Do they go hand in hand? Does something have to be self-aware to be intelligent?

I suppose it all depends critically on how you define each term. I find a practical problem in that a strict definition is generally impossible to fully agree upon. That said, is the question irrelevant? It seems that the more specific you are about the definition, the more irrelevant the question becomes.

It just seems that a requirement for an in-depth anaylsis is depth ya know? As such it is possible to process large volumes of data via a binary algorithmic blah blah but how can it do much more? Is in-depth analysis deep at all or merely an illusion? If it IS an illusion is that illusion necessary for this type of analysis "meaning of life" kind of stuff. Whassup?

smart cards

:D

There are many systems which are generally considered intelligent and which know nothing about itself.

They way I have always thought about it, is that the requirement to be considered "intelligent" a machine would need the ability to learn on its own.
If something is programmed to have a specific response to specific stimuli, then it is not intelliegnt.
If that response changes solely due to past experiences the machine had (without external intervention or manipulation) then that machine has learning ability.
This definition, admittedly, is a bit loose. Someone could argue that something could be programmed to appear to evolve, however, that would be simulated learning ability. The machine (or software controlling the machine) must be able to reprogram itself when faced with the unexpected inputs at its various "senses".

So, no, I don't think something must be self-aware to be considered intelligent.
However, the question that DOES bring up (for me at least) is this...
In order for something to be able to deal with, adapt to, learn from and evolve according to different unexpected scenarios, the machine would have to be built to re-program itself as it learns with no limits placed on its evolution...
In that case, would intelligence LEAD to self awareness?

one_raven: Most of the current AI development has something to do with games. Creatures in many games have 100% hard coded behavior rules and still can act very intelligently in their environments. They are INDEPENDENT extensions of author's intelligence = they are intelligent. But as wesmorris said, it's all about definitions. My definitions are here (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/define.html). Imagine that you cannot learn any new concept from this moment forward. Would it make you not-intelligent?
In that case, would intelligence LEAD to self awareness?Not necessarily.

Originally posted by G71
Would it make you not-intelligent?

I would say yes by my pre-existing notions. Not by your defintions though. It's difficult to say. I'm not entirely sure that "thinking" per your definition is possible if you cannot conceptualize, again depending on defs in the sense that "new ways" can be arrived upon randomly.

EDIT: for instance I think that for something to be "self aware" it has to be able to alter its fundamental goals (not sustenance, but purpose) based on the results of its thinking and have the capacity to do so ad infinitum. hmm. something like that anyway.

wesmorris: I think there are many levels of self-awareness and the minimum requirement is the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. Many computer viruses have this ability. Can you give me an example of the fundamental goal change? I do not think we will go against our fundamental goals even if we have full control of our DNA and about our mind. We may be hitting the definition wall again. BTW the good thing about our definitions is that they do not always need to be prefect or generally accepted. They just need to be helpful in terms of moving us (hopefully forward). The only world where I see perfect and general definitions is the “world” of math. It's interesting that we are so successful tying it with the other “worlds”. Maybe the “other worlds” are also so perfect (just a bit harder to read).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by G71
[B]wesmorris: I think there are many levels of self-awareness and the minimum requirement is the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. Many computer viruses have this ability. Can you give me an example of the fundamental goal change?

I was thinking of like matters of taste, whimsy or reassessment and re-focus. Like a college student changing majors for whatever reason. Maybe like a guy deciding that this type of ice cream sucks. Stuff like that. Bad examples. Try more later.

I'll edit this and add more in a bit:

Originally posted by G71
one_raven: Most of the current AI development has something to do with games. Creatures in many games have 100% hard coded behavior rules and still can act very intelligently in their environments. They are INDEPENDENT extensions of author's intelligence = they are intelligent.
Yes, they can have the appearance of intelligence, however, that does not make them intelligent.
If they can not make decisions based on rationale, reason and knowldge gained from past "experience" they are not intelligent.
If they are not autonomous in their decision making process and do not have the ability to not only acquire new information and incorporate it into their reasoning but also the ability to change they way they think entirely, then they are far from independent.
They are no more independent than a pocket calculator.
Would you consider a pocket calculator intelligent?
It IS an extension of the inventor's intelligence.
The illusion of intelligence, is not intelligence.


Originally posted by G71
But as wesmorris said, it's all about definitions. My definitions are here (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/define.html).


From the page you linked to:
Intelligence
Ability to achieve a goal.
[Jiri Jelinek 2000]
That is FAR too broad.
Under this definition, any batch file is intelligent.
The pocket calculator from above is intelligent.
Hell, even my washing machine could be considered intelligent under those loose constraints.



Originally posted by G71
Imagine that you cannot learn any new concept from this moment forward. Would it make you not-intelligent?Not necessarily.
Yes.
That would absolutely mean that I am no longer intelligent.

Wes,
Please describe (at least a broad guideline) what you consider self-awareness.

As general, debatable and almost ethereal as the meaning of that word is to different people, we need at least some kind of baseline definition to work from.

What would be implied by your definition?
Consciousness?
Autonomy?
Understanding of mortality?
Introspection?
Self assessment?
Survival instinct?
Differentiation of one's self from others, understanding the concept of individuality, individual goals and freedom to act upon accessing those goals (or choose not to)?
Freedom of choice at all?
Etc...

One word seems to imply everything to me but I dunno... it's vague too: Comprehension.

Often I think of it as "realization that one is separate from their environment". I believe that implies the ability to comprehend and all the implications thereof. I think the list of stuff you were saying falls out of that for the most part but then you'll ask what do you mean by "comprehension" and I feel circular because I mean "subjective awareness". It's maddening. Heh.

Hmm.. awareness of self. That doesn't explain it well enough eh? Hmm.. how to do it? I think therefore I am? I'll try to get back to this in a bit.

wes,

So, if I am getting this right, your question boils down to:

"Is the intelligence of an entity dependant upon the entity being cognizant of the fact that it is an individual that is separate from but included in observing its environment and surroundings?"

Or is it more than that?

Originally posted by one_raven
wes,

So, if I am getting this right, your question boils down to:

"Is the intelligence of an entity dependant upon the entity being cognizant of the fact that it is an individual that is separate from but included in observing its environment and surroundings?"

Or is it more than that?

Almost exactly. Well done. My slight rewording:

"Can an entity be intelligent if it is not cognizant of the fact that is an individual that is separate from but included in observing its environment?"

Some of my conclusions: The simplest level of intelligence requires the ability to evaluate 2 options and pick the preferred one. No need for the ability to learn continuously. It learned something when it was built and it may learn something when it's upgraded. Do you learn the important stuff all the time? I don't think so. I see learning as something separate from thinking and the thinking = intelligent activity. So yes, we are surrounded by AI systems. The simplest level of self-awareness requires the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. Your criteria may be different - that's OK.. I personally do not think it's THAT important.. The important thing is how helpful the machines are when trying to solve our problems. And I'm sure they would be a way more successful if the time spent on defining terms like intelligence and self-awareness (world wide) was spent on the actual development of machines which can solve complex theoretical problems. I think it was a mistake to pick the AI term as a name for this branch of science.

Hey Wesmorris, you better give me "credit" for giving you the idea fool. :D. I think you are right, the more specific you get with the definitions, the more irrelevant the question becomes. Specificity in definitions will necessarily reflect preconceptions. A better question would be, is intelligence, as defined here, a prerequisite for selfawareness? Or does being does your degree of intelligence affect your degree of self awareness? Intelligent humans more selfaware than others. All this of course is for those believing in multiple degrees of selfawareness.

Intelligence and consciousness are a bit difficult to define in a way agreeable to all. I prefer the term consciousness to self awareness, which seems to be only one aspect of consciousness.

Ignoring definitions, Deep Blue beating Gary Kasparov certainly indicates that behavior which seems intelligent can occur without consciousness. A person with no knowledge of the algorithms programmed into Deep Blue would consider the system intelligent.

Deep Blue proves that AI behavior which mimics intelligence is possible, suggesting that AI intelligence cannot be dismissed as impossible.

On the basis of the above, I would say that intelligence is possible without consciousness, but it is difficult to imagine the converse. I see no reason why it is not possible to develop an AI device with no consciousness.

An interesting related question is whether consciousness is a necessary byproduct or merely an accidental byproduct of the complex intelligence we attribute to humans. Could intelligence evolve without consciousness? Off hand, I do not see any reason why the two must occur together.

When I compare Deep Blue to a human playing chess, I visualize the human having thots like the following.I am playing chess and I expect to win (or lose). I wish I were doing something else or I am enjoying this game. Focus! If you let your mind stray too much, you will lose to this dope. I wonder how many are rooting for me and how many for my opponent.To me, the human mind has two distinct components. One component (the intelligent part) does the thinking, planning, and directs the necessary motor activities to accomplish some task. The other component sets goals and seems to be watching the worker doing the job. I think of my life as analogous to a movie. One component is the main character in the movie, while the other is directing and watching the movie.

