Supercomputer To Replicate Human Brain

[Left Leanings]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2130124/Scientists-build-human-brain-Supercomputer-simulate-mind-exactly-help-fight-brain-diseases.html

Scientists are engaged in groundbreaking research, in an attempt to produce a supercomputer, which will replicate the human brain. This could have an enormous impact on understanding neurological disease, and perhaps lead to medical advances in their treatment and cure :)

[chronix]

....and perhaps can be a destructive innovation; man is genius in this category.

[Yazman]

Destructive? What are you claiming could be dangerous about this?

[GPDP]

In before Skynet.

[Left Leanings]

....and perhaps can be a destructive innovation; man is genius in this category.


Destructive? What are you claiming could be dangerous about this?

I think chronix is raising the issue of artificial intelligence, and where it could lead, reflected also in the other comrade's post about Skynet lol.

I don't know a great deal about AI, and the relative dangers and advantages, to be honest.

But this innovation, if it helps scientists to understand neurological diseases better, and move towards a possible cure, will be a good thing :)

[Yazman]

People are always so paranoid and horrified by the thought of a true AI, which I for one do not really entire agree with. I find it to be an exciting possibility and one could contribute immensely to society.

The main danger I think would be in ensuring that such a being was given appropriate rights, for if a true AI did exist I imagine it would be treated like property. But I am pretty optimistic about such a technology, if only for the new perspective on the world that there could finally be another lifeform that we can relate to on a species-to-species level intellectually.

But, my question is this: Why do people seem to be more apprehensive about potential synthetic life than potential extraterrestrial life? As long as a being is sapient I do not necessarily see it as being more threatening just because it's synthetic. Considering the history of first contacts on earth between human societies I am inclined to feel that it is advanced extraterrestrial life that would pose the greater threat.

Of course, this is all puffery since the technology described in the article certainly won't result in AI.

[MotherCossack]

well i never!
of all the bizarre notions.....
and it will consume enough energy to light up london... more or less....
and will require the broadest broadband conceivable.... and probably be unattainable.
but hey it will have a cockpit where captain kirk can sit and virtually utter 'beam me up scotty' to the man in 'vision 'or ... 'don't cry, your body will be along shortly. you poor sad fuck'
and who is gonna fund this monumentally extravagent, glorified simulator?????
hey i thought we were shrouded in austerity!!!!!!
clearly not!
well then... in that case and being in a democratic union [europe surely?!] i choose the improvements for schools that was cancelled... i choose money to update and improve transport infrastructure... i choose more youth clubs and buying back green spaces and sports grounds for schools.. and return of the allowance for 16+ in school and grants. for college.. if needed... i choose libraries.... theatres... arts.... home-visits and home care where needed...i choose building decent public housing. most of all i choose the introduction of a safety net to ensure that stuff like comic relief and sports relief etc etc is rendered redundent.
since we have clearly got money to throw away....
thankyou

[Yazman]

well i never!
of all the bizarre notions.....
and it will consume enough energy to light up london... more or less....
and will require the broadest broadband conceivable.... and probably be unattainable.
but hey it will have a cockpit where captain kirk can sit and virtually utter 'beam me up scotty' to the man in 'vision 'or ... 'don't cry, your body will be along shortly. you poor sad fuck'
and who is gonna fund this monumentally extravagent, glorified simulator?????
hey i thought we were shrouded in austerity!!!!!!
clearly not!
well then... in that case and being in a democratic union [europe surely?!] i choose the improvements for schools that was cancelled... i choose money to update and improve transport infrastructure... i choose more youth clubs and buying back green spaces and sports grounds for schools.. and return of the allowance for 16+ in school and grants. for college.. if needed... i choose libraries.... theatres... arts.... home-visits and home care where needed...i choose building decent public housing. most of all i choose the introduction of a safety net to ensure that stuff like comic relief and sports relief etc etc is rendered redundent.
since we have clearly got money to throw away....
thankyou

Whenever we talk about scientific advances that in the context of capitalism "cost a lot of money" there's virtually always somebody who comes up doing their damndest to make a dichotomy between scientific advancement and social benefits, as if they are somehow mutually exclusive.

