How Brain Architecture Leads To Abstract Thought (umass.edu) 106
catchblue22 writes: UMass Amherst scientists have analyzed fMRI data to link brain architecture with consciousness and abstract thought. "We momentarily thought our research failed when we saw that each cognitive behavior showed activity through many network depths. Then we realized that cognition is far richer, it wasn't the simple hierarchy that everyone was looking for. So, we developed our geometrical 'slope' algorithm," said neuroscientist Hava Siegelmann (abstract). "With a slope identifier, behaviors could now be ordered by their relative depth activity with no human intervention or bias," she adds. They ranked slopes for all cognitive behaviors from the fMRI databases from negative to positive and found that they ordered from more tangible to highly abstract.
"'Deep learning is a computational system employing a multi-layered neural net...the brain's processing dynamic is far richer and less constrained because it has recurrent interconnection, sometimes called feedback loops.' Her lab is now creating a 'massively recurrent deep learning network,' she says, for a more brain-like and superior learning AI."
"'Deep learning is a computational system employing a multi-layered neural net...the brain's processing dynamic is far richer and less constrained because it has recurrent interconnection, sometimes called feedback loops.' Her lab is now creating a 'massively recurrent deep learning network,' she says, for a more brain-like and superior learning AI."
Obligatory Archer (Score:1)
Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as we can get it through the 'terrible twos', it doesn't have to be all bad...
Re: Obligatory Archer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you want power to be based on blood-lines? Because this is how ignorance breeds oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting is how you get Skynet.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m game. We’ll see who rusts first.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet.
You get Skynet anyway. The only question is who gets there first: The Western democracies, or China.
Re: (Score:2)
Strong AI claims another researcher! . (Score:1, Insightful)
FTA:
"'Deep learning is a computational system employing a multi-layered neural net...the brain's processing dynamic is far richer and less constrained because it has recurrent interconnection, sometimes called feedback loops.' Her lab is now creating a 'massively recurrent deep learning network,' she says, for a more brain-like and superior learning AI.""
But this is not new. This is connectionism and all its descendants. Anyways...the larger point is, that there is no reason to believe that consciousness or
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Very interesting.
Now, about those fries...
Neuronal Firing Rates and Implications for AI (Score:2)
Depending on sources, the firing rate of neurons [aiimpacts.org] is on the order of 1 to 200Hz. That would imply that any particular short term thought that we have must necessarily involve relatively few neurons, at least in terms of the depth of the tree. Of course there is a huge parallel dimension to particular waves of neuron firing associated with particular thoughts. However, at an intuitive level this does give me hope of the future of AI.
At the cellular level, our neurons are not that different from the neuro
Re: (Score:3)
"Strong AI are the ones hypothesizing a relationship and capability of a thing - the brain- here. The burden falls squarely on you, not me. Prove it."
People actually trying to build AI ARE trying to prove it, by making one. You're sitting in your armchair saying "it's impossible because magic!"
If you want to get down to it, your position is that there is something quintessentially different about intelligence that we cannot model. That's an extraordinary claim, with absolutely no evidence backing it up.
Re: (Score:2)
People actually trying to build AI ARE trying to prove it, by making one. You're sitting in your armchair saying "it's impossible because magic!"
To be fair to him, he's a little more sophisticated than your average religious nut who believes that people have "souls" or something and computers can't. Instead, he has a somewhat complex metaphysical argument about the nature of reality, and he ultimately is happy to deny the existence of the material world. (Why he would bother arguing so long with people hear about such issues then, is beyond me -- from his perspective, we're all lunatics who have been taken in by some illusion.)
From my perspectiv
Re: (Score:1)
Illusions is too strong a word and has the wrong connotations. It's my fault since I injected it into the conversation. Without working too hard thinking about it, a better idea might be *degree of reality*. Not everything is real to the same degree. This would be lunatic territory except when you compare it to the alternatives (which I will cite); it's not any more weird than those . For the record, I have the same "illusions" as everyone else wrt the physical world. We all do. I don't doubt the "existe
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying that computers can't auto-generate a class of (real, actual) thing via "emergent properties" by dint of being "sufficiently complex". That's pholigston-level hand waving and appeal-to-noun-phrase.
And do you have a reason for saying this? I'm seeing the same pattern again. Assertions made with absolutely nothing to back them up.
