Building a Silicon Brain 236
prostoalex tips us to an article in MIT's Technology Review on a Stanford scientist's plan to replicate the processes inside the human brain with silicon. Quoting: "Kwabena Boahen, a neuroengineer at Stanford University, is planning the most ambitious neuromorphic project to date: creating a silicon model of the cortex. The first-generation design will be composed of a circuit board with 16 chips, each containing a 256-by-256 array of silicon neurons. Groups of neurons can be set to have different electrical properties, mimicking different types of cells in the cortex. Engineers can also program specific connections between the cells to model the architecture in different parts of the cortex."
The reverse seems more interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hardly something new... (Score:5, Interesting)
But the whole technology of neural networks almost pre-dates the Von Neumann architecture. Early analog neural networks were constructed in the late 40's.
Not only are these simulations nothing new but they are in every-day products. One of the most common examples is the misfire detection mechanism in Ford vehicle engine controllers. Misfire detection in spark ignition engines is based on so many variables that neural networks often perform better than hard-coded logic (although not always, just like the wetware counterparts, they can be "temperamental").
There are several other real-world neural network applications (autofocusing of cameras for example).
Ahh the hidden magic of embedded systems...
Re:One Million Neurons ;) (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Correct me if I am wrong, but back-propagation works by comparing the output of the whole net to the desired output, and tweeking the weights one layer at a time back up the net. In real brains, neurotransmitters either do not travel up the chain more than one neuron, or they simply signal all neurons physically close, whether they are connected by synapses or not. (like a hormone) Further, since real brains are recurrent networks (they have lots of internal feedback loops), 'back' doesn't mean much.
T
Not in this lifetime (Score:2, Interesting)
But maybe I'll eat my words. Doubtful.
Re:The reverse seems more interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One Million Neurons ;) (Score:2, Interesting)
The brain learns by weakening existing connections, not by adding new ones. It's logically and physiologically impossible for the brain to know in advance which connections to make in order to store something... it's more of a selection process. This is also why "instruction" methods of teaching fail. Knowledge has to be situated among what each individual already has learned. If it doesn't make sense to you, or you can't draw analogy to something that has already been etched in your brain over time... it won't mean much to you. Also, brain cells do regenerate despite the dogma that once they are gone they never come back. They do, but you have to kinda re-learn stuff... you can become a totally different person if you kill off and replace enough of them -- not necessarily a good idea, you might get confused. Then again, what do i know, haha.
Naturally Intelligent Systems (Score:5, Interesting)
brain does not use math logic,but pattern matching (Score:3, Interesting)
In many cases, mathematical logic can not be used to prove the absolute truth of a proposition; therefore the brain uses pattern matching to 'prove' the 'truth' of a proposition to the degree that is useful for the survival of the entity that carries it.
Take, for example, the proposition that 'prime numbers are infinite'. We all think they are infinite, but there is no mathematical proof for it yet. When we are asked the question if 'prime numbers are infinite', then our first answer is 'yes'...that's pattern matching at work: since we have found a pretty large number of prime numbers, there must be infinite, just like in other cases (the decimal digits of PI, for example).
Re:Hardly something new... (Score:3, Interesting)
And even if it is true, if it's only true in the way that "The universe is just one implementation of a computer" then I don't think that teaches us that much about the brain/mind (it will still teach us something of course).
Don't get me wrong though, I do agree that computer science and information theory are fundamental sciences.
And I also agree with you that the first AI wouldn't be a model of the brain.
I'm no neuroscientist or computer scientist but I suspect that the first preliminary step towards an AI would be something that automatically makes models of the external world.
Then the next step would be for it to predict. e.g. if it sees a ball moving towards a wall, it should model the situation _faster_than_real_time_ and predict that it will hit the wall. This sort of thing is very useful for simple creatures.
You then work at improving the automatic modelling and prediction stuff. Throw in quantum computers if you want to run "infinite" models in parallel (sounds like that will come in handy eh?) .
Then the next step would be for it to model and predict _itself_ in addition to everything else. Of course it could have already jumped to that stage by then - it's a natural step if it had attempted to model other creatures at any point. Or perhaps the self modelling comes first[1].
Lastly, BEFORE we do all of that, we should ask WHY do we want to do that and whether it's such a good idea in the first place.
We already have plenty of creatures imprisoned at the local pet shop, farms already. If you want to do things faster/better, you could just augment humans or animals.
We've already got billions of imprisoned conscious chickens in the world. They're not smart enough? Conscious != smart. Before we go create something, I think we should ask what are we trying to solve here. If you think it'll be cruel and terrible to implant chicken brains into robots to do stuff, then maybe we shouldn't be creating conscious creatures, we should be aiming for something else. e.g. augmenting humans so that we can control multiple robots easily, recognize stuff faster etc.
I suggest that there are already plenty of brains/minds in the world. We're already having difficulty taking care of the new/existing ones, managing them, putting them to good use etc.
[1] Then again, perhaps the "God modelling" comes first (e.g. YHWH).
Paging (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Solar, a bright idea http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user