Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
We think dogs are smart because we can teach them to perform tricks to satisfy our whims. Cats think the same thing about people.
Also, true story: I recently witnessed a dog, who freaks out at everything that walks past her house, being let out the front door for a quick run around the neighborhood. She immediately turned left and ran a couple houses away to relieve herself. Not thirty feet away in the other direction there was a thoroughly terrified rabbit that was obviously very glad that the dog went the other way. Now, that's not why I'm writing about this event. No, it's because when the dog came _back_, she _still_ failed to notice the rabbit, and ran straight back to the front door. Dogs are dumb.
This brings a whole new way of looking at Schrödinger's cat paradox. If we replicate the cat's brain and way of thinking, is it a cat or not? What dictates life and what dictates death?
@Nathan Obbards: I think it probably just means you couldn't use cybercat in the experiment; either that or instead of using acid or gunpowder, the system would have to cut power to cybercat or otherwise disable it to generate multiple states.
@Nathan Obbards: I don't think you understands Schrödinger's cat paradox. It has to do with quantum mechanics. If I recall correctly, it has to do with some physicists believing that energy/matter exists in two states simultaneously, as a wave and a particle, until it is observed at which point it becomes one or the other. The paradox for Schrödinger is that if you apply this system to a cat in a box with 50% chance of being alive and 50% chance of being dead then the cat is both alive and dead until you look in the box at which point it is one or the other. The cat is just a means, it could as easily be a light bulb or anything with multiple states like water.
@Nathan Obbards: I think it would simplify the paradox if the cat-in-a-box were Virtual in nature... If you wanted to ensure the state of the cat-in-a-box you'd simply unplug the cord and wait a couple seconds. It would be dead every time.
@Nathan Obbards: Edit: You bring up a very good question, but I still think the virtual cat would not be the same one that lost power.
Chances are a cat would come back alive if the system could handle a hard powerdown like that, but it would not be the same virtual cat that was there before because this new cat would have, at the very least, experienced a unique bootup that it had not experienced before, so arguably it is a different virtual cat that exists. Beyond that, chances are the cat lost everything it had in ram at the time of the power loss unless it was using that new-fangled ram that retains its last state. Of course if the developers include that technology they may have foiled my theory here.
They'll know it's working properly when the interface loses responsiveness, starts ignoring them, yawns hugely at something invisible in the corner, and wanders away.
If being unfriendly were any kind of mimickry of intelligence, Chihuahuas should look like friggin' geniuses, but they're dumber than a sack of chalupas.
No doubt God is not going to be happy with mankind coming closer and closer to mimicing animal brains.
Oh dear. I guess I'll be sending this slices of bread, just like I did the LHC. Gabriel, make it so.
So even if you can successfully simulate the physical elements of the brain, does that mean that you can expect it to behave the same as a real brain? Do we even know enough about how the brain works to build a complete simulation? Does such a simulation imply that we have created a computer that can think on its own?
@brianhatch: If you read the original article:
'The simulation that Modha will unveil today is just a starting point. It lacks the neural patterning that develops as real brains mature. Neuroscientists believe that this complexity can only evolve through "embodied learning"—stumbling around in a physical body, in which every action has instant consequences that are experienced through senses such as touch and sight.'
So the answers to your questions are deferred until they figure out embodied learning. The article is a little vague on whether their brain can simulate this neural rewiring.
The 750MB of ACGT... DNA codes stored in a paltry 25,000 genes (that are 90% in common with lesser creatures) obviously cannot specify the 100 trillion connections in our neurons. Yet that music CD's worth of instructions reliably develops a talking thinking human with innate behaviors after 5 years of waddling around in the real world. The next frontier is figuring out how that takes place.
All that space, energy and processing power, for what? So the computer can simulate sleep 22 hours out of the day. I can simulate a cat just fine by powering down my netbook and leaving it a sunny windowsill all day, plus my way is a heck of a lot cheaper.
I really suspect they did a Cat's brain as if they did a Dog's it would be difficult to tell if it was working, just stuck in a cycle of "tell me what to do, tell me what to do" permanently. At least the Cat's would have some variation even if some of the time it would be going "f*ck off, I'm sleeping"
So what this has proven is that there is enough computing power to replicate the number of brain neurons and synapses of a cat. What else can it do? I'm assuming it doesn't have the ability to learn or anything? I guess what I'm asking is, what have they accomplished with this. It doesn't sound like they've created an autonomous entity that can learn etc. All they've done is prove that they have a lot of computing power.
11/19/09
Also, true story: I recently witnessed a dog, who freaks out at everything that walks past her house, being let out the front door for a quick run around the neighborhood. She immediately turned left and ran a couple houses away to relieve herself. Not thirty feet away in the other direction there was a thoroughly terrified rabbit that was obviously very glad that the dog went the other way. Now, that's not why I'm writing about this event. No, it's because when the dog came _back_, she _still_ failed to notice the rabbit, and ran straight back to the front door. Dogs are dumb.
11/18/09
I can has portable vershun?
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
Chances are a cat would come back alive if the system could handle a hard powerdown like that, but it would not be the same virtual cat that was there before because this new cat would have, at the very least, experienced a unique bootup that it had not experienced before, so arguably it is a different virtual cat that exists. Beyond that, chances are the cat lost everything it had in ram at the time of the power loss unless it was using that new-fangled ram that retains its last state. Of course if the developers include that technology they may have foiled my theory here.
11/18/09
11/18/09
"This is not just possible, it's inevitable,"
So, does Modha look like this?
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"
KTHXBYE
11/18/09
No doubt God is not going to be happy with mankind coming closer and closer to mimicing animal brains.
Oh dear. I guess I'll be sending this slices of bread, just like I did the LHC. Gabriel, make it so.
Mmmmm verry good sir
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
'The simulation that Modha will unveil today is just a starting point. It lacks the neural patterning that develops as real brains mature. Neuroscientists believe that this complexity can only evolve through "embodied learning"—stumbling around in a physical body, in which every action has instant consequences that are experienced through senses such as touch and sight.'
So the answers to your questions are deferred until they figure out embodied learning. The article is a little vague on whether their brain can simulate this neural rewiring.
The 750MB of ACGT... DNA codes stored in a paltry 25,000 genes (that are 90% in common with lesser creatures) obviously cannot specify the 100 trillion connections in our neurons. Yet that music CD's worth of instructions reliably develops a talking thinking human with innate behaviors after 5 years of waddling around in the real world. The next frontier is figuring out how that takes place.
11/18/09
11/18/09
[gizmodo.com]
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
We're in ur mainframe, crunchin ur numberz
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
@Ishbar: I can has flowding maff coprosesser? KTHXBAI
11/18/09
@RayKinStL: I'm bettur then a Mac Quadra an i'm not evun tryin
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
[www.lisashea.com]
11/18/09
Ta!
11/18/09
11/19/09