Can a computer emulate a human mind

yes, i see it now, your still reading it wrong, it asks if it may be possible, it has no relation to a time period

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my point exactly.... ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh yea, i read it wrong.... *puts away the crack pipe*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ha lol. Ya get some weed instead, then you can't even type.

 

Question. how close are we (if we wanted to) to take a human brain (adult and living) take it out of the body and keep it functioning artifically?

 

For a long time I refused to accept that there would be any economic benefit to producing a human simulation. The research investment would make the space program look like a walk in the park..

But recently it has been pointed out to me, that there is a very good source of money that will drive the development of the human simulation. Medical research. Every human is interested in the development of medicine. There are many software models of humans already in the pipeline. Just recently I had the opportunity to play with a 3D simulation of a hand. I had a force feedback simulation of a scalpel, I could cut, poke, pull. I could feel the bone. Geez I was using the needle just to see if I could get it in between the joints. This was just the demo and it was at least 4years old.

I think that the main point is. When is the human abstraction considered to be human?

Also it is impossible to simulate anything 100%. The only way is to simulate a single thing is to simulate the entire universe including the simulation its self and that is totally impossible.

 

Dtroit and all,

Emulate, enhance, and replace completely.

Skull Size

The growth of the human brain is limited to the size of the skull. It is going to take many thousands of years before biological evolution changes that scenario. With genetic engineering we could probably shorten that period to hundreds of years.

Computing Power.

However, computer technology is only a few years away from having the computing capacity to equal the human brain; we just need the software to catch up. But software development will progress much faster by using the newer faster hardware technology. This results in an exponential feedback loop. If Moore’s law continues to hold then once we achieve human level processing power in a single system then 12 to 18 months later we will have doubled that capability, then quadrupled etc.

Neurons.

The human brain appears apparently complex, but it is essentially a vast network of interconnected simplistic neurons. We could say the Internet is complex in the same measure but again it is just a vast network of interconnecting nodes. The difference is that the internet is connected by thousands of nodes but the brain has some 100 billion nodes very closely located.

Brain/Computer Analogy.

We should stop comparing the brain to a computer. The idea evoked is that of the desktop machine that we all know. But the brain doesn’t have a single CPU executing one instruction at a time. It is more appropriate to think of each neuron as a small microprocessor and with 100 billion of them all operating in parallel and communicating with each other. An analogy to the internet is closer.

Digital versus Analogue.

Each neuron fires at around 200 times per second. That is not an analogue process. Something operating digitally and fast enough appears analogue. Consider a movie; it is separate frames being moved rapidly. Think of a music CD – that is totally digital.

 

Hlread,

And a neuron is similarly simple. Now connect 100 billion of them together, and you can produce what many would recognize as complexity.

At that time there was immense, but unrealistic, hope for the future of the computer with AI, but those early proponents soon became tremendously disillusioned when they could not produce anything like AI. Their fatal mistake was to completely underestimate the massive computing power that would be required. Even now we will require the equivalent of some 10,000 2GHz PCs to achieve equivalent processing power of the human brain. That is a level of power almost unimaginable in the 1958-1975 timeframe.

In 1975 you would be quite right. But now I think you should update your perspective.

Then do so at your own peril. Many others around the world are very actively pursuing AI and with the much needed massive computing power on the near horizon AI will materialize much sooner than most expect. The continuing exponential increase in computing power will allow AI to appear and then supercede human intelligence very rapidly. Where does that leave humans? No longer the dominant intelligence on the planet.

 

I think what hlreed meant when he said it was useless was that an AI, by itself without external input, would be useless. I agree. The human brain seems to do VERY weird stuff when all its external input is taken away (sensory deprivation). However, computers have progressed to the point that thousands of types of input are available for the "mind" of the AI. As well as an almost endless amount of information available if it could read the internet. The hyperlink system was designed for the human mind because of the way it links similar types of information. I think perhaps this may be a great way to teach any AI. I think a largely missing input is touch. The human body has a HUGE amounts of pressure sensors all over its body. Most computers (read robots) have very few, if any pressure sensors.

-AntonK

 

I agree. I think one of the most important factors to the human brain is randomness and degrees of randomness (if there is such a thing). What causes a human brain to continuously switch from one thought to another? –it’s not actually a “switch” but a gradual flowing shift of thought. Somehow, billions of (mostly) random outputs from microprocessors would be collected and produce a single thought. The direction or tendency of these outputs would be affected or swayed by the senses. An appropriate analogy is the brain working using the rules of evolution. Random mutation (random outputs with the potential of producing millions of different thoughts) combined with adaptation to the environment (the senses sway or give direction to achieve the most beneficial thought). I hope I made some sort of sense!

