrent of information and take appropriate actions. Someday soon, it appears, there will be. And gradually, as it increasingly mimics the workings of our brains, the world around us will become smarter and more efficient. As this cognitive infrastructure evolves, it may someday even reach a point where it will rival our brains in power and sophistication. Intelligence will inherit the earth.
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add Comment"Of course, it may not be necessary or desirable to build a cat or a human brain, since we already have fully functional cats and humans."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould any scientist agree with this sentiment?
As an aside, it should be interesting how the ethical considerations work out. We're going to eventually have to consider whether and to what degree an artificial brain is deserving of rights and protections against cruelty that its natural counterpart would have. As someone who hopes to one day see mind uploading as a mature technology, I would hope that artificial brains are eventually put on equal legal standing as natural ones. Partial brains might be another matter....
Given the lessons of history, I'm not sure it is accurate to label the human brain as being "intelligent". Perhaps the best use of computers will be the creation of a nonhuman intelligence tasked with running the insane asylum we call earth in such a way as to protect the inmates from destroying themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a beautiful thought. One that will threaten many no doubt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd love to have a computer I could transfer my brain onto towards the end of life... perhaps my 'soul' will transfer also. Time will tell.
We live in wonderful times!
My skepticism is fully aroused. Perhaps the words "nuclear fusion" should be mentioned. It was twenty years away from providing power in 1960 and it is still 20 years away. Researchers have a vested interest in massively under estimating the gap between innovation and application. But great stuff, just don't believe the schedule!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisblindboy - Skepticism is fully justified. I have periodically followed the exciting research into Artificial Intelligence, Expert Systems, Natural Language, et al, since around 1980. While Moore's Law (self-fulfilling prophecy of processor capacity development) has been upheld since well before then, the over-exuberance of researchers has been even more predictable. The principal result has been incredible computer games, the now ever-present CGI enhanced commercials, movies, etc., and cell phones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps someday we can produce a verified and validated simulation of the climate as perceived by a cat. We just need to complete a few more calculations per second... That would really be hoax and a scam.
There is a simple way of producing a human brain : Just call it sexual intercourse. If people go to such exraordinary lengths to produce artifical brains, it is because they recognise the poor state of human intelligence : As a species, man is collectively stupid. So what form of democracy will these robots obey? Our democracy has produced 1,000,000,000 people suffering from malnutrition and as many living below the poverty line!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a neuroscientist and biomedical engineer, and I study the auditory and vestibular systems of mammals (including primates) and the artificial stimulation of those systems via implanted prostheses. I am bewildered by the notion that one would "create" an artificial brain that has no sensory input and no motor output - after all, that's what our brains (and those of mammals, birds, etc) evolved to do. And what we don't know about even the simplest neural systems is astounding. Every week new reports are published describing a previously unknown role for a membrane channel; or detailing synaptic connectivity between two brain regions; or describing the response properties of a class of neurons; or puzzling out the latest blips on an fMRI scan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Sejnowski, I am somewhat familiar with your work and have heard you speak a few times at conferences. I appreciate why single-neuron and local network models are important in neuroscience, as they can provide deeper insights into what researchers do and don't know about a neural system. But do you really believe that a "full brain" model that has no bearing on behavior has scientific merit, given our limited understanding of the building blocks of that brain?
without sensory input and motor output i don't see anything here....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif they have developed an artificial cat, place it inside a game and see how it reacts....it should simplify both the input and output....
if it bangs into walls or can't find "food" then i don't think they have it...then again if it sleeps for 23 hours a day they maybe close;-)
Despite my skepicism I think this is valuable work and if over statement is the price of continued funding then I can accept that. I am currently wading my way through this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569494/?tool=pubmed
Personally, though lacking deep knowledge of both philosophy and quantum mechanics, I think it is pure nonsense. I would appreciate any comments on it. Building a "cat brain" seems a much more profitable line of enquiry.
I took a peek at your link, blindboy, and... ouch. I'm not sure anyone can get much out of this article. There seems to be a lot of double-talk in the abstract, or I'm just too ignorant or old-fashioned to interpret it. The authors seem to be trying to say that "directed attention" may play a significant role in sensory or cognitive process. But let me recommend two recent articles on the subject of attentional mechanisms. Despite some inherent difficulties in interpretation, these studies involve real-life testable hypotheses about neural function and resulting behavior:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18400159
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19423820
I think these types of empirical studies are much more revealing about brain function than philosophical "studies".
