From: Luke (wlgriffiths@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 22 2009 - 14:52:53 MST
Aye,
I was assuming a situation in which you'd measure an adult brain and then
evolve the neural net to emulate that. So in the method I mentioned there
would be no "baby stage".
However, this brings up an interesting notion: IF the technique works (and
we have no idea whether it would), it would be interesting to train a
computer up to baby standards. Might give us a lot of insight into the
information patterns within a baby's brain. Nature/nurture problem, all
that.
- Luke
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mu In Taiwan <mu.in.taiwan@gmail.com>wrote:
> >re: 1) When I said "hogwash", I was referring to the statement "IBM
> simulated a cat cortex"
>
> Fair enough. I'm inclined to agree.
>
> > What about being a "useful human" might not be captured if you were able
> to
> > capture the behavior of that particular brain?
>
> I mean a 'fully trained for human society' brain. e.g. your brain vs. a
> newborn baby's brain. This appeared to be what another poster was referring
> to when they spoke of taking years to train brains.
>
> The problem of turning 'baby brain' into 'adult brain' is known to take
> years of training.
>
> The problem of turning 'unconfigured computer simulation of a physical
> brain' into 'configured computer simulation of a physical brain' appears to
> be a different problem.
>
> Of course, you might find that once you've got a working simulation of a
> physical human brain, you then also need to take it from 'baby' to 'sociable
> human adult'. I'm just noting that these seem to be different kinds of
> training problems.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT