[MURG] From enticypress Site.

[Joseph J. Strout]

At 4:34 PM -0500 9/17/03, Joseph M. Graham Jr. wrote:

>If you have had the chance to view the child-like qualities of 
>artificial intelligence researchers paraded around by television 
>specials on AI you may have the feeling that it is not possible to 
>know how the brain works. After all, those highly credentialed 
>professors are predicting it will take anywhere from 10 to 100 years 
>to understand how the brain works.

First of all, if you want to understand how the brain works, you 
should ask a neuroscientist, not an AI researcher.  AI researchers 
are not, in general, in the business of figuring out how the brain 
works -- they're in the business of building artificial devices that 
can do something useful that previously could only be done by brains. 
That's a very different thing.

Secondly, I haven't seen any childlike qualities among these 
researchers, except occasionally for a childlike sense of wonder at 
the complexity of the mind.  On the whole they're a very sober lot, 
still recovering from the wildly optimistic and inaccurate claims of 
the field's founders, decades ago.  Folks back then had no idea how 
complex the mind and brain were.  Nowadays, people appreciate this 
much more deeply.

Finally, when has anyone ever named a number of years at which we'll 
"understand how the brain works"?  I can't imagine any real 
researcher saying that at all.  It's not a sensible statement; we 
already understand a lot about how the brain works, but no matter how 
much we do, there will always be more to understand.  There will 
never come a day when neuroscientists say "There!  We now know 
everything there is to know about the brain.  Maybe I'll take up 
painting."  This simply will not happen.

So, perhaps the range of times you hear reflects the range of things 
that were actually meant (and probably stated) by "understanding" the 
brain.

>      Brain researchers cannot come right out and say they do not 
>have a clue. All the research grants would dry up.

Plus it's not true.  Neuroscientists have lots of clues.  It's a very 
hot field, with major advances happening on lots of different fronts. 
We live in a very exciting time for understanding thebrain.

>      Another thing to know about professors is that if after years 
>of concentration on one specific fallacy or the other agreeing with 
>a totally foreign solution to the same problem means admitting they 
>were wrong and that would dry up research funds faster than 
>admitting they didn't even have a clue.

I don't believe that.  Some people do cling to theories in the face 
of some evidence, but eventually the evidence is overwhelming.  At 
that point, clinging to a discredited theory is far worse than 
admitting you were wrong.  And researchers understand this.

>      So, what good is it to know?
>      It is very good to know.
>      It not only allows a person to take control of their own brain 
>but it allows the people who know how it works, down to the smallest 
>processing detail, to duplicate a human brain.

Sorry, what is the antecedent of "it" here?

>      But that can't happen for at least 10 to 100 years right?
>      Wrong. The people who do not know do not admit someone else 
>might. They only admit they do not YET.
>      Has it already been done?
>      Yes. Numerous times.

Again (still?) I'm baffled by what "it" means.

>      You will find references at this site to RICCI and COREY (two 
>brain models of very simple complexity). You will NOT find reference 
>to ELIAS. ELIAS is the planned software human brain interfacing with 
>the Internet where every person with an account is an input pathway 
>of its own. You will NOT find reference to the main goal, that of 
>building a human level, fully self-aware, seeing and hearing brain 
>with head, arms, hands and all of the muscle and joint parts needed 
>to make it work (yes, those have been completed as well but not 
>published, obviously).

Obviously.  Well, I'll believe it when I see it.  Is anyone else here 
old enough to remember Hugo DeGaris's claims that he would grow an 
artificial brain with kitten-level intelligence in a cellular 
automata matrix by (if memory serves) 2002 or so?  Funny we haven't 
heard much about him lately.

Claims are easy to produce.  Results are somewhat harder.

>      SO what is holding it up?
>      HA! The same thing that keeps silly scientists doing silly 
>things in silly experiments with silly investors and silly results 
>and silly claims and silly papers: money.

Ah yes, claims which require money to bring them to "fruition" are 
especially easy to make.

>      A group of interested persons came together a number of years 
>ago and created Neutronics Technologies Corporation , which had the 
>patent applications assigned to it. That company, with the aid of an 
>anonymous benefactor built RICCI, proved the dynamic system, 
>discovered 'dark energy', replicated 'dark energy' and room 
>temperature quantum computation and built the hardware to prove it.

...what, no free energy or reactionless drives?

-- 
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout         Check out the Mac Web Directory:     |
|    joe at strout.net           http://www.macwebdir.com/            |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'