I couldn't agree with you more about the, uh, advanced time table of these very optimistic researchers. In the meantime, helping people make better use of their brain processing through neural prostheses (which happens to be related to my line of work) is an applicable and fruitful branch of neuroscience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"these simulations will resemble a baby brain, or perhaps a psychotic one".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat... all we need is the rise of machines who are psychotic or pronte to tantrums ;-)
The thought of all of this energy going into developing artificial brains is very disconcerting. It would not be difficult to envision taking this technology to make brains much better than human ones, then, we wouldn't have much need for humans. Based on the theory of inevitability, it will happen some day, whether we want it to or not. Seems as though Terminator will be quite prophetic...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously Professor Markram is right the top down approach risks too many holes in the sum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuild it the way evolution built it only faster
I hope not a lot...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how the title of the article uses the word "when" to describe the development of artificial brains, as if it's virtually a given that it will happen. Regarding these things not having any sensory input, in my humble opinion I think that will just mean that they have to achieve a somewhat higher level of intelligence to actually become conscious. For example, humans can imagine abstract spaces without any real-world input, but real-world input helps a lot. I'm thinking artificial brains would need to be at the level of imagining these spaces easily before being able to actually "wake up". The Terminator scenario does seem like a possibility with this sort of development, especially if one of these artificial intelligences is plugged into our military systems. The solution, in my opinion, is to simply not build anything smarter than us, and maybe use that technology to enhance our own intellectual powers (making us cyborgs basically).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists have got to stop making idiotic, self-serving pronouncements like this. It isn't merely harmless publicity for their research project. It has genuine negative consequences. Frances Fukuyama, for example, a man not without influence in Washington over the last decade, wrote 'Our Post-human future', in which he discussed the threat of biotechnology and proposed a substantial increase in regulation of research activity. As evidence for the dangerous and over-reaching objectives of biotech, he mostly offered examples taken from the claims of biotechnologists themselves. Claims that are for the most part rarified fiction.
The computer power to create a human brain already exist,a large number of pc's hooked together or a few super computers,whats lacking is some of the software,and the knowhow of how to put it all together.The sensor devices needed are already available too.Whats needed is the insight to pull it off.We have learning programs of all kinds,so why hasn't happened.The answer may be the fear of creating God or a God like machine.Many believe that faith alone can allow things to happen that wouldn't normally happen such as walking on water or raising the dead and so forth with the only thing lacking being a faith that has no doubt.This is something no one or group of humans are currently doing,because if they were we would know about it,but according to certain books there were people in our past that had just this kind of faith.A machine could do something without a doubt such as 2+2=4 now how much further and faster could a machines faith go? And that's where the fear factor comes in,once the faith is started how could you stop it?Or for that matter the act of tying to stop such a machine could be what brings about our destruction or enslavement.How could you build a failsafe for such a thing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeurones, the active cells in the CNS functioning, seem working somehow as a transistor; as a transistor has a collector, a base and an emissor, neurons have a set of collecting terminals: dendrites, and a body acting equally, and an emitting part, the axon. The amount of interactions to the dendrites and body, and its frequencies, shape the type and rate of firing of the axon. The difference with a solid state device, is that a transistor has only three input-output links, while a neuron stablishes hundreds of connections to other neurons that regulate its activity. The brain is one of the most perfect and efficient computing devices existent, only its output peripherals are less perfect than electronic ones, but we can build all kind of helping gadgets
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am not sure whether scientists will succeed in mimicking the human brain, however I am fascinated by the "cognitive power grid". Sensors that register, analyze, communicate and collectively decide definitely looks like the technology of tomorrow
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTinniam V Ganesh
One aspect the author perhaps should have included is cybernetics (cyborgs.) Kevin Warwick's work will fit into this discussion nicely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author states that, "There is much more to a human brain than the sum of its parts." This is unfounded. Exactly what is being referred to here? It seems like a bow to religious pontification. Proof?