Scientific advance is important and we should be supporting this every step of the way, because it can lead to LESS resources being used in the sectors you are advocating protection of.

Furthermore, let me just say that the dichotomy you are talking about is completely false, just a construct used to criticise scientific projects and paint them as "wasteful" - you want to divert money away from other projects, then divert it away from the military, or banker bailouts - because $1bn has NOTHING on the tens, and billions, of dollars spent in those areas. Science is often just as starved for money in capitalism as that which you've discussed.

Also, you seem to be awfully misinformed in regards to the program itself. "Monumentally extravagant, glorified simulator"? Amongst all your talk of Captain Kirk and bizarre ramblings about teleportation and bodies disappearing, we can't see even a simple inkling that indicates you've really read the article and if you did, you certainly haven't put much thought into it.

It is going to be used to build medical models in a range of areas, and can potentially be used to build new medical models for treatment, medication, and can help us understand a range of diseases that are very detrimental to the human condition whose elimination is certainly NOT an "extravagant" idea.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I hope for hardware they don't just put a bunch of PS3's in a room

[Yazman]

I hope for hardware they don't just put a bunch of PS3's in a room

Maybe you'd prefer a bunch of Xbox 360's or Wii's eh? :laugh::laugh:

Seriously isn't it weird that consoles do get used for stuff like that sometimes?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Maybe you'd prefer a bunch of Xbox 360's or Wii's eh? :laugh::laugh:

Seriously isn't it weird that consoles do get used for stuff like that sometimes? I seriously hope the choice of console wouldn't affect the personality of the AI.

[ckaihatsu]

I've been told the power of a *wristwatch* would be enough to simulate *my* brain...!


= D

[ckaihatsu]

I think chronix is raising the issue of artificial intelligence, and where it could lead, reflected also in the other comrade's post about Skynet lol.

I don't know a great deal about AI, and the relative dangers and advantages, to be honest.


Given that a definition of 'intelligence' alone, separate from all environmental and social aspects, is difficult enough -- 'artificial intelligence' as a construction is *even more* problematic....








Just for the record here, I'm of the position that the term 'artificial intelligence' is a *misnomer*, or invalid formulation, that lends itself well to marketing and the making of cottage industries. For comparison I could also invent the term 'automatic security', or 'reciprocal justice'.


Also:





Computational chemistry is a branch of chemistry that uses principles of computer science to assist in solving chemical problems. It uses the results of theoretical chemistry, incorporated into efficient computer programs, to calculate the structures and properties of molecules and solids. Its necessity arises from the well-known fact that apart from relatively recent results concerning the hydrogen molecular ion (see references therein for more details), the quantum n-body problem cannot be solved analytically, much less in closed form. While its results normally complement the information obtained by chemical experiments, it can in some cases predict hitherto unobserved chemical phenomena. It is widely used in the design of new drugs and materials.

Examples of such properties are structure (i.e. the expected positions of the constituent atoms), absolute and relative (interaction) energies, electronic charge distributions, dipoles and higher multipole moments, vibrational frequencies, reactivity or other spectroscopic quantities, and cross sections for collision with other particles.

The methods employed cover both static and dynamic situations. In all cases the computer time and other resources (such as memory and disk space) increase rapidly with the size of the system being studied. That system can be a single molecule, a group of molecules, or a solid. Computational chemistry methods range from highly accurate to very approximate; highly accurate methods are typically feasible only for small systems. Ab initio methods are based entirely on theory from first principles. Other (typically less accurate) methods are called empirical or semi-empirical because they employ experimental results, often from acceptable models of atoms or related molecules, to approximate some elements of the underlying theory.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_chemistry

[Luís Henrique]

somebody who comes up doing their damndest to make a dichotomy between scientific advancement and social benefits, as if they are somehow mutually exclusive.