I think the above suggests something about my concept of intelligence and consciousness without attempting a formal definition of either term.

BTW: I do not think that true AI is possible using current computer architecture. I do not think that more memory and more CPU power will do the job using anything like current systems, even ones with a lot of parallel processors.

I suppose it all depends critically on how you define each term.

Yep, seems to be just semantics, so it's hard to say yes or no. So, are computers intelligent? Depends on what you mean by intelligence. They can process information fast, do math equations near instantaneously, and remember everything. I think that qualifies as intelligence, even if they aren't sentient and creative.

/Intelligence and consciousness are a bit difficult to define in a way agreeable to all.

Boy that's the stuff there.

/I prefer the term consciousness to self awareness, which seems to be only one aspect of consciousness.

Indeed, but it's valid to specify one or the other.

/Ignoring definitions, Deep Blue beating Gary Kasparov certainly indicates that behavior which seems intelligent can occur without consciousness. A person with no knowledge of the algorithms programmed into Deep Blue would consider the system intelligent.

Certainly.

/Deep Blue proves that AI behavior which mimics intelligence is possible, suggesting that AI intelligence cannot be dismissed as impossible.

Certainly.

/On the basis of the above, I would say that intelligence is possible without consciousness, but it is difficult to imagine the converse.

I see you've never met my mom's new husband. ;)

/I see no reason why it is not possible to develop an AI device with no consciousness.

Certainly you must be correct, depending on your defnition of intelligence.

/An interesting related question is whether consciousness is a necessary byproduct or merely an accidental byproduct of the complex intelligence we attribute to humans. Could intelligence evolve without consciousness? Off hand, I do not see any reason why the two must occur together.

Again it depends on your def of course but I saw a doohickie on the science channel this one time regarding neandrothols. The hypothesis was I believe just as you said, that the ability to focus and perform tasks was as far as neandrothol ever got. They were imagining neandrothol as a "mind full of minds" if you will, each of the inner minds only able to manage certain tasks. One that let them focus intently on sharpening the edge of a stone for ten hours, one that wanted to mate, one for hunting, etc. So yeah good point there. I'm not sure if such a being would be "self aware" but I'd think them definately conscious.

/When I compare Deep Blue to a human playing chess, I visualize the human having thots like the following./I am playing chess and I expect to win (or lose). I wish I were doing something else or I am enjoying this game. Focus! If you let your mind stray too much, you will lose to this dope. I wonder how many are rooting for me and how many for my opponent.
/To me, the human mind has two distinct components. One component (the intelligent part) does the thinking, planning, and directs the necessary motor activities to accomplish some task. The other component sets goals and seems to be watching the worker doing the job. I think of my life as analogous to a movie. One component is the main character in the movie, while the other is directing and watching the movie.

The part that directs and watches may be the one that ties it all together and moves from conscious to "self-aware"?

/I think the above suggests something about my concept of intelligence and consciousness without attempting a formal definition of either term.

Hmmm.. so "self awareness" now seems to me like a "tying together of multiple processing sections" or kind of "hive mind" all within the same mind. So first, intelligence. Hmm. Does intelligence have to be adaptive? What does that mean? I mean, I'm not sure "deep blue" is intelligent, because it cannot alter its code.

/BTW: I do not think that true AI is possible using current computer architecture. I do not think that more memory and more CPU power will do the job using anything like current systems, even ones with a lot of parallel processors.

Totally agreed. Seems to me that some sort of genetic/evolutionary architechure will have to be developed.

There was an article in popular science, I don't remeber the issue but it was from this year, that talked about something called a genetic algorithm. What they did was give the program a task, defined within certain laws, and then set it out to accomplish the task the most efficient way it came up with, without giving it any preconcieved possibilities. The algorithm went through several dozen possibilities, passing the best parts of the previous experiment on to the next, until it found the most efficient outcome possible. Convievably, given enough time, and a faster processing unit, this type of algorithm could find some sort of self awareness and creativity, if it were instructed to do so. I think that once it accomplished it's objective, it would become independant of any command given to it.

Dino


"An interesting related question is whether consciousness is a necessary byproduct or merely an accidental byproduct of the complex intelligence we attribute to humans.
Yes, but don't forget that it may be neither of these.