My view is that brains already generate experience and consciousness. We have an existence proof that it can be done. Even if consciousness is an external property/deeper reality that somehow attaches to some or all human brains, there's still no reason to expect that it won't similarly be able to attach to similarly complex human-made machines.
Whatever hand waving you a
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I have a reason. For the same reason no other phenomena has ever had an "emergent" property which also posessed ontological independence. Because reductionism is how things ARE. Things are made up of their parts, and how those parts interact with the world and other parts determine completely how the thing behaves.
Your second point is related to what I am saying, but not a direct attack on it (which is what you think). What I am saying is the claim that consciousness arises from brains or complex sy
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I have a reason. For the same reason no other phenomena has ever had an "emergent" property which also posessed ontological independence. Because reductionism is how things ARE. Things are made up of their parts, and how those parts interact with the world and other parts determine completely how the thing behaves.
No. Reductionism doesn't explain initial conditions (going beyond the anthropic principle). To be blunt, I think it quite reasonable that the fact that consciousness exists in the universe is an imposed precondition of WOOFYGOOFY the observer and any other observers whose preconditions are compatible with those of WOOFYGOOFY.
I am claiming that experience exists independently of brains and gives rise to the perception that there are brains.
And I can claim that the Moon is made of green cheese. We need more than claims here.
You're doing a lot of interrogating and accusing but sliding by without answering the troubling questions which issue directly from your own theory. Can a Turing tape machine be conscious and if not then why not? Are some suitably complex machines already conscious to some degree and if not, then why not? Start there.
Sure, why wouldn't an appropriately programmed Turing tape machine be conscious? Or for that matter,
Re: (Score:2)
>> To be blunt, I think it quite reasonable that the fact that consciousness exists in the universe is an imposed precondition
Imposed by whom? Your prof? Yout think just exists as a kind of fundamental matter, like the Weak Force? You are arguing against that. Anyway this thing "consciousness or experience" (same thing) has deeply troubling properties. If you say it's emergent, then that's scientific bunk. If you say no, it's a part of the reductionist chain, then it's a thing without purpose , one ou
Re: (Score:2)
Since you brought up religion, you should read some of the arguments philosophers and theologians have invented in order to support the idea. They're very sophisticated. Solipsism in particular, which is what the OP seems to be heading into, has been well explored. If you're honest though, all those arguments rely on one of two basic theses: "we can never know because magic" or "we can never know because we can never know anything!" Both are... unproductive.
Re: (Score:2)
Solipsism in particular, which is what the OP seems to be heading into, has been well explored.
Solipsism may also be a real thing. Modern physical theories remain stubbornly attached to a bunch of arbitrary parameters. Those parameters may have the values they have because you observed them that way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite solipsism. Observer bias is a benign problem which can and does still admit of an objective, shared reality. Even an inescapable observer bias, even an inescapable, undetected and undetect-able observer bias still admits of a real, if never-to-be-known objective reality. So that's still not solipsism.
I too admit of an objective reality which exists independently of myself. It is the reality that experience reveals, the reality that experience is. I simply doubt the reality of the existence
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite solipsism.
And it's not quite not solipsism.
Even an inescapable observer bias, even an inescapable, undetected and undetect-able observer bias still admits of a real, if never-to-be-known objective reality. So that's still not solipsism.
Unless, of course, that objective reality exists solely because you observe it and the other observers. It's not as strong as if you're making everything up, but there is a possibility here that reality exists as it does because of characteristics of an observer of that reality.
in what sense are my beliefs real
In a very strong sense, since they have a physical representation as knowledge in your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
In a very strong sense, since they have a physical representation as knowledge in your brain.
What I am obviously saying is they do not correlate to the things in the external world I thought they did. They are real the way illusions are real illusions. They're real (an illusion is a real phenomena), but their designated referents are not real.
Re: (Score:2)
What I am obviously saying is they do not correlate to the things in the external world I thought they did. They are real the way illusions are real illusions. They're real (an illusion is a real phenomena), but their designated referents are not real.
Note that I did, fully answer your posed question. The applicability of the belief doesn't change the reality of the belief. That's a different thing.
And beliefs are experientially highly dependent on how closely and extensively you test those beliefs. For example, if I believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, and no one can be bothered to test my assertion at even the simplest of levels (even to the rudimentary observation that the Moon is not green in color, which would require at least some elab
Re: (Score:2)
So again if you read my rebuttal to solipsism you'll see I am explicitly not saying that.