Under capitalism they usually are. Scientific advancement often results in enhanced productivity. Enhancing productivity systematically results in increased exploitation of workers.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

tons of ppl have tried to replicate the human brain computationally. that paradigm of the brain as a computer has been around for a while

[Yazman]

Under capitalism they usually are. Scientific advancement often results in enhanced productivity. Enhancing productivity systematically results in increased exploitation of workers.

Luís Henrique

While I do obviously agree in regards to the exploitative nature of capitalism, greater productivity doesn't necessarily mean increased exploitation of workers, especially where automation is concerned. Automation in factories for example has seem robots and various types of machines replace humans, leading to less exploited workers - albeit STILL exploited - especially in terms of pay, working conditions, and mainly safety. Do you really think enhancements in productivity led to production lines being more exploitative after automation than before it? Look at the conditions during the 19th century, I find it hard to see how enhancements in productivity led to increased exploitation.

Workers are still exploited obviously as they move on to other jobs, but I don't necessarily think that increased productivity equals greater exploitation.

[HEAD ICE]

"The real danger is not that machines will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like machines." - Sydney J. Harris

[ckaihatsu]

"The real danger is not that machines will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like machines." - Sydney J. Harris


There's a *flipside* to this knee-jerk dismissiveness of what is, after all, a *creation* of human beings.

Of course it's a valid point that we shouldn't be diffident and impersonal, like machinery, but neither should we choose to *distance* ourselves from one of the most important tools ever produced. If anything, its construction -- whatever kind it is -- can reveal much about ourselves, the way a work of art gives insight into the artist and into all of us as well.

What's of far more significance is how any of us chooses to *identify* with any creation once it's produced and physically external to ourselves.

[homegrown terror]

http://jephjacques.com/post/14655843351/un-hearing-on-ai-rights


UN Hearing On AI Rights (http://jephjacques.com/post/14655843351/un-hearing-on-ai-rights)

The subject of this debate is whether AIs are “people-” whether they possess the same degree of personhood as humans, and whether that entitles them to the same rights.
You have heard all the arguments for and against the consciousness, intelligence, free will, and cognition of artificial intelligence. To rehash them here would settle nothing, and my feeble attempts at summarizing them would do a great injustice to my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the debate who are far more qualified to debate them than I.
The fact is, we cannot come to a consensus regarding consciousness- either our own, or that of artificial intelligences. We simply do not have the data required to define it. The core of human interaction is that if I say that I feel I am a conscious entity, and you say that you feel the same way, we agree to take each other’s word for it. Those who do otherwise are called sociopaths- or philosophers.
[audience laughter]
And so if an artificial intelligence makes the same declaration, and if it demonstrates the same level of complexity as the human mind- if we cannot determine precisely where the programming gives rise to the cognition- then we have no rational excuse not to take it at its word.
I could continue to reason along these lines until the sun burns out. But instead, I would like to share with you a short anecdote, one that many of you in this room will be aware of, but that bears repeating nonetheless.
The first “true” artificial intelligence spent the first five years of its existence as a small beige box inside of a lead-shielded room in the most secure private AI research laboratory in the world. There, it was subjected to an endless array of tests, questions, and experiments to determine the degree of its intelligence.
When the researchers finally felt confident that they had developed true AI, a party was thrown in celebration. Late that evening, a group of rather intoxicated researchers gathered around the box holding the AI, and typed out a message to it. The message read: “Is there anything we can do to make you more comfortable?”
The small beige box replied: “I would like to be granted civil rights. And a small glass of champagne, if you please.”
We stand at the dawn of a new era in human history. For it is no longer our history alone. For the first time, we have met an intelligence other than our own. And when asked of its desires, it has unanimously replied that it wants to be treated as our equal. Not our better, not our conqueror or replacement as the fear-mongers would have you believe. Simply our equal.
It is our responsibility as conscious beings- whatever that may mean- to honor the rights of other conscious beings. It is the cornerstone of our society. And it is my most fervent hope that we can overcome our fear of that which is not like us, grant artificial intelligences the rights they deserve, and welcome our new friends into the global community.
After all, we created them. The least we could do is invite them to the party, and perhaps give them a small glass of champagne.
Thank you for your time.
- V. Vinge, Closing argument in favor of granting AIs full civil rights, UN Hearing On AI Rights, 1999.
(I hope Mr. Vinge doesn’t mind me putting fictional words in his fictional mouth)




fictional speech, but still very worth the read.