Originally posted by BetweenThePoints
What they did was give the program a task, defined within certain laws, and then set it out to accomplish the task the most efficient way it came up with, without giving it any preconcieved possibilities. The algorithm went through several dozen possibilities, passing the best parts of the previous experiment on to the next, until it found the most efficient outcome possible. Convievably, given enough time, and a faster processing unit, this type of algorithm could find some sort of self awareness and creativity, if it were instructed to do so.
What does 'if it were instructed to do so' mean?

Canute,


What does 'if it were instructed to do so' mean?Isn’t this answered as “to take more time using faster processors”.

BetweenThePoints: Do you have any idea of the basic concepts underlying the program you described? It might merely be programed to mimic problem solving capabilities.

When you see Deep Blue or other high level chess playing programs in action, you might believe that there is intelligent behavior directing the machine play. When you understand how the program works, you realize that it is a very simple minded number cruncher and not even close to AI.

BTW: Perhaps the human mind would not seem to be intelligent if we understood how it worked. At least I am sure that it does not play chess the same way that Deep Blue does.

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,

Isn’t this answered as “to take more time using faster processors”.
I don't think it's much good arguing that computers can become self-aware because we will instruct them in how to do it. We haven't got a clue ourselves. 'Take more time and use faster processors' to do what exactly?

Canute,


I don't think it's much good arguing that computers can become self-aware because we will instruct them in how to do it. We haven't got a clue ourselves. 'Take more time and use faster processors' to do what exactly?You are missing the point by a wide margin. It is not that we instruct computers how to do something we do not understand ourselves but we create a construct that allows computers to do it themselves.

One of the most promising approaches in AI is the development of a learning seed. Once launched the computer then learns for itself, much like a new born baby will grow and learn. In human children self-awareness usually begins between 1 and 2 years of age. At that time the neural and synaptic connectivity has reached an appropriate level of complexity that allows self-awareness to emerge.

Quite some years ago (early 1990s) I watched an AI program develop the rules for solving square roots. The technique was entirely based on forming neural networks. The training was based on some simple text based mathematical equations that were provided as input. The program was allowed many hours to learn and then was given new equations with no answers and was asked to solve the problems. What I found ‘spooky’ at that time was when the designer said that he didn’t know how the program had achieved its result.

One of the most promising approaches in AI is the development of a learning seed. Once launched the computer then learns for itself, much like a new born baby will grow and learn. In human children self-awareness usually begins between 1 and 2 years of age. At that time the neural and synaptic connectivity has reached an appropriate level of complexity that allows self-awareness to emerge.
It's not that simple.

Why not?

The baby learns through multiple sensory inputs + other consciousnesses and the "neural net" that is the brain already has certain despositions that we as of yet do not know how to manucftacure.

The idea of a learning seed is to get the process to be able to respond to different varaints of that input. The most important thing however is that the input and variable space of responses are known ahead of time. The cannot be said for self awareness. I think if we are going to achieve AI, we must not try to emulate the brain but what makes the brain able to do what it does.

Have you come across Rodney Cotterill's current work? He is trying to explore consciousness by means of a computational model of an infant brain, dubbed 'Cyberchild - a simulation test-bed for consciousness studies'. A recent paper describes progress.

There isn't any. The team haven't even been able to define what they're trying to create.

He writes "The present investigator feels that working with such a simulation is a salutory experience. There is naturally the implicit assumption that consciousness requires no mystical ingredient, beyond what is comprised in the simulated circuit. But it takes a lot of faith in the reductionist canon to believe that consciousness will one day emerge from the blinking lights..."

I'll say it does. He goes on:

"Above all, direct interaction with such a simulation leads one to appreciate the profundity of Searle's speculations about the importance of meaning."

In other words, there's a problem replying to Searle's arguments.

Stan Franklin (Uni of Memphis) is working on IDA, a software agent he describes as conscious in a sense. He also admits the impossibility of working on something that can't be defined scientifically. Thus he uses 'consciousness' to mean 'functionally conscious', in other words no mention of phenomenal consciousness, self-consciousness etc., just observed behaviour. This is the approach of all researchers in his field. Functional consciousness (whatever that might mean) is what they are researching and trying to create. Nobody knows how to work on consciousness proper.

As Franklin points out, IDA is a piece of running software, and is thus immaterial. In this case what is there to be conscious? He also writes:

"Subjective consciousness seems to be such an inherently first-person phenomena as to be impervious to any form of proof. Following Chalmers I'm beginning to view phenomenal consiousness as a fundamental process of nature comaparable to mass or energy... Deducing structure from behaviour is notoriously difficult... in software agents such deductions are theroretically impossible..."