Lelt me turn the tables on you for a second and examine YOUR beliefs (or someone who accepts that consciousness can arise from brains or computers) and let's see how weird they are.
First you have to admit that basis of consciousness is not tied to any particular material- biological or silicon or anything else- it's an issue of systems and computation and any suitable substrate capable of doing the computation, even if
Re: (Score:2)
Muy claims are not about intelligence per se (whatever thatis) but about experience. My TI -80 is intelligent by a lot of measures. More elaborate TI-80s are not going to save the empty assertion that consciousness arises from complexity of any sort, unless you strip consciousness of it's defining characteristic- a thing having experience - and reduce it to "clever compuation which would have formerly required a human being to do". A calculator qualifies for that, as does a chess playing program.
Your side s
Re: (Score:2)
Should also say "bring into being through sheer computation" because sometmes you are arguing with eople who justike to argue ad win instead of argue in a proper, disinterested way.
Re: (Score:2)
Your posts are pretty much content free. You haven't even defined what you mean by "experience." What you consider experience is just memories of the past. Your TI-85 has those, and they're much more reliable than your own.
You're still using a lot of words to basically say "it's magic" (whatever you choose "it" to be). Maybe it is. Until someone shows some evidence that it is, science proceeds based on the assumption it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
>>What you consider experience is just memories of the past.
Yeah, actually that's not true. You are having an experience right NOW. At any given instance you care to check it you are having an experience. You don't need to refer to past time or memory or any othersuch thing. Just look NOW and see for yourself.
It's amazing and a measure of the dogmaticism and rigidity that abounds in some circles that in the course of this debate you've actually now tended an argument which rejects the reality of exper
Re: (Score:2)
Stay focused on the thing to be proved. Thething to be proced is not "can we build a clever machine" or "can we model how the brain learns or reacts ina computer" (I assume this is possible). It's not even - can we learn something true and new about actual brains from models we create in computers. None of that is what's in question.
What's in question is- can consciousness arise from computers (of any type, wet, vacuum tubes Turing tapes it's all the same thing) or, equivalently is consciousness a byproduc
Re: (Score:2)
there is no reason to believe that consciousness or experience falls out of machines,
A brain is a machine with consciousness and experience. So we're trying to construct in a different way, a machine to do something for which we already have an existence proof.
Re: (Score:2)
OK in the context of this conversation that qualifies as "assuming the consequent".
Re: (Score:2)
OK in the context of this conversation that qualifies as "assuming the consequent".
Ok, what's being assumed and why is that a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what's being assumed:
A brain is a machine with consciousness and experience.
And that's a problem because "consciousness" or it's more precise definition "experience" even if you allow that it is dependent on brains or complex machines to manifest (and I am not saying I do) is a phenomena which nevertheless is not a brain or complex machine and is has no credible reductionist (scientific) pathway from either of those things.
We don't assign experience to a watch; it "knows" nothing even though it "te
Re: (Score:2)
OK some people are not familiar with the philosophical problem called the mind-brain duality. It goes like this.
Even if brains are necessary for minds (experience, consciousness some how needs them to manifest- not something I myself believe ) they are not sufficient.
They are not sufficient because we can imagine a brain working and causing all the effects it does without a shred of conscious experience. The reason this is not just plausible, but the preferred explanation is because the atoms and molecules
Re: (Score:2)
So that's where we are. But since there IS experience, where do you go? You go with the obvious other possibility, although it's counter-intuitive to the limit of that word. You say "I cannot deny experience. Any construction of the universe which excludes it ontologically (as ours does) must be in error, no matter how compelling it seems to me. That is what I am arguing for.
The odd thing here is that our models of the universe don't exclude "experience" ontologically or otherwise. I don't see anything here to rebut either. Bad priors, bad conclusions (or GIGO). Too bad since you've given this a lot of thought.
Even if brains are necessary for minds (experience, consciousness some how needs them to manifest- not something I myself believe ) they are not sufficient.
They are not sufficient because we can imagine a brain working and causing all the effects it does without a shred of conscious experience.
No, actually we can't imagine that assertion of the second paragraph. My view is that if we couldt he above, we would just be agreeing with my original stance, not have this particular argument at all, and nuanced disagreement would be elsewhere.
