How long will it take for computers to simulate the human brain?

[Matteo Martini]

Well, flying cars and rocket belts are possible. We have demonstrated those. Sentient AI, no.

So why don't we all have flying cars and rocket belts? It is a large variety of reasons, many sociological. Similar to video telephony. The technology isn't the stumbling block as much as the social acceptance.

Basically, there are a lot of car accidents (already) with cars on the ground.

This is certainly an interesting development path to sentient AI:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6573-brain-cells-in-a-dish-fly-fighter-plane.html

To summarize, they grew some rat brain cells in a petri dish, somehow linked it to a computer, and taught the cells how to fly a simulated airplane. It's a layman's article, unfortunately, and lacks serious detail.

You may be interested to read here:
Computers Simulate 50 Percent of a Mouse Brain
http://www.livescience.com/technology/070413_mouse_brain.html

 

[Olowkow]

Simulating a human brain is not the problem, but running it on 100 watts burning sugar is the challenge.

 

[Elizabeth I]

In the case of some human brains, it happened around 1960.

In the case of some human brains, an abacus would be an improved replacement.

Well, flying cars and rocket belts are possible. We have demonstrated those. Sentient AI, no.

So why don't we all have flying cars and rocket belts? It is a large variety of reasons, many sociological. Similar to video telephony. The technology isn't the stumbling block as much as the social acceptance.

With AI I think there is a fundamental, different problem. We understand the physics behind other technological inventions. Not so much trying to emulate the physics of biology.

I see it as similar to predicting rockets in 2-3 decades at the time of Newton. And we don't even have the physics down yet regarding sentience.

Interesting stuff though.

Well, I am thoroughly ticked off! I was promised flying cars, self-steering cars, and two-way wrist TVs by the year 2000.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, but will the emulator be conscious or a zombie? That is the question philosophers are dying to know.

~~ Paul

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, but will the emulator be conscious or a zombie? That is the question philosophers are dying to know.

~~ Paul

That goes down to the question: "what is consciousness?"
How can you prove that a zombie is (not) conscious?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Well, if Microsoft creates the software to run this AI then we will need 100 million trillion transistors to get the job done.

I don't think the number of processes is the missing component...it is the soul. For lack of evidence to prove there is a soul I will stick with the lack of self-awareness, reasoning, learning, rationalization & emotion as the missing components or maybe all that is missing is opposable thumbs? Please watch I-Robot for further explanation.

Why does (*) appear in your post? Are you using a translator or something?

Yes, but will the emulator be conscious or a zombie? That is the question philosophers are dying to know.

Zombie. Emulate = imitate. That’s not intelligence.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, if Microsoft creates the software to run this AI then we will need 100 million trillion transistors to get the job done.

I don't think the number of processes is the missing component...it is the soul. For lack of evidence to prove there is a soul I will stick with the lack of self-awareness, reasoning, learning, rationalization & emotion as the missing components or maybe all that is missing is opposable thumbs? Please watch I-Robot for further explanation.

Why does (*) appear in your post? Are you using a translator or something?

Zombie. Emulate = imitate. That’s not intelligence.

But that is kind of the point. If we could program it to emulate all of these things, emotions, learning, etc. how could we tell whether or not it has consciousness?

I mean, we could tell that it reacts as though it does, but since we cannot measure consciousness, could we really know?

 

[rocketdodger]

Furthermore, there is no way to "only emulate" full self awareness -- as soon as it happens, it happens. So any machine that emulated it would have it and therefore be conscious by the only definition that most humans care about.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Well, if Microsoft creates the software to run this AI then we will need 100 million trillion transistors to get the job done.

I don't think the number of processes is the missing component...it is the soul. For lack of evidence to prove there is a soul I will stick with the lack of self-awareness, reasoning, learning, rationalization & emotion as the missing components or maybe all that is missing is opposable thumbs? Please watch I-Robot for further explanation.

Why does (*) appear in your post? Are you using a translator or something?

Zombie. Emulate = imitate. That’s not intelligence.