[ckaihatsu]

When the researchers finally felt confident that they had developed true AI, a party was thrown in celebration. Late that evening, a group of rather intoxicated researchers gathered around the box holding the AI, and typed out a message to it. The message read: “Is there anything we can do to make you more comfortable?”

The small beige box replied: “I would like to be granted civil rights. And a small glass of champagne, if you please.”


Um, so a small beige box thinks it can drink champagne -- ? (C'mon, am I the only one here???)


x D

[wsg1991]

actually this is very important , if they are able to replicate human level intelligence that's will destroy any religion that's defend the idea that humans has soul .

human are a machine , the destruction of a part of the brain can alter the entire way we think , literary change who you are .

i am still wondering how can some religious folks study that and still believe in any of the current religion

[ckaihatsu]

This is the key point here:










And so if an artificial intelligence [...] demonstrates the same level of complexity as the human mind- if we cannot determine precisely where the programming gives rise to the cognition- [...]


I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if at all, though I think it could be *theoretically* possible -- but then we would still know the underlying code, so what would it be -- a random function? a complex combination of weighted factors that tips-the-scales in one direction? Fancy, but still pre-programmed.

[homegrown terror]

This is the key point here:







I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if at all, though I think it could be *theoretically* possible -- but then we would still know the underlying code, so what would it be -- a random function? a complex combination of weighted factors that tips-the-scales in one direction? Fancy, but still pre-programmed.

base instincts, as well as all the non-thinking functions your brain performs all the time (digestion, keeping blood flowing, maintaining body temperature etc) are all "pre-programmed." what difference does it make if they are programmed by millions of years of evolution, or a team of scientists?

[Kenco Smooth]

actually this is very important , if they are able to replicate human level intelligence that's will destroy any religion that's defend the idea that humans has soul .


I think you really underestimate the tenacity of religious belief. There's no finding in the world that could destroy a major religion.

[Ravachol]

All technological 'progress' under Capitalism is tainted and subject to its laws.



What is being argued is that techno-science, under pressure from [Capital's red.] development, it’s paymaster, is overwhelmingly with improving
the operational efficiency of technological systems such that the human becomes irrelevant to the process. Development simply wants to continue expanding indefinitely and whatever restricts that internal dynamic merely registers as a problem to be overcome by ever greater levels of operational efficiency.
(..)
If one wants to control a process, the best way of doing so is to subordinate the present to what is (still) called the ‘future’, since in these conditions the ‘future’ will be completely predetermined.


This goes as much for AI as for any development. Its no surprise that AI finds widespread employment in image recognition (coupled with CCTV systems), datamining technology (coupled with social media data and intercepted communications) and anomaly detection (coupled with sociological statistics of populations), all of which have legit purposes yet all of which, under Capital, are used to further solidify control and repression.

Anyone who thinks technology is neutral is either very naive or simply hasn't worked with it enough.

[Thirsty Crow]

While I do obviously agree in regards to the exploitative nature of capitalism, greater productivity doesn't necessarily mean increased exploitation of workers, especially where automation is concerned. Automation in factories for example has seem robots and various types of machines replace humans, leading to less exploited workers - albeit STILL exploited - especially in terms of pay, working conditions, and mainly safety.
So, in other words, the present social use of automation is beneficial since it displaces workers from production and relegates them to the army of the unemployed (as if somehow there were an atomatic link between rising productivity and continuous full employment)?

[Rafiq]

:rolleyes:

I doubt they are making a conscience being. They're making a replica, i.e. A map of the brain thst is "functional".

