On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:07:57PM -0500, Brad Wyble wrote: > You guys are throwing around orders of magnitude like ping pong balls > based on very little practical evidence. Sometimes no estimate is less > misleading than one that is arbitrary.
What makes you think it's arbitrary? Minimal switching time e.g. for a MRAM-based logic cell or a NEMS buckling bucky tube element, or a ballistic bucky transistor are not exactly guesswork. Recent literature is full of pretty solid data. Do you think that equivalents of ~ms processes in biological tissue information processing can't occur within ~ns? ~ps gate delays are achievable with current electronics. I don't see why running the equivalent of a piece of neuroanatomy should not accrue more than 1 k parallel gate delays. It's a conservative guess, actually. (Which is why I'm saying 10^6, and not 10^9). > >No. The simulation handles virtual substrate, and that's O(1) if you match > >organism size with volume of dedicated hardware, assuming local signalling > >(which is ~ms constrained in biology, and ~ps..~fs constrained > >relativistically). > > > I was referring to the complexity of the organism's mind. Surely you are > not going to tell me that as the evolving brains increase in complexity, > there is no effect on the simulation speed? Yes. I'm going to tell you that a spike propagating doesn't care (much) about whether it's running in a mouse or a human. Processing takes longer in human primates than in rodents, but not dramatically so. The reason is more hops, and capability to process far more complex stimuli with a minimally modified substrate. The processing unit sees signals passing along virtual wires, or packets passing through nodes. The higher organization levels are transparent, what matters is processing volume/numbers of nodes, and whether your average (virtual) connectivity at the processing element level can handle the higher connectivity in a human vs. rodent cortex. It is not obvious that a mouse brain voxel is doing significantly less work than a human brain voxel, as far as operation complexity is concerned. > But in order for interesting things to happen, organisms have to be able > to interact with one another for quite some time before the grim reaper > does his grim business. Do you think that a 1 MJahr/Jahr simulation rate can't address that? > I'm confused, all you want are Ants? > Or did you mean AGI in ant-bodies? Social insects are a good model, actually. Yes, all I want is a framework flexible and efficient enough to produce social insect level on intelligence on hardware of the next decades. If you can come that far, the rest is relatively trivial, especially if you have continous accretion of data from wet and computational neuroscience. > The idea of bootstrapping intelligence is interesting, but far from > proven. That too will require much engineering. The idea is not exactly new, and fully validated since you can read this sentence. It is an engineering problem, not projections of fundamental science milestones. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp1LqzmCA0dU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
