> The brain is actually fantasticly simple... > > It is nothing compared with the core of a linux operating system > (kernel+glibc+gcc). > > Heck, even the underlying PC hardware is more complex in a number of > ways than the brain, it seems... > > The brain is very RISCy... using a relatively simple processing pattern > and then repeating it millions of times.
Alan, I strongly suggest you increase your familiarity with neuroscience before making such claims in the future. I'm not sure what simplified model of the neuron you are using, but be assured that there are many layers of complexity of function within even a simple neuron, let alone in networks. The coupled resistor/capacitor model is only given as a simplified version in textbooks to make the topic of neural networks digestible to the entry-level student. Dendrites are not simple summators, they have a variety of nonlinear processes including recursive, catalytic chemical reactions and complex second-messenger systems. That's just the tip of the iceberg once you get into pharmacological subsystems, the complexity becomes a bit staggering. If it were fanastically simple, more so than a Linux box, do you think that thousands of scientists working over more than one hundred years would still understand it so poorly, yet it takes a group of 5 people 2 years to crank out a new Linux OS? > > > We know from the biology folks that the human mind contains at least > > dozens, and probably hundreds of specialized subsystems. > > In the cortex, I would propose the number is 28 for the left hemisphere, > and maybe another 10 or so in the right hemisphere which don't directly > overlap with the ones on the left. You realize that the blobs drawn on images of the brain in college level textbooks are simply areas of cell responsivity, and not diagrams of the systems themselves? The cortex is highly differentiated containing probably dozens if not hundreds of systems, not to mention the enormous variety of specialized systems at the subcortical level. The complex soup of the reticular formation is sufficient to turn a sane anatomist into a sobbing wreck with its dozens of specific nerve clusters. > > Consider the chess problem. > The present computer Chess solutions are widely acknowleged to be much > less efficient than the ones in the brain. So the complexity that you > are trying to argue is necessary for AGI is merely reflective of our > currently poor programming methodologies. Chess is a game designed by the mind, so it is no surprise that it is something the mind is good at. It is trivial to design games that computers are vastly superior at, but that does not mean the mind has "poor programming methodologies". _Brad ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