Until theories of how the brain works are based on David Humes' idea that the human cannot directly know reality, the brain will never be reverse engineered. See the "Nature of Awareness" at anglingtek .com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligence isnt always evolutionarily adaptive:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html
brain = network of nanoscale quantum processors. for each field we are making progress - distributed computation / grid, nanotechnology, quantum information - but need much much more time to allow for breakthroughs and possible synthesis into true intelligent machines. at least we are recognizing the shapes of future... to the people who think brain is merely a classical neuronal network, who never heard of the no-cloning theorem or things like that, i feel my deep sorrows... just consider they estimate human brain capacity to approx. 10^15 operation per second, which is but too slow to allow the performance we clearly experience... (e.g. 6-8 degrees-of-freedom correlations in human visual system with thousands of objects in database)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're interested in this article, I also recommend you read "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins. In it, he provides a theory of intelligence and the way we might be able to build intelligent machines modelled on the way the brain works. http://www.onintelligence.com/ Since writing the book, Hawkins has launched a company with others called Numenta which has developed a software approach called "Hierarchical Temporal Memory" which is based on his theory. http://www.numenta.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need a theory of mind...cognition, perception, agency, (I), intention, qualia, ...what a brainy system "does" before reverse engineering the neur0-chemical network. How is an appropriate memory recalled into consciousness??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWork so far has greatly advanced network theory, and neuro-biology, but the heavy lifting has yet to start. We are still at the stage of phrenology (discovering what parts of the brain are responsible for particilar activities).
I am concerned that serious work in this area is discouraged by the supernaturalist demands of philosopy of mind...dualism, psychobabble about consciousness, symbolism and religiosity.
ib
Reverse engineering the brain, would be like reverse enginnering an abaccus to learn about mathematics. Until we know how the brain creates 'reality' and self, simulating neuro-chemical networks will not reveal the appropriate emergant properties of humanity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly, like planes aren't designed like birds yet much more effective for the purpose of flying trying to mimic the brain may teach us a thing or two but will be very disappointing as far as understanding and improving intelligence is the goal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlus, truly innovative ideas in the field are discouraged by the incumbents.
http://www.lps.ens.fr/~ninio/memory.html
See the "catfight"? It's all about grant money, NOT about science...
Incidentally the reductionist-and materialistic physicalism in neurosciences has proceeded to an extent that neural correlates of consciousness is a well established fact ,and computational networks are said to possess even qualia as an emergent property or epiphenomena. Nevertheless ,studies reported in this journal ,and other prestigious journals like science reveal that there is a meditation continuum characterised by less activity in brain centeres associated with conscious states ,though characterised by a higher awareness. It is widely reported that in mediation there is an inhibition of the default network system in brain associated with self generated mental activity ,and subjectivity. In fact ,the perception -meditation continuum ,and the inhibited ergotropy of emotional-hallucination states,leads to less activity in the sympathetic system which is unusual in highly aware states ,though in meditation ,that is true. Moreover ,there is experimental evidence for a conscious will even in brain damaged patients in vegetative states. The tropotrophic receptor modes of the system in the meditation continuum thus reveals that awareness of a more objective oceanic reality is possible ,which is more holistic than the reductionist views .The extened self notions is analogous to an entangled quantum state where a force influences the brain ,and it acts like a prosthetic of a mind-like substance or force ,which is yet meta-brain,a concept beyond physicalism ,and yet encompassing it. Rejection of the Cartesian theatre of dualism does not justify pure physicalism and reductionist -materialist approaches ,as reflected in NCC[neural correlates of consciousness] theories. Brain is still only a prosthetic or organ of a universal force that induces consciousness in brain and localised self notions in a decohered state of quantum collapse ,on account of ergotropic action -mode state of the system.The entangled ,oceanic or mystic state is one of pure consciousness ,and characterised by non-intentional states,but high awareness ,with sleep like slow wave states, and low activity in consciuos brain centres.The self is not body centred or localised in such mystic states,as not only scientifically verified ,now ,but also reported in Eastern meditation accounts,of old and new metaphysical anecdotes.Brain can be made ,and conscious states mimicked perhaps ,but mind goes beyond that ,as described above ,based on both science and philosophy.Cognivist ignore the holistic mind that is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSURESHKUMAR.S,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,niist,TRIVANDRUM[CSIR],INDIA.
