[SeaGypsy]

A current bio engineering project:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... pic=enviro

Parallel processing
The research is a good example of how a bacterial computer could operate. Each E. coli cell detects light or detects the chemical cue at the same time and processes the information simultaneously to create an edge. If the bacteria were a computer, this would be called parallel processing.

A traditional computer traces the outline of an image using serial computing, making one calculation at a time. Each pixel of the image is compared with its eight neighbors, one at a time, until the entire image is scanned. The more pixels in the image, the longer the calculations take to compute.

Every E. coli, by contrast, compares itself to its eight neighbors constantly, performing millions of calculations simultaneously. The size of the image is irrelevant; postage stamp or poster size, an outline will appear at the same time.

Another on using yeast to custom make genetic material:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 440454.htm

"Scientists have discovered a more efficient way of building a synthetic genome that could one day enable them to create artificial life, according to a study.

The method is already being used to help develop next generation biofuels and biochemicals in the labs of controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter.....

This enabled them to finish creating the synthetic genome using a method called homologous recombination, a process that cells naturally use to repair damage to their chromosomes.

(Maybe it's not necessary to know how to do everything?)

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')our thinking is tautological. We don't even 'know' that the brain creates consciousness because we don't 'know' what it is...

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')ou seem to have technology and 'nature' backward.' The nature or fact of 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' is a complete and utter mystery and we are no closer to defining either than we ever were. Your thinking is tautological. We don't even 'know' that the brain creates consciousness because we don't 'know' what it is.

'Nature' is what we live in--a physical world of energy flows and biological natural selection. We are ecological creatures. And so 'nature' has no meaning in isolation---rather such an view is perhaps an urban myth, something made up to explain our self-imposed industrial isolation from our planet. 'Nature' can not show us anything. (Only our own insights are capable of that.) I suspect you have created a duality and placed 'nature' in opposition to 'humanity,' or 'intelligence,' or 'technoloy.' to support your own mental ghetto.

[threadbear]

I don't get the argument here. Carlhole, probably the smartest and one of the wisest posters on the forums is simply trying to create a discussion. He doesn't seem to be a promoter or advocate of any particular theory. PStarr, you are also a very brainy guy. You should try to find a way of entertaining what you consider unpleasant ideas without launching on those presenting them. Just sayin...

[Carlhole]

...Which Are 15 Times The Scale Of Previous Rat Brain Simulations

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oday at SC 09, the supercomputing conference in Portland, Oregon, IBM is announcing progress toward creating a computer system that simulates the way the brain works. (Brain Emulation) Two major milestones indicate the feasibility of building a cognitive computing chip: unprecedented advances in large-scale cortical simulation and a new algorithm that synthesizes neurological data. This work is on track to human brain scale simulations in 2018.

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he rest is a graduate-level grant writing exercise.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '.')..then give me a call. The rest is a graduate-level grant writing exercise.

[Carlhole]

Science Daily

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s the amount of digital data that we create continues to grow massively and the world becomes more instrumented and interconnected, there is a need for new kinds of computing systems -- imbued with a new intelligence that can spot hard-to-find patterns in vastly varied kinds of data, both digital and sensory; analyze and integrate information real-time in a context-dependent way; and deal with the ambiguity found in complex, real-world environments.

Businesses will simultaneously need to monitor, prioritize, adapt and make rapid decisions based on ever-growing streams of critical data and information. A cognitive computer could quickly and accurately put together the disparate pieces of this complex puzzle, while taking into account context and previous experience, to help business decision makers come to a logical response.

"Learning from the brain is an attractive way to overcome power and density challenges faced in computing today," said Josephine Cheng, IBM Fellow and lab director of IBM Research -- Almaden. "As the digital and physical worlds continue to merge and computing becomes more embedded in the fabric of our daily lives, it's imperative that we create a more intelligent computing system that can help us make sense the vast amount of information that's increasingly available to us, much the way our brains can quickly interpret and act on complex tasks."

[Isochroma]

Retitled: IBM Has Achieved Catlike Ability to Falsify the Capability of its Products

It's not a simulation of a cat's brain. It is a simulation of an abstraction of a cat's brain. And a ridiculously simplistic one at that.

An actual simulation of a cat's brain would simulate what makes up a cat's brain: an exceedingly large area of 3D space that includes an enormous number atoms, interatomic interactions, and electrons, protons, neutrons and photons along with magnetic and electric fields. These things can be simulated, but not at the scale of a cat brain, and not even at the scale of a cell in a decent amount of time.

At present, the world's most powerful computers cannot even simulate a single cell, never mind a brain of any kind. Whole networks work to 'fold' a single protein molecule.

That is the best they can do for a real simulation.

Furthermore, there is not yet a device for importation of the vast amounts of randomness to make any simulation a reality like our truly beloved one and only.

[TheAntiDoomer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')hen they actually build a machine that is able to:

--read its own internal biologic data, including blood pressure and sugar levels, temperature, endocrine functions, hormone states etc.,

--measure external environment i.e.wind speed, height from surfaces, presence of danger, etc. and;

--execute an mid-fall in-air roll, catch a mouse, and purr when I pet it

then give me a call. The rest is a graduate-level grant writing exercise.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Isochroma', 'R')etitled: IBM Has Achieved Catlike Ability to Falsify the Capability of its Products

It's not a simulation of a cat's brain. It is a simulation of an abstraction of a cat's brain. And a ridiculously simplistic one at that.