Furthermore, there is no way to "only emulate" full self awareness -- as soon as it happens, it happens. So any machine that emulated it would have it and therefore be conscious by the only definition that most humans care about.

How can you practically prove if a computer has a "soul"/"selfawareness" or not?
The(*) is a note I have made

 

[Wavicle]

How can you practically prove if a computer has a "soul"/"selfawareness" or not?

The same way you prove if you have a "soul" or "selfawareness" or not.

 

[Angus McPresley]

How can you practically prove if a computer has a "soul"/"selfawareness" or not?

How can you practically prove that a human has a soul or self-awareness?

I'm a skeptic about the possibility of AI being accomplished in our lifetimes. I was actually halfway towards a Masters degree in AI when I came to this conclusion. What's disheartening is how many articles I've come across (including one in Scientific American recently) that seem to imply that when we can make a computer with as much memory and/or processing power as the human brain, then AI will soon follow. Wrong wrong wrong.

Not saying it will NEVER happen, but right now, we are climbing trees, trying to reach the moon...

 

[Matteo Martini]

How can you practically prove that a human has a soul or self-awareness?

The same way you prove if you have a "soul" or "selfawareness" or not.

I have never claimed it is possible to prove that a human being has self-awareness.
I am not even sure the word awareness has a definite meaning

I'm a skeptic about the possibility of AI being accomplished in our lifetimes. I was actually halfway towards a Masters degree in AI when I came to this conclusion. What's disheartening is how many articles I've come across (including one in Scientific American recently) that seem to imply that when we can make a computer with as much memory and/or processing power as the human brain, then AI will soon follow. Wrong wrong wrong.

Not saying it will NEVER happen, but right now, we are climbing trees, trying to reach the moon...

I heard that sentence in the past, about Marvin Minsky and AI

 

[Matteo Martini]

Furthermore, there is no way to "only emulate" full self awareness -- as soon as it happens, it happens.

How will you understand when it has happened?

 

[Smackety]

I believe that neural networks are currently used in speech recognition software.

I do not think that horsepower is the problem anymore - (or that it ever was, the simulated brain would not have to operate in real time) - The problem is that we do not yet understand how the brain works.

 

[hamelekim]

The "easy" way to do it is a simulation. We will have enough computer power by 2030 to do this. If consciousness is truly nothing more than physical you can simulate it on a computer, given enough computing power. As we better understand the brain we will likely find other ways to create true AGI. We found other ways to fly than creating vehicles with flapping wings, this could be the same with AGI.

To those people who argue it won't happen in this century let alone the next couple. You really need to real the singularity is near by Ray Kurzweil. He isn't the only proponent of this idea but he is one of the most vocal and his arguments carry the data to back them up. Change is accelerating and things you think won't happen for 200 years will occur in a couple of decades.

 

[jmercer]

Basically, it is all made by neurons and synapses, right?
And, down the line, it is all about interactions of atoms and molecules.
The basic laws of those interactions have been found long ago.
So, where is the big conceptual obstacle, here?

That's like saying the Mona Lisa is made of linen, oils, and minerals. Down the line, it's all about interactions of molecules, no?

And that's an example of something far less complex and completely static as compared to the human brain.

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's like saying the Mona Lisa is made of linen, oils, and minerals. Down the line, it's all about interactions of molecules, no?

And that's an example of something far less complex and completely static as compared to the human brain.

Well, it does not take a lot to make a copy of that painting which is extremely similar to the original. A good 10Megapixel camera?

 

[Jekyll]

So, why the most complex supercomputer can not recognize a bottle of water from a can of beer (something that the lowest IQ man on Earth can do with no problems)?

Why do you think this is true? I can't think who to cite, but robots that could distinguish between cylinders and cones and manipulate these blocks were kicking about in the 70's.

I don't think telling bottles from cans is that hard to teach a computer.

 

[jmontecillo01]

There is something that makes us different from animals and machines. Our imagination. That, we can never simulate in machines.

ETA: from imagination stems new knowledge.

 

[Matteo Martini]

There is something that makes us different from animals and machines. Our imagination. That, we can never simulate in machines.

ETA: from imagination stems new knowledge.

Define "imagination"