A good article is Stephen Harnards 'Can A Machine be Conscious? How?' - it can probably be found at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/people.html

He concludes not.

There will be no progress in AI or a conscious computer-like device until a totally new computer architecture is invented or developed from something currently in some remote laboratory.

More memory and a faster CPU using current archetecture will not do the job, even with a huge connected array of processors.

The human brain is fundamentally different from a modern computer, and that difference (whatever it is) is likely to be what makes the brain so remarkable.

If you show a human a photo of somebody, he can almost instantly tell that he/she never saw that person, often coming to this conclusion in less time than it takes to recognize the face of somebosy not known well. A computer will invariable take longer to reach the negative conclusion. This suggests soimething, doesn't it?

A human does not have anything remotely resembling a meory divorced from processing functions, and it certainly does not use anything similar to an indexed data base. Human memory is like having a computer rewire its circuitry to add data.

The human mind stores data about a flower in poroabbly a dozen different places: Shape/outline in one place; Color in another; Name elsewhere; Motor nerve data for saying the name in an other place. The human mind seems to be like a complex network of hyperlinks, with processing and data germixed.

Originally posted by Canute
There isn't any. The team haven't even been able to define what they're trying to create.

You see this is what I've been thinking about for a long time and I feel that I'm dancing around it.

The problem is that an algorithm has no depth. It is not a volume, it's two dimensional and cannot see itself. Certainly you can teach it to peform tasks, but it cannot contemplate why it is performing these tasks..

That is why I insist on "the abstract" as the inner dimension where meaning lies... and consciousness itself is the phenomenon that acts as a gateway to that dimension.

Dinosaur,


There will be no progress in AI or a conscious computer-like device until a totally new computer architecture is invented or developed from something currently in some remote laboratory.Why? I tend to disagree.


More memory and a faster CPU using current architecture will not do the job, even with a huge connected array of processors.Why not? But I agree it is unlikely if we emulate a brain using SMP (Symmetrical Multi Processor) architectures, memory will be a bottleneck. However, infinitely scalable MMP (Massively Parallel Processor) architectures are essentially identical to the brain. Instead of thinking of the brain as a computer think of each neuron as a processor in its own right with its own local memory. Each of these computers then links to others via a set of SANs (System Area Networks). All these processors are free to operate asynchronously. This is the brain. MMP shared nothing systems do the same thing.


The human brain is fundamentally different from a modern computer, and that difference (whatever it is) is likely to be what makes the brain so remarkable.I hope I have now corrected that incorrect impression.


If you show a human a photo of somebody, he can almost instantly tell that he/she never saw that person, often coming to this conclusion in less time than it takes to recognize the face of somebosy not known well. A computer will invariable take longer to reach the negative conclusion. This suggests soimething, doesn't it?Your comparison fails because we have yet to build a computer system with equivalent power to the human brain. I put the ratio of somewhere like 10,000 to 1. Try the test again when we have an MPP with the power of 10,000 current day super computers. But note you are talking about visual recognition and there has been substantial progress on this – see Hans Moravec’s home page where he describes the latest commercial enterprise using 3D visual recognition – http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/


A human does not have anything remotely resembling a meory divorced from processing functions, and it certainly does not use anything similar to an indexed data base. Human memory is like having a computer rewire its circuitry to add data.This is an MPP architecture and has been well understood since the 1970’s.


The human mind stores data about a flower in poroabbly a dozen different places: Shape/outline in one place; Color in another; Name elsewhere; Motor nerve data for saying the name in an other place. The human mind seems to be like a complex network of hyperlinks, with processing and data germixed.Just like an MPP machine.

doyoubelieveinmagic
tadadadadaaaaa

:D

Chris: It seems to me that you are giving so called MPP architecture more credit that it deserves.

I remember what we called array processors which were used by the Spook Shops for breaking encrypted messages and for solving partial differential equations via relaxation iterations. That technology was nothing like a human brain. It was merely hundreds or thousands of CPU’s using common memory which was partitioned so that many processors could access the memory simultaneously most of the time. A CPU would only have to wait on memory if another CPU was accessing the same bank. The OS and programming capabilities of those systems were primitive compared to that required for an AI system.

Could you provide more details of the MPP architecture you mentioned? Might you remember the type of applications for those systems from the seventies?

