> From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > By "equivalent computation" I mean one whose behavior is > > > indistinguishable > > > from the brain, not an approximation. I don't believe that an exact > > > simulation requires copying the implementation down to the neuron > level, > > > much > > > less the molecular level. > > > > > > > So how would you approach constructing such a model? I suppose a > superset > > intelligence structure could analyze properties and behaviors of a > brain and > > simulate it within itself. If it absorbed enough data it could > reconstruct > > and eventually come up with something close. > > Well, nobody has solved the AI problem, much less the uploading problem. > Consider the problem in stages: > > 1. The Turing test. > > 2. The "personalized" Turing test. The machine pretends to be you and > the > judges are people who know you well. > > 3. The "planned, personalized" Turing test. You are allowed to > communicate > with judges in advance, for example, to agree on a password. > > 4. The "embodied, planned, personalized" Turing test. Communication is > not > restricted to text. The machine is planted in the skull of your clone. > Your > friends and relatives have to decide who has the carbon-based brain. > > Level 4 should not require simulating every neuron and synapse. Without > the > constraints of slow, noisy neurons, we could use other algorithms. For > example, low level visual processing such as edge and line detection > would not > need to be implemented as a 2-D array of identical filters. It could be > implemented serially by scanning the retinal image with a window filter. > Fine > motor control would not need to be implemented by combining thousands of > pulsing motor neurons to get a smooth average signal. The signal could > be > computed numerically. The brain has about 10^15 synapses, so a > straightforward simulation at the neural level would require 10^15 bits > of > memory. But cognitive tests suggest humans have only about 10^9 bits of > long > term memory, suggesting that more compressed representation is possible. > > In any case, level 1 should be sufficient to argue convincingly that > either > consciousness can exist in machines, or that it doesn't in humans.
These tests still though are very subjective, nothing exact. Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. John ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