"Brain is still only a prosthetic or organ of a universal force that induces consciousness in brain and localised self notions in a decohered state of quantum collapse"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you KNOW?
Or is this just the usual mumbo-jumbo?
BTW, what is wrong with cartesianism isn't the dualism per se but the silly idea of the pineal gland "connecting" the two realms.
Just like the eye cannot see itself except as its physical embodiment reflected in a mirror the mind cannot see itself, only its physical embodiment: the brain.
There is nothing "mysterious" or "transcendental" in this, also, may I remind you that this article is about intelligence not consciousness.
Though the two are doubtless related they are not the same.
If it is going to be possible, so the opposite direction could be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistrue as well. It means that we as Human Mind could interchange
between biological form and digital form as needed.
The "form" or media could be seen now as simply host to Human Minds.
Perhaps in human evolution line the computer-host form will play an
important role.
Tomas, BRL
Irv, you're absolutely right about our understanding of the brain still being at a rather infantile stage (see my previous posts). But I don't think that inane supernatural, religious, and philosophical theories are at all distracting to neuroscientists - we'll just keep doing our thing, answering one question at a time using the best tools we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd urge anyone to go the the Society for Neuroscience website sometime and marvel at the tens of THOUSANDS of presentations given each year at the annual meeting. Not one of those scientists will say that they truly have a complete grasp of the particular neural system he/she is studying. Science has a long way to go before the creation of "artificial brains" will make real progress. (It surely won't be in 2018, but it won't be for lack of trying.)
Try this one. Can anyone tell me if anyone made a replica of myself. How do I know who is me and who is other. In fact I will know as I will consider myself to be me although third person may not know. Now try this on yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLauncher, you're a sober-headed scientist, and I am aware of the honest research presented in Neuroscience and other journals--yet how do you account for the fantastical claims in this article, supported by this magazine, and the myriad of other speculative claims made by many cognitive/neuro-scientists about our purported knowledge of brain function, especially in the realm of neuroimaging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree with your original comment--I previously did electro-neurophysiology research and understand our level of understanding. But you gently dismiss philosophy, yet it is a difference in philosophy between you and Modha that allows you to see his work as scientifically 'wanting'.
I'm asking you to account for all neuroscientists, and of course that is ridiculous and I don't expect that. I am curious how you separate your science from Modha's, not in the details of what you do, but in the principles that guide you.
Intelligence is not consciousness but is derived from it and hence closely contingent on cognition,self systems and definitely consciousness.I have indicated some research findings reported in prestigious journals which indicate that there is tropotrophic system in receptor mode ,and there is a perception-meditation continuum which inhibits the default network related to self generated mental activity including cognitive intelligence.The shift from the ergotropic action mode gives a glimpse of more objective reality with extended self notions ,as widely reported in relevant literature.Quantum mechanics aver that we are caught in a web of subjectivity ,and that is also what philosophers like Hume and Kantian logic substantiate philosophically.If we can achieve entangled states as above through quantum coherence in some consciousness field ,then our intelligence also helps us to perceive more objectively -ultimately that is what science also wants ,and hence philosophy and science need not clash. Cartesian theatre is about dualism of of mind states distinct from physical states ,and what I have mentioned is a Popperian dualism of a mind like force in a sense of holistic physicalism ,since force is not entirely distinct from materialistic reductionasm.The holistic view is derived from a meta brain stance as some studies [recently reported ]tend to suggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#rajnish, Let's consider that a copy process could be done in fast scale
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand your mental state doesn't change during this process.
Imediatelly after the process, you and your copy would be fully equivalent because all
experiences lived are exactly the same... But, after this mathematical limit
the entities start to perceive the world from different view points so, the
experiences that build you and him forks to new and separeted paths.
You and him will be in different execution lines. Your copy are in his own way and you will perceive him as a new person.
