
Simulated brain closer to thought - alexandros
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8012496.stm
======
alexandros
The understatement of the applications by the scientists makes me suspect that
(a) they are being politically wise keeping it on the down low or (b) that the
article's claims are exaggerated. If (a) is the case though, the potential
consequences just blow my mind.. I mean, Robin Hanson has been talking about
emulated minds on chips for a while, but I didn't think we were so close to
real results. What this would do to arguments about religion, bioethics,
irreducibles will make for very interesting discussion.

~~~
swombat
"Mind-blowing" is the word indeed.

As I read through this article, my first thought was, what if they do create a
full, human-like brain. Would it be immoral to then shut it down?

~~~
icey
From a morality standpoint, what is the difference between shutting it down
and an indefinite state of stasis? The brain wouldn't know any different, it
would just cease to process for a period of time, and then resume processing
later. It would be just like a blackout. Except since the brain only receives
stimulus from a simulated environment, the environment could be frozen as
well.

So, if everything freezes and restarts at a later time, the brain would not
perceive any missing time.

~~~
staticshock
You're assuming isolation. No feedback. It wouldn't perceive any missing time
if it had no contact with the outer world. I think that's treating the brain
as if it was just a computer.

~~~
icey
Ahh, that's an excellent point; for any of my argument to stand, it would
definitely require full isolation (akin to what the current Blue Brain has
right now).

------
quoderat
So many things are converging at once on the AI front. I think it's probably
likely we will have human-level AI in my lifetime (I'm 32).

Of course, AI, like nuclear fusion, is perpetually 50 years away, but this
time I believe it's different.

~~~
chadmalik
I really doubt digital computation will ever be a platform for intelligence as
we understand it. Biological systems really are different than digital ones.

~~~
eru
I guess after we have created and understood intelligence once, we may be able
to re-create it on much weaker hardware the second time.

Perhaps one day we'll even be able to e.g. beat the Turing Test on standard
2009 hardware with enough algorithmic knowledge.

------
lucraft
Seems unlikely that the researchers are really simulating this on a molecular
level as claimed in that article. Perhaps they are using the neuron as the
unit instead?

~~~
paulgb
Sounds like you are right:

"At the push of a button, the model could reconstruct biologically accurate
neurons based on detailed experimental data, and automatically connect them in
a biological manner, a task that involves positioning around 30 million
synapses in precise 3D locations." [1]

It doesn't necessarily mean they aren't modeling molecules, but the wording
hints that they aren't.

[1] <http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/>

------
jackchristopher
This _wouldn't_ prove consciousness is physical. I'm not saying I'm a dualist,
but pragmatically, the only thing I can say is that I'm conscious. It doesn't
matter if scientists showed me a conscious computer, that event is still
happening in my consciousness. Why believe a computer the computer is
conscious, when I can't even prove other humans are conscious?

I don't necessarily believe the above, but no one mentioned this point.

Also, the multiverse makes this an odder issue. If the simplest algorithm is
to output all possible universes, what's stopping a universe from having just
one observer?

~~~
alexandros
Your position is dangerously close to solipsism. You allude to Occam's razor
but it also answers your question. If the simplest algorithm does not imply
limiting the amount of 'stuff' (universes), why would it limit the amount of
observers?

~~~
jackchristopher
In principle I can't prove which I'm in. You're right. I left that out. But I
see no reason to believe one over the other. But perpetual doubt is
disempowering too.

And when I face an undecidable with equally plausible answers, I'm forced to
test each view to see the results: what's life like with view x vs. view y.
That result becomes the metric for a view's worth.

And honestly that could be solipsism. Although I know it as a similar concept
some call "subjective reality". Again I don't believe in solipsism or SR, I'm
just pointing out that either could be true and you could never know. I do
believe in the multiverse though.

I always thought computers as conscious would prove consciousness was
physical. I didn't realize my mistake till recently.

------
Darmani
Much more promising to me than simulating larger regions of the brain is the
ability to trace the execution of this region from the brain in detail and try
to come up with a clue at how intelligence works.

Evolution may be elegant itself, but it's not known for producing elegant
systems. If either a human scientist or an AI is going to have any hope of
designing efficient intelligent systems, we'll want something easier to work
with than neurons.

------
sown
We are truly living in the future now.

~~~
sown
Down-mod me if you want, but this kind of thing excites me! If there is magic
in the world, then this is the kind I would expect to find in the future and I
find it gratifying that we might understand it someday. :)

------
Allocator2008
One can only hope that as the reductionist principles upon which our
consciousness operates are made apparent by projects like these, that the
masses will finally begin to be disabused of the ever-persistent and
pernicious god delusion which has impeded human progress and welfare since the
dawn of recorded history.

~~~
kirse
So let's see, you set out to build a human brain and emulate consciousness,
yet in the process you reaffirm to everyone that it takes a phenomenal level
of supercomputing power, complexity and intelligent, purpose-guided scientists
to create something that can operate on its own.

I may be mistaken, but tell me again how intelligently designing and creating
an autonomous entity furthers the atheist world-view (which I am guessing you
agree with, given your careful choice of phrasing ala _god delusion_ )? If I
was one of the _masses_ \-- who are evidently far less enlightened than
yourself -- I would argue that this project demonstrates that an intelligent
being is clearly involved in the production of a conscious entity.

~~~
khafra
Philosophical dualism
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)>) is a mistake at
the core of most religions. Making a human brain would contribute much to
destroying the concept of the mind as something separate from the brain,
rather than the mind as something the brain does.

~~~
eru
I would not call it a mistake, yet. Just another philosophical position (which
I do not agree with, but that's not the point).

Apropos dualism: Did you thought about how artificial intelligence might end
the dualism in economic theory: I.e. that one has to account for labour and
capital as completely separate factors of production? (I am ignoring land etc
here for the sake of simplicity.)

------
newsit
Sounds strangely familiar: <http://www.simulation-
argument.com/simulation.html>