BTW: Sorry for all the typo's in my previous post. I was in a hurry and did not have time to proof read it.

Dinosaur,

MPP systems are currently in widespread use as major processing systems. AOL runs its entire email system on one. The NASDAQ stock exchange is a massive MPP system. All significant stock exchanges in the world run on MPP systems. 90% of bank ATM systems worldwide are processed via MPP systems.

HP NonStop Servers are currently the world leader in linear scalable fault tolerant MPP systems. Systems can be built from 2 to 4080 processors where each processor has its own main memory and communicates with others via a SAN (Servernet). These systems form the backbone to many major business enterprises throughout the world.

http://h71033.www7.hp.com/object/SSERIESPD.html

Hope this helps a little.

Chris: As I expected, the MPP systems you mention are not even close to the architecture of a human brain.
Systems can be built from 2 to 4080 processors where each processor has its own main memory and communicates with others via a SAN (Servernet).What you are describing is no more than a big LAN-like system. The array processors used by NSA for code cracking, and for various relaxation calculations (EG: Weather forecasting and other partial differential equation processing) are closer to the architecture of the human brain, but fall short of the architecture required for AI.

You missed the point of the example I gave of recognizing a human face. Computer algorithms take longer to respond with a not known response than the time required for a recognizable hit. This is because the computer algorithms require checking every index entry or (worst case) every item to decide that a pattern is unknown. The human brain often replies faster with a not known response than for a pattern not seen for a long time.

When I go to a college or high school reunion, I almost immediately catalogue the ones I never saw before (they graduated before or after I attended), but I often take several seconds to recognize the more obscure members of my own class. Similarly, when I see an old movie on TV, I usually can immediately identify some actors as those I never saw, but often take more time to decide that I once saw some actor with a minor part who never made it in a significant role. All the computer algorithms of which I am aware take longer to respond when the pattern is unknown. This definitely suggests a fundamentally different algorithm for human versus computer pattern recognition.

Again, I point out that the human brain does not have data memory distinct from processing functions, while all current mainstream computers do have memory data, file (or database) information), and processing (program) data as distinct entities. The human mind does the equivalent of rewiring the hardware to store new data, while the computer merely adds data to a file or a section of memory used for data storage. Data and programs are germixed in the human brain in a fashion fundamentally different from that of current computer architecture. There are some primitive attempts at neural network architecture which might develop into a suitable AI architecture, but there is nothing that remotely functions the way a human brain does.

BTW: I expect true AI to be developed someday: In 10-20 years if some genius comes up with a revolutionary idea; In 50-200 years if it is done due to slogging along by people who are just very intelligent and focused.

At present, we do not have a clear understanding of what functions are hard wired into the human brain. It has only been about 30-40 years since we discovered the basic nature of the mechanism built into bird brains for seasonal navigation. Experiments in planetariums have shown that many migrating birds have hard wired functions for noticing the point around which the stars seem to rotate (Polaris for several thousand years).

Until we have a far better understanding of the human brain, we are unlikely to build an AI device. In any event, I do not expect it to have an architecture similar to any current computer system. More memory and an array of faster CPU’s is not going to do the job. A single blazingly fast CPU will not even come close. At present neural network architectures looks like the best bet, but the best of these are primitive.

Dinosaur,


As I expected, the MPP systems you mention are not even close to the architecture of a human brain.Neurons operate independently and in parallel connected to each other via a relatively low speed communications network – synaptic connections are not electrical. The analogy with the HP MPP systems is essentially identical, but needs another 15 years to catch up with processor speed.

Partial image recognition is also understood, but again they need the knowledge base, and the equivalent processing power of the human brain. I don’t see that you have a valid point. Video image transmissions now focus on only sending changed frames instead of full images. And fuzzy logic and probability matching also enhance computer processing techniques to come closer to the way the brain operates.

But any comparison you make with current computers simply cannot compare with the massive parallel processing power of the brain – it is important to keep that power ratio in perspective.

As for memory storage, I agree, the brain uses a different approach. The issue then becomes do we want to copy exactly how the brain operates or be able to accurately emulate brain function? The primary technique required in either approach must be massive parallelism. Storage techniques can differ if the same end result is the same.

I think the architecture of the brain is memory based. There was a PHD student at my undergraduate school who I believe was working on an architecture centered around memory. I will see if I can get a link...


EDIT. Link to the research group he belongs: http://www.capsl.udel.edu