Experience is an phenomena the universe just doesn't need . I could create a parallel, stone cold dead no-experince universe with animals and people and everything and it would run just like our own. The only difference is, ours has experience and the other one doesn't.
Then do so. Create this st
Re: (Score:2)
OK khallow you're the climate change denying troll that is the ONE person I actually did mark as a troll in my control panel. I answer posts without reading the name because it's not important to me who you are but in your case, actually, I amnot arguing with a person who is legitimately confused over nad over again I am arguing with someone whois a known to me troll.
Suffice it to say that that each of yoru asertions are wrong. Wrong that we can't imagine a world without consciousness for exactly the reason
Re: (Score:2)
OK khallow you're the climate change denying troll that is the ONE person I actually did mark as a troll in my control panel.
Here's some background on that [slashdot.org]. I think no further comment is required.
Suffice it to say that that each of yoru asertions are wrong. Wrong that we can't imagine a world without consciousness for exactly the reasons I delineated. Wrong about "emergent properties" being bull shit , a point I won't prove again and wrong about it not being anuncessary but extant 5th wheel to any theory which tries to make use of it.
Obviously, I disagree. Let's start with the first assertion. Do you know what consciousness and experience are so that you know when you are imaging their absence? I doubt it. I certainly don't have that knowledge.
Further, you have yet to establish why consciousness appears. I believe presence of a sufficiently complex (in various ways) physical system is necessary and sufficient. Merely imaging a copy of our universe without conscio
Re: (Score:2)
Literally, when I see it's you posting, I ignore it. Sorry I didn't check before answering this time. You're the worst persistent troll on /. You malignantly anddeliberately engage in pretending to be genuinely confused and pretending to genuinely misunderstand the conversation just to antagonize your opponent in a debate. You're a broken person and I will not spend any time in conversation with you.
That's too bad. I don't believe you gave my arguments and discourse the same courtesy I gave yours.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's a problem because "consciousness" or it's more precise definition "experience" even if you allow that it is dependent on brains or complex machines to manifest (and I am not saying I do) is a phenomena which nevertheless is not a brain or complex machine and is has no credible reductionist (scientific) pathway from either of those things.
Let's think about what you just wrote. You admit that consciousness is a phenomena and hence, observable. You then admit that the only place you've observed it is in brains. I'm not seeing an argument which I can rebut here. But I'll look at your next, more extensive reply to see if you have anything there.
We don't assign experience to a watch; it "knows" nothing even though it "tells" time- a complex task. And so also with any even more complicated machines. At some undefined point of complexity, you claim a ghost enters the machine, and lo, the machine is having experience. But do one computation differently and no experience is being had.
Telling time is as complex as intellectual tasks, like abstracting ideas from patterns? Do tell. And no, I do not make the "ghost enters the machine" argument. I see no reason to expect consciousness to b
Re: (Score:1)
You have a very fancy way of saying "I don't know it, therefore it's unknowable". It's not a logical position to take.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you in spirit. I am also I don't know-er, but in a specific way I won't get into. Anyways I am not saying that the physical world doesn't exist at all in any sense; I am saying it's exact nature and relation to "consciousness" or what I would rather call "experience" is not explained by strong AI and I am making the case for experience as the preferred fundamental "stuff" of the universe, which resolves the so called "mind-body" or "consciousness-brain" "experience-matter" problem in favor of t
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways...the larger point is, that there is no reason to believe that consciousness or experience falls out of machines, no matter how wet or complex they are.
Sure there is, if you actually believe in the empirical world. And that's all you're "evidence" is that you're discussing -- the physical stuff you see and can measure and dissect. There's no way currently to "prove" that consciousness emerges from the physical stuff of the brain, but the burden of proof is on your side to prove that there's "something else" there, because the rest of physical reality as we sense it seems logically consistent with materialism.
Consider that anything which can be modeled with a computer can be modeled with something much more primitive, albeit in a cumbersome way, for example, a Turing tape or a even a very fancy abacus made of wood, wires, beads. Yes you definitely want to keep that fact in mind before you pin that Strong AI Booster pin on your lapel.
What kind of crappy philosophical argument is
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, you should have said, "the one thing *I* have irrefutable evidence for is just my own experience -- I don't know that anything outside of my own thoughts exists, and I could be participating in a pseudo-masturbatory exercise of pretending that there is an external world and other people out there and this imaginary place called Slashdot where I pretend to communicate with these figments of my imagination."...
