--- Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. And I repeat my question elsewhere : you don't think that the human > brain which does this in say half a second, (right?), is using massive > computation to recognize that face?
So if I give you a video clip then you can match the person in the video to the correct photo out of 10^9 choices on the Internet in 0.5 seconds, and this will all run on your PC? Let me know when your program is finished so I can try it out. > You guys with all your mathematical calculations re the brain's total > neurons and speed of processing surely should be able to put ball-park > figures on the maximum amount of processing that the brain can do here. > > Hawkins argues: > > "neurons are slow, so in that half a second, the information entering your > brain can only traverse a chain ONE HUNDRED neurons long. ..the brain > 'computes' solutions to problems like this in one hundred steps or fewer, > regardless of how many total neurons might be involved. From the moment > light enters your eye to the time you [recognize the image], a chain no > longer than one hundred neurons could be involved. A digital computer > attempting to solve the same problem would take BILLIONS of steps. One > hundred computer instructions are barely enough to move a single character > on the computer's display, let alone do something interesting." Which is why the human brain is so bad at arithmetic and other tasks that require long chains of sequential steps. But somehow it can match a face to a name in 0.5 seconds. Neurons run in PARALLEL. Your PC does not. Your brain performs 10^11 weighted sums of 10^15 values in 0.1 seconds. Your PC will not. > > IOW, if that's true, the massive computational approach is surely > RIDICULOUS - a grotesque travesty of engineering principles of economy, no? > Like using an entire superindustry of people to make a single nut? And, of > course, it still doesn't work. Because you just don't understand how > perception works in the first place. > > Oh right... so let's make our computational capabilities even more massive, > right? Really, really massive. No, no, even bigger than that....? > > > > > Matt,:AGI research needs > > >>> special hardware with massive computational capabilities. > > > > > > > Could you give an example or two of the kind of problems that your AGI > > system(s) will need such massive capabilities to solve? It's so good - in > > fact, I would argue, essential - to ground these discussions. > > For example, I ask the computer "who is this?" and attach a video clip from > my > security camera. > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73765756-f02c55