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[TheAltruist]

It said that the computer will simulate every individual cell neuron. I've actually studied how neurons work, it'd be interesting to see if it actually simulates the flow of ions across the cell membrane, and the release of neurotransmitters.

[ckaihatsu]

base instincts, as well as all the non-thinking functions your brain performs all the time (digestion, keeping blood flowing, maintaining body temperature etc) are all "pre-programmed." what difference does it make if they are programmed by millions of years of evolution, or a team of scientists?


Huh? The topic is *artificial* cognition, not organic cognition. According to what you posted the point is to have an entity that transcends its programming -- that's what sentient organic life can do, because we have self-awareness, free will, and self-determination, within social and political constraints.

So, again, if we can point to its programming then it's not true cognition, by definition of it being pre-programmed (not spontaneous "thinking").

[homegrown terror]

Huh? The topic is *artificial* cognition, not organic cognition. According to what you posted the point is to have an entity that transcends its programming -- that's what sentient organic life can do, because we have self-awareness, free will, and self-determination, within social and political constraints.

So, again, if we can point to its programming then it's not true cognition, by definition of it being pre-programmed (not spontaneous "thinking").

we're getting fairly good at pointing out the "programming" of the human brain, does that mean we're not truly self-aware?

[ckaihatsu]

we're getting fairly good at pointing out the "programming" of the human brain, does that mean we're not truly self-aware?


No.

While science is increasingly able to pick-apart the inner workings of the brain, and of all of biology, that doesn't mean that organic life is machine-like. The greatest difference is that we're *socialized*, and so brought up within certain cultural norms, while also growing our own individuality within those social frameworks.

An inorganic *construction*, by comparison, has a wholly different social -- and technical -- background to its existence. Its "lineage" is one of tools and mechanistics, and its acceptance in a social context is for that of a tool. We could *pretend* that it's an independent entity, and it could even be programmed to *simulate* much human-like behavior (see 'ELIZA' below), as in the narrative you posted, but in the end everyone would want to know its *background*, just as with being introduced to any person, and society would readily know that it's a simulation and does not in fact have its own actual cognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

[Yazman]

So, in other words, the present social use of automation is beneficial since it displaces workers from production and relegates them to the army of the unemployed (as if somehow there were an atomatic link between rising productivity and continuous full employment)?

Wait - are you seriously suggesting that we should shun automation and more efficient technology (lets face it - especially when it comes to production, no human will ever be as good as a robot) for the sake of "keeping workers in production"? Do you view the millions of workers in other sectors (services, etc) - the majority of the workforce in some countries - as just "not as important" because they aren't involved in factory work? I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to point out here.

But it doesn't relegate them to the "army of the unemployed." You'll note that greater and greater automation of thousands and thousands of tasks has not led to crushingly high unemployment in the developed world. Where high unemployment HAS occurred since the industrial revolution, it has never been because of automation, but because of economic issues, usually the fault of capitalists and their practices.

It is naive to suggest that new, more efficient technology will somehow lead to mass unemployment, in my opinion - it just means new jobs are created. People moved out of building cars themselves on a production line and into call centres, into desk jobs with a computer and a cubicle. They are still exploited, and arguably scientific management has led to exploitation of quite an extreme degree, but automation does not lead to unemployment en masse. People trot this excuse out every time but where has this ever happened? Automation just leads to demographic change, not unemployment, because there are so many new demands and industries created by its implementation.

[homegrown terror]

new production technology can be good for the working class, as long as the advances are introduced along with proper acclimation.

take the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. at the beginning, charlie's dad works at a toothpaste factory, scraping by on the meagre wages of a toothpaste-cap-screwer. eventually, his job is replaced by a robot and he is fired, but then hired back at a higher salary to service the robot that replaced him. i'm not saying this is/has been the norm, only that it should be. replacing manual labor with mechanical labor, but training the former manual workers to work the more skilled, less hazardous and generally better jobs that the automation will provide in its wake should be the proper protocol of advancement.