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent response.
As an aside, here's my answer to solipsism. It's almost certainly not novel, though it is original:
If I'm all that exists, damn I'm smart.
But, weirdly, I always attribute my deepest and most interesting thoughts to other parts of myself, which I call other people. I mean, I think I'm reading a book on statistical inference, or poetry, or listening to music, and there's all this enormous complexity and elegance which I don't understand and doesn't fit together... until I work hard to
Re: (Score:2)
See my reply to the solipsism charge below. I am not saying anything like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I said:
Anyways...the larger point is, that there is no reason to believe that consciousness or experience falls out of machines, no matter how wet or complex they are.
You said:
Sure there is, if you actually believe in the empirical world. And that's all you're "evidence" is that you're discussing -- the physical stuff you see and can measure and dissect. There's no way currently to "prove" that consciousness emerges from the physical stuff of the brain, but the burden of proof is on your side to prove
Re: (Score:2)
No I only affirm what I know with certainty- that there IS experience. You know there is also, and so does everyone else.
Yes, but how do you make the epistemological leap from the fact that "there is experience" (i.e., whatever you experience) to the reality that I am having "experience" and that "everyone else" has experience?
How could you possibly know "with certainty" that I or "everyone else" exist and have experience without accepting that there is some reality to the world as generated by your senses? Even if the only thing you believe about the reality in the world is that other consciousnesses exist, the only way y
Re: (Score:2)
You said:
Sure, but this is the path to solipsism. If you can't prove the material world exists, you can't even prove that other people or other minds exist. So, actually, it's inaccurate to say that the "one thing we have irrefutable evidence for is just experience itself." Rather, you should have said, "the one thing *I* have irrefutable evidence for is just my own experience -- I don't know that anything outside of my own thoughts exists, and I could be participating in a pseudo-masturbatory exercise of
Re: (Score:2)
You said: How is it "overwhelmingly likely"? Because you say so? Do you have some way of estimating that probability? Or do you really just mean, "I think it is thus!"
No, it's for the reason I said- our deliriously sparse knowledge of the brain itself. See my post.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of crappy philosophical argument is this? Just because you can model the physical atoms of the brain with a sufficiently large "abacus," materialism must be false?
No I am not arguing against materialism here, I am saying that the idea that computation equals cognition- Strong AI's basic claim- is silly on the face of it.
It's not that I can model a physical system and therefore it doesn't exist (I guess this is what you are accusing me of saying?). It's that Strong AI is making it's Strong AI clai
Re: (Score:2)
You are just a just a component of my brain that exists only to amuse me.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about direct experience. While irreftuable, it is also unprovable (like most everything else really).
I understand the meaning of irrefutable to be essentially "provable". You may wonder as to the"reality"of what you experience, but the fact that you have an experience requires no proof since a thing which is (and is in the proof-theoretical sense, true) requires no (further) proof. If by proof you mean "elaboration", then sure, experience may be something which cannot be "reduced" or elab
Re: (Score:2)
there is no reason to believe that consciousness or experience falls out of machines, no matter how wet or complex they are
And there is no reason not to believe that our experience of consciousness arises out of anything more than the complex interactions of our neural structure. If you had any evidence that there is something other than matter involved, you would have stated it. In the absence of non-material causes, I'll stick with the Occam's razor assumption and not require the invention of new non-physical constructs.
Your post is just mysticism dressed up as reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is just mysticism dressed up as reason.
You can say that but it's not true. Literally, you know there is experiences. Literally, everything else is in doubt. Literally.
As to your "not any reason to believe" comment, this is just an unsupported assertion on your part. You have a BIG problem- how a Turing machine composed of tape and a reader can display every form of consciousness possible. It so absurd on the face of it that you have to resort to phlogiston -like theories of "emergent properties".
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know you have experiences? Your memory could very well be an illusion. You could simply exist as a fleeting quirk in an infinite universe of random arrangements that think it's sentient.
If we're going to get all mystical, we might as well not pull punches.
Re: (Score:2)
You should learn something about emergent properties. They're extremely common. In fact, nearly all phenomena we perceive are emergent properties of underlying processes that are rather different from what we see. In some cases the emergent properties are much simpler than what's really going on underneath, in other cases they're vastly more complex. To provoke some thinking about higher-level emergent properties, I recommend that you read Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach". It's an old book, and decidedly
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, you hear me ranting because you want to hear it that way. There is no rant here.