May be a third person couldn't say who is he or you, but this is another question ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck this 2 Astonishing lectures of Henry Markram:
1. neuroinformatics2008.org/congress-movies/Henry%20Markram.flv/view
2. ditwww.epfl.ch/cgi-perl/EPFLTV/home.pl?page=start_video&lang=2&connected=0&id=365&video_type=10&win_close=0
Very interesting article from the ‘Seed’ magazine:
Part 1:
seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue
Part 2:
seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/P2
And few more interesting links about the project:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/8012496.stm
youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5IUaRr8No
youtube.com/watch?v=RLCT3wU4fek
I was just telling the principle of independent consciousness may be there is some non material reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman brains are characterised by billions of neurones, each able to memorise and do analogic calculations, linked by countless dendrites which ensure continuous feedback loops at all levels of integration. Our parallel computers and especially serial ones cannot hope to match this performance. And we are totally unable to reproduce the ADN code filament which condenses such complexity, nor emulate the functioning of the ribosome. Anyone who claims the opposite is just trying to hoodwink his audience! Science more than any other discipline requires modesty....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi BestOf, sorry for the late reply as I only just looked back to this page. I don't fault Scientific American or other lay journals of taking an optimistic and hey-that's-cool slant on any field of scientific research - that's how they make money. I don't read this particular magazine a lot (I linked here via Google News), but I bet articles on neuroimaging and other more novel types of brain research highlight the neatest aspects and gloss over the negatives. The best scientific journals generally don't do that as much, but it all boils down to a given article's reviewers: do they force the author to be honest about deficits in methodology and interpretations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for my difference in philosophy about certain branches of neuroscience research: I'm a bit old school when it comes to these things. My own work, which involves recording single units in the brainstem and cerebellum - sometimes while also measuring behavior (eye movements) - is quite empirical, allowing direct tests of a (model driven) hypothesis about neural function. So I like to see in journal articles examples of raw data and simple analysis of that data. I like solid statistics to back up a claim. I have to plead ignorance w/ respect to a lot of cognitive modeling that's out there, and fields like behavioral evolution, etc. But the work in those areas that I have read often appears very speculative to me, lacking the empirical evidence I value in my own field.
I hope that satisfies your curiosity about my views. I think we're on the same wavelength on the issue of scientific "overreaching". A lot of it on my part, I'm sure, is prejudice arising from ignorance of the available literature. But it can sometimes be hard to suppress that old (very non-scientific) "sniff test" instinct. Cheers.
O for God' sake!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever.
They may create something equal tho'; and all the variations in between, cyborgs to lithics.
Cat Brain seems pretty fantastic and futuristic. I would prefer the simplistic model because that is how science has evolved over the centuries. We can't invent or discover all things at once. That's absurd. Newton was preceded by Einstein and he by the string theorists!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the relation between a model (including its duplicate)and his source? i.e explanaum and explanasa. Look up Mary Hesse in Paul Edwards. How inteligence is translated to artificial intelligence look at brilliant article of Rodney Brooks Kenneth M.Ford in SciAm. What does it mean a brain without his "flesh"? ... Brain in the vat and other problems,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does it mean level of explanation and neurologic or physical reductionism? The scientists (say not journalists) must decide and inform us first.
What is the relation between a model (including its duplicate)and his source? i.e explanaum and explanasa. Look up Mary Hesse in Paul Edwards. How inteligence is translated to artificial intelligence look at brilliant article of Rodney Brooks Kenneth M.Ford in SciAm. What does it mean a brain without his "flesh"? ... Brain in the vat and other ... Mostra tuttoproblems,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does it mean level of explanation and neurologic or physical reductionism? The scientists (say not journalists) must decide and inform us first.
"Intelligence is not consciousness but is derived from it"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidence please.
"Quantum mechanics aver that we are caught in a web of subjectivity"
Again, where does the connection between intelligence and Quantum mechanics comes from?
Etc...
The question of what IS intelligence or more appropriately how it WORKS is muddled enough, more jargon and unwarranted mumbo-jumbo does not help.
What is funny is that these two are working on two very different aspects of computing and MUST work together. The highly detailed model is all about the hardware, the more abstracted model is all about the software. Obviously we need to figure out both. I think people aren't understanding that Modha is modeling structures that represent data and the interactions of the data on a larger scale. Markram is looking at exactly how every detail of the circuits store and process data. Operating system versus hard-drive & motherboard etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this