 

The data flow in anything with a brain is:
nature -> sensors -> brain -> motors -> nature
Note the loop. Sensors read nature. Motors modify what sensors see.
From this we deduce that brain mediates between sensors and motors. A brain is always between sensors and motors, meaning anything that has more sensors than motors must have a brain.
Every cell in your body has a brain. Every microbe has a brain. Every neuron has a brain.
Neurons are functions of many inputs and one output. To make parallel functions, you combine two input functions into a tree. An n input tree requires at least n/2 functions, each of which must be a microprocessor.
I have an algebra to build these. I have the hardware for the functions. I have them for sale.
There are several problems. The functions are low level and a lot are required. The cost is still too high. And nobody believes me.
The final problem is my brain may go before this gets done.

 

We have not failed, we've only found 10,000 ways that do not work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course there will be AI that can emulate a human brain. It's inevitable.

 

hlreed,

Ha ha, don't worry, I believe you. And yup I'm concerned that I won't be able to upload before my brain deteriorates as well.

But I'm hoping for a lot from Intel and their Itanium family especially as they proceed to multi-core chips. So a 32 core Itanium loosely coupled should simulate the activity of some 500 million neurons. That leads to around 200 chips linked via a high bandwidth SAN. That’s about the year 2010. And if we say 4 chips to a blade and 25 blades to a standard rack then that indicates we’d need two 8 ft standard racks. That doesn’t sound so bad.

 

Here is the basic problem with AI. Go back to the data flow.
nature -> sensors -> brain -> motors -> nature

Outside we build sensors -> brain -> motors. Nature is nature.

Inside the computer we must simulate nature as well. So the whole structure of the simulation is fabricated.

It is a simulation problem, not a problem of speed of computation. The problem is fundamental and cannot be fixed by tweaking.

The simulation must be taken out into the world for its inputs.

The same applies to artificial life as currently implimented.

Take them both out of the computer and we come up with the same animachines for both. Then you can remove the artificial attribute.

 

hlreed,

I dislike the term AI. I don't think intelligence can be artificial. This implies that it is not real. But if something is intelligent then it is intelligent. What is really meant by AI is non-human intelligence.

The name I gave to this forum 'Intelligence and Machines' was a deliberate attempt to avoid the 'artificial' stigma with this arena. So MI (Machine Intelligence) or NHI (Non-Human Intelligence) would be preferable to AI.

But you are implying that intelligence cannot exist without an external interface. I suspect that is quite untrue. Providing the intelligence has some data to work with then I'm sure it could exist. How we would know it was intelligent or how it could obtain useful data is quite a different issue? Imagine a human who has had all sensory input and communications methods severed and is in a true state of sensory deprivation. Ignoring the potential for madness, the intelligence can still process thoughts, make deductions, experience emotions, etc. What is removed is the ability to obtain new external data or to communicate any decisions.

But having lots of external stimuli is pretty useless until the mechanism to support the intelligence exists. Creating the framework of an intelligent machine should be possible, e.g. a biological equivalent would be a brain with 200 billion neurons but none of them have formed any connections or neural networks. Now turn on the external sensors and allow the neurons, or the simulated machine neurons to form networks.

The most interesting milestone will be self-awareness and I am assuming this will be achieved when a minimum threshold level of neural networks is reached.

 

... sensory depravation will only cause emotions and so on if you apply it to a rather "mature" brain ... if you were to do this to a small child his brain would probably die slowly because it is not needed - actually I think this would happen even to an older person , it just might take a little longer
and yes , A.I. is not a very usefull word for describing what we're looking for and we must stop thinking of computers as the little box on our desktop - I actually have a ... hmm "project" ... but it's too far fetched ... so I'm working on another project that will help me to work on every other project I want - you could say it's a lab ... or something

 

Why not? If intelligence can arise naturally, I see no reason it can't arise artificially.

No it doesn't. It implies it was created by man.

I don't see why you have a problem with the term. It's fairly accurate.

 

Ya, artificial means it was fabricated by human means, it doesn't mean it is imaginary. You have artificial fur (clothes), yet by no means is it not real.

But what does one mean when they say intelligence? If you don't believe in a soul, the brain is just a very complex and non-direct cause and effect system. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean its random. The brain is VERY complex, but each neuron is simple enough to understand individually. The complex part is how to organize those neurons so that they do something useful.

 

Alpha,

Yes I agree. I’ll update my erroneous interpretation of the term.

 

Many believe computers will surpass the human brain in complex processing ability within 40 years.

How can we resist designing computers that mimic the brain? Imagine a machine that not only mimics, but surpasses the human brain in many ways. Will this machine claim to be alive? Will it begin to ponder it's own mind as it learns, and in doing so, believe it may have a soul? When it shows us that it is every bit as alive as we are, what will we think? Some of us will see this as proof that the soul doesn't exist. Others will believe the machine somehow captured a soul from the world beyond or gave birth to one. Whatever, we'll have quite an enigma on our hands should a machine that surpasses human intelligence insist in a very convincing way that it is perhaps more alive than we are.

I found this site:
The Kurzweil Hypothesis: http://www.zianet.com/khacker/kurz1.htm