Like all Computer Science degree holders, I took an AI programming class. In it, we learned about various neural networks, designed to be similar to animal brains. All these were simulated in matrices for speed. I was toying with the idea of a neural net that simulated more features of the human brain. Things like cell death and new cell birth (part of forgetting and learning as resources are limited), overall system depression/happiness (for guiding learning in certain directions), dendrites of various lengths with stimulants to trigger growth (idea that neuron should connect to cells near them, forming chains and clusters of related concepts that then connect outwards). Anyway, as I played with all these, the matrix was getting more and more crowded. Besides, as a C/C++ programmer I find structs and objects more intuitive. I was wondering what people thought of the idea of simulating natural brains using a struct or object describing all these behaviors, occasionally spawning and killing off new ones, and having signals traverse the web of structs from the input points.
At G Ragu Review, we provide a comprehensive source of information on a wide range of topics. Our goal is to be a trusted source of information for our readers, and we take that responsibility seriously. Thank you for considering G Ragu Review as your source of information. We hope you find our content valuable and informative.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Revamp Of Memory Mattress
Thursday, December 4, 2008
A brute-force approach to Artificial Intelligence
With ever-increasing memory capacities and processing speeds and advances in distributed computation, and *assuming* that technological/scientific advances spur new understanding of the human brain in the next 50 years, I believe it will be possible within our lifetimes that we will have enough horsepower to emulate, to arbitrary precision as the years go on, a human brain. If this emulation is "good enough", then whether it will have a "self" is a purely philosophical issue. However, it seems certain that with enough understanding and horsepower, we can create intelligence.
Online Casino Bonus
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Puzzle - Consciousness Explained
Anyone else read "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennet? His theory is that consciousness is a linear stream, coalescing, bubbling up from a massively parallel set of ad hoc committees of connections. Putting aside whether I paraphrased the theory correctly, or whether the theory holds water, what I am wondering is HOW? Let's say you had a bunch of computers on a gigabit network, each with a neural net, plus some grammar rules and a dictionary (a theory I've heard a couple of times is that grammar is more hard-wired than other functions.) How would such a network of neural nets "say" a single word, followed by another word, bubbled up from a different NN, and so on (a simulated conscious stream) without any central authority or observer? (It is ok to have a global set of rules, perhaps dynamically). Now I am not saying that finding the right set of rules that made this parlor trick work would constitute consciousness. But it would be at least a start - add motivation, direction, theme, analogy... Some smart people I've talked to think this theory might be a projection of western-, or male-, or scientific-thinking, that many humans do not think linearly like this at all, but more holistically. Dennet counters this by arguing that consciousness came AFTER language, which is more genetically hard-coded.