Regarding emergent properties, you're not getting clear in your own mind what they refer to. Either they refer to a property which is reducible to the thing which subtends them- like the heat of a fire or the color of the grass, or (it is claimed that) they don't.
The first "kind" are unremarkable- this is just straighforward material reductionism.
The second kind are magical, as in unicorns- i.e. they don't exist. These
Re: (Score:2)
OK I will answer this post again since I missed parts of it in my reply.
I did read and re-read GEB a long long time ago and everyone would benefit from your recommendation. + ! on GEB.
Regarding so called "emergent properties" I wrote to another poster here
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
but I'll clean it up a little more:
Emergent properties are properties of a thing that
1) posess casual power independent of the thing
2) are nevertheless somehow dependent upon the underlying "thing" in order to "emer
Re: (Score:2)
OK so I see you as mixing up the concept of "abstract concept about a thing" with "emergent property".
The top speed of a car is a concept about the car, not a property. This is seen by seeing how many other emergent properties - as you're using the term- the car might have. The answer, in short is an infinite number. Here are some of them:
The chick magnet strength of the car.
The most miles the car will go without needing a repair of its transmission if I drive it only to church on Sundays.
The best price the
Re: (Score:2)
"I have no fucking idea; it's a mystery to me."
I agree that I don't. But unlike you, I don't try to pretend that I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see, religious much?
Berkeley rides again. Seriously.
I now cease giving you your subjective existence by no longer thinking about you. Sorry about that.
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I let a reference to Bishop Berkeley, who made all of these arguments long ago back in the heyday of the materialism vs idealism wars. The idealism argument lost to everybody who wasn't religious a couple of centuries ago:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/berkele... [utm.edu]
I just didn't have the patience to walk through the entire tired argumentation associated with Berkeley and his tree falling in the quad and god and David Hume's empiricism that ultimately won the argument and ended the era of bullshit philosophy.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, matter gives rise to consciousness, not the reverse. Any computational substrate, meat-engine or silicon, is made of matter. In the creation of any simulation of the physical world, the same laws of physics must ultimately apply. I am paraphrarsing Dr. David Deutsch, Oxford University.
Re: (Score:2)
never understood -1 insightful comments. They're comments which have a high rating and people like them but have been modded down by a one or a bunch of people determined to put thehated poster in his or her "place" by jacking the rating system.
Good to know.
I wonder... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... if there are computers trying to understand what makes them work... Is there some computer out there that is pondering the question are humans capable of intelligent thought...
Actually that is a great question for all of us: Are humans capable of intelligent thought?
Based on data collected so far the odds of that are slim to none.
Intelligence in the universe is a constant. The population is growing....
stretching conclusions from false positives (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not forget that same fMRI technology successfully identified brain function in a DEAD SALMON.
http://blogs.scientificamerica... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You post a link to an article about a scientific paper warning about the dangers of amateurs doing fMRI analysis and somehow think that's evidence?
JIHAD! (Score:2)
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Recurrent ANNs don't have to be trained to have feedback. It's built right in. The original scientists are probably talking about special kinds of feedback between intermediate levels, which the brain does seem to use in some cases (not all). That kind of thing was also tried in the past, but it's extremely difficult to train.
The article messed up their description.
I HATE the overhyped Story Title (Score:2)
"How Brain Architecture Leads To Abstract Thought"
Really, now that sounds super interesting, I've been waiting my whole life to read this story!
Oh, wow, the story is actually not about that at all. Could it be someone cynically posted this story with an overhyped title to get a few extra clicks?
Can someone please tell the story poster that there are people trying to find a new website with accurate information. Seeing lazy, clickbait headlines makes me want to hurl.
That's my design (Score:1)
Hah! Told you so! (recursion is the key to self awareness, also see "I Am A Strange Loop" by Hofstaeder) http://tinyurl.com/h8dww8n [tinyurl.com].
serviscope_minor is shopping for shoes today (Score:5, Funny)
If cows have different brain architecture to bulls, then this research should be suppressed and the perpetrators hounded out of their jobs in case it discourages heifers from embarking on STEM careers.
Re: (Score:2)
What does San Francisco Samoyed Rescue [sfsr.org] have to do with this? I'm not seeing the connection. Thanks!