An actual simulation of a cat's brain would simulate what makes up a cat's brain: an exceedingly large area of 3D space that includes an enormous number atoms, interatomic interactions, and electrons, protons, neutrons and photons along with magnetic and electric fields. These things can be simulated, but not at the scale of a cat brain, and not even at the scale of a cell in a decent amount of time.

At present, the world's most powerful computers cannot even simulate a single cell, never mind a brain of any kind. Whole networks work to 'fold' a single protein molecule.

That is the best they can do for a real simulation.

Furthermore, there is not yet a device for importation of the vast amounts of randomness to make any simulation a reality like our truly beloved one and only.

[Isochroma]

Carlhole: NO, it is NOT a simulation of a cat 'cortical column'. You said it yourself in a quote from the NEURON software: it is a mimic.

I said the same thing too, if you'd bothered to read my post: it's a simulation of an abstraction, not of a reality.

Do some research and then make your comments.

[Isochroma]

pstarr: And you haven't even named the atoms yet, each with its own unique quantum state, each in its own unique spacial position. Then there's all the space in between. The chemically and electrically unique spaces where metabolism occurs, new neurites grow and old neurites grow older, and on and on and on.

The whole thing, like any thing in this universe, is a dynamic system of a complexity so enormous that IBM's announcement should have made anyone reading it explode laughing in tears.

It's like some sculptor announcing that he's simulated a duck because he's made something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and maybe even digests like a duck.

Except what's he's got is an imitation - a mimic - of some of a duck's trivially observable characteristics. Perhaps it's even a detailed mimic - perhaps it might even do things that ducks do, but calling it a duck or even a good attempt at 'simulating' a duck is a lie so blatant as to not require further explication.

Further Reading:

Protein Folding: A small example of the ridiculous computational burden of total simulation. Wikipedia: "Because of computational cost, ab initio MD folding simulations with explicit water are limited to peptides and very small proteins."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_fo ... _structure

Protein folding itself is also a limited application of real-world simulation. It shows by its development the limitations of today's compute hardware and software relative to the Master Computer of All Time: our Universe.

Other questions of import not raised include the possibility and costs of Russian-doll simulation of an arbitrary universe within itself, and the problem of collecting and importing into a quantized simulation of an amount of entropy (random data) sufficient to render such a simulation even reasonably approximate to its correspondent reality.

[rangerone314]

Why'd they choose something complicated like a cat brain?

They could have chosen GW Bush.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Isochroma', 'C')arlhole: NO, it is NOT a simulation of a cat 'cortical column'. You said it yourself in a quote from the NEURON software: it is a mimic.

I said the same thing too, if you'd bothered to read my post: it's a simulation of an abstraction, not of a reality.

Do some research and then make your comments.

[pedalling_faster]

i remember when DDR400 came out in 2003, and i bought some. there was something about it that just said "artificial intelligence" to me.

granted, the computers available them may only have had the equivalent intelligence of an amoeba.

it's pretty obvious that we will have human brain scale simulation soon, and it will be affordable.

maybe we can outsource all those banker jobs to unemployed auto workers. each $1 million banker is replaced by 20 $50K auto workers.

granted, THAT doesn't have much to do with AI.

speaking of AI, here's Andy Irons winning the 2006 Pipe Masters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26bO5l4m ... r_embedded

one of the best surf contests ever. the good part is at 4:30 to 5:30. it was a complete come-from-behind victory. AI needed 2 waves and had less than 5 minutes left. he had already lost the world championship to Kelly Slater but was surfing against Slater & Machado in the Pipe finals.

i was in the process of moving and took about 15 days to do it. my new landlord got concerned because i was so slow in moving & called me up and asked me what was taking so long. i was sitting there in my previous apartment, completely empty except for one computer, listening to the webcast.

http://www.prosurfing.com/asp2006/rip_c ... index.html

part of the back story is that AI was VERY agressive and Rob Machado is not aggressive and AI kept Rob from getting a lot of waves. un-characteristic for Rob, he actually got pissed. Payback occurred at the 2007 contest at Trestles, when who should Andy Irons draw but the local wildcard - Rob Machado. AI did not make it out of that round, i guess anger is a good motivator for Rob.

just a little surf trivia. make a computer that can surf like those 3 guys (Slater, Irons, Machado) and i'll listen to the webcast for sure.

[mcgowanjm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')hen they actually build a machine that is able to:

--read its own internal biologic data, including blood pressure and sugar levels, temperature, endocrine functions, hormone states etc.,

--measure external environment i.e.wind speed, height from surfaces, presence of danger, etc. and;

--execute an mid-fall in-air roll, catch a mouse, and purr when I pet it

then give me a call. The rest is a graduate-level grant writing exercise.

[IslandCrow]

If they can make it small enough to fit in a desk top, how will they stop it eating the mouse?

[Isochroma]

In a press release to the general population - or even a scientistic audience - such a title is plain false on its face, without qualification. Simple as that.

Another sad example of both the blatant corporatistic lies trumpeted in the business-owned press and designed to mislead for commerical profit - characteristic of our current age - and the more subtle but damaging mischaracterization - nay - confusion - of abstraction with reality, which is not so much unique to an age as to particular 'civilizations'.

[Isochroma]

It's what they want most, but will never have. You see, they're too busy drafting lies and playing with mechanical ducks to understand the beast they're trying to make.

Too busy being beasts themselves. Too busy seeing their simplistic idealized abstracted forest to make a single tree.