Henry Markram of EPFL’s Blue Brain Project: IBM’s Cat Brain Claim is a “HOAX”
Over at Next Big Future, BoingBoing, and many other venues, Henry Markram of the EPFL's Blue Brain Project has a comment up on the recent IBM cat brain simulation announcement.
IBM's claim is a HOAX.
This is a mega public relations stunt - a clear case of scientific deception of the public. These simulations do not even come close to the complexity of an ant, let alone that of a cat. IBM allows Mohda to mislead the public into believing that they have simulated a brain with the complexity of a cat - sheer nonsense.
Here are the scientific reasons why it is a hoax:
He also sent a letter to IBM's CTO and CCd the media.
New Zealand PC World has an article that summarizes some of the points.
IBM responded by issuing a statement:
IBM stands by the scientific integrity of the announcement on cognitive computing led by IBM in collaboration with Stanford University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Cornell University, Columbia University Medical Center, University of California-Merced and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory," the IBM statement reads. "The cognitive computing team has achieved two milestones that indicate the feasibility of building a computing system that requires much less energy than today's supercomputers, and is modeled after the cognition of the brain. This is important interdisciplinary exploratory research bringing together computational neuroscience, microelectronics and neuroanatomy, and this work has been commented on favorably by others in the scientific community.
If Markram is telling the truth in his allegations (I don't know about all of them because many of the details he mentions are not addressed in the IBM paper, but some of the claims seem obviously true to me), then IBM has lost all credibility.
IBM says that it is "modeled after the cognition of the brain", but what the hell does that mean? Point neurons, like Markram says, most likely. It also seems like Modha's web page and the text of the press release are explicitly designed to further the delusion that they have created a cat-complexity brain.
"Whole Brain Emulation: a Roadmap" has a more realistic and comprehensive estimate of the complexity required to simulate a brain.
Joe Forgas: “When Sad is Better than Happy: Negative Affect Can Improve the Quality and Effectiveness of Persuasive Messages and Social Influence Strategies”
When popular science writers actually reference scientific literature, good things can happen, like this article by Mark Peters: "A Happy Writer Is a Lousy Writer?"
Transhumanists tremendously shocked and dissatisfied with the current state of the world relative to other possibilities can tap into this to improve their writing. Twinkly-eyed techno-utopian transhumanists can continue to produce poor writing.
Greg Fish: Against Causal Functionalism
Greg Fish, a science writer with a popular blog who contributes to places like Business Week and Discovery News, has lately been advancing a Searleian criticism of causal functionalism. For instance, here and here. Here is an excerpt from the latter:
A Computer Brain is Still Just Code
In the future, if we model an entire brain in real time on the level of every neuron, every signal, and every burst of the neurotransmitter, we’ll just end up with a very complex visualization controlled by a complex set of routines and subroutines.
These models could help neurosurgeons by mimicking what would happen during novel brain surgery, or provide ideas for neuroscientists, but they’re not going to become alive or self aware since as far as a computer is concerned, they live as millions of lines of code based on a multitude of formulas and rules. The real chemistry that makes our brains work will be locked in our heads, far away from the circuitry trying to reproduce its results.
Now, if we built a new generation of computers using organic components, the simulations we could run could have some very interesting results.
On his blog, he says:
The actual chemical reactions that decide on an action or think through a problem don’t take place and the biological wiring that’s the crucial part of how the whole process takes place isn’t there, just a statistical approximation of it.
This is just another version of vitalism. Computers lack the "vital spark" necessary to create the "soul", even if they implement the functions of intelligence and self-reflection even more effectively than the biological entity that inspired their creation. But those functions are what create intelligence and self-reflection, not magic chemistry-that-can-never-ever-be-simulated-even-in-principle.
There is quite a bit of fuzziness in chemical reactions themselves, and not all this fuzziness is necessary to implement intelligence or "self-awareness".
Say we have a molecular dynamics simulation of the brain in complete and utter detail. It behaves exactly the same as the intelligence that it is "simulating". You can say "it's just a simulation", but it can achieve all the same things that the original can, including be your friend or even possibly kill you. In such circumstances, "it's just a simulation" is quite pointless hairsplitting. Certainly, some atomic configurations are conscious and others are not, but there is no vital force that biological molecules possess that high-resolution simulations of those biological molecules would not also possess.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's still possible that it's not a duck, but if it has a perfect emulation of a duck brain and can walk around in a duck body, then it may as well be a duck.
Darwin and the Case for ‘Militant Atheism’
CNN has coverage of Dawkinsian atheism. Quote:
"I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith," Dawkins says in his TED Talk.
For a contrary view, see Shermer. His essay reads more like a document trying to sell evolution to theists than a true discussion of why evolution and theism are deeply compatible.
The Bible says that we were created in God's image, but evolution shows that the creation of man was in fact based on retention of large amounts of vestigal structure and incidental circumstance. If God designed us, even using evolution, then why did he give us wisdom teeth that crowd our mouths and cause medical complications? Why do our characteristics make good sense in light of an unintelligent, unguided process and absolutely no sense in light of an intelligent, guided process?
Nanowerk: Computational Microscope Peers into the Working Ribosome
Here is a press release.
Also, here is a video of a computer model of the Rho transcription factor from E. coli in action:
Via Foresight via Technology Review blog.
Foresight 2010: the Synergy of Molecular Manufacturing and AGI
There will be a Foresight 2010 conference on January 16-17th 2010, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the founding of Foresight. The conference will focus on the synergy of molecular manufacturing and AGI. I will be there speaking on behalf of SIAI. See you in Palo Alto.
Kaj Sotala on AGI Safety Factors
â€Evolved altruism, ethical complexity, anthropomorphic trust: three factors misleading estimates of the safety of artificial general intelligenceâ€. Presented at the 7th European Conference on Computing and Philosophy (ECAP 2009) on July 4, 2009.
World Map of Population Density
Mountains, underground, skies, oceans, deserts. Room for many.
Darpa’s Physical Intelligence (PI) Initiative, and Its Ridiculousness
I was doing some research and ran across this story again -- Darpa's loony "Physical Intelligence" initiative. The way that Wired passes along this story with a straight face shows us that the magazine, or at least this blog, the popular Danger Room, is not very reliable or qualified when it comes to science or philosophy. One may recall that I criticized the grant solicitation initiative back when it first hit the news.
There are two absolutely ridiculous elements to the initiative. First is that the text of the solicitation implies that it needs to be concretely demonstrated that intelligence is physical, or that there is any doubt over whether intelligence is or is not physical. Second is this quote:
A central tenet is that intelligence spontaneously evolves as a consequence of thermodynamics in open systems.
No, it doesn't. Only a computer scientist that has never studied a single piece of the brain would ever even say this. Intelligence is a very precise thing that evolved due to selection pressures over hundreds of millions of years. It doesn't evolve spontaneously anywhere. The above statement seems to be derived from the pseudo-mystical notion that the universe is imbued with intelligence, and rocks everywhere are just waiting to burst forth with intelligence if we nudge them the right way.
Boltzmann brains are the exception, not the rule.
Good.is: Why the Fuss About Intelligence?
Roko's post on "Why the Fuss About Intelligence?" is currently up on the front page of Good.is.
Michael Vassar on The Skeptics’ Guide To The Universe Podcast
There is a podcast featuring Singularity Institute President Michael Vassar talking to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a podcast produced by the New England Skeptical Society in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). It was recorded on September 23rd, a week and a half before the Summit. Skip to 26:00 to get past the news items. Here's a funny tidbit of Michael talking about some of the poor thinking seen when people discuss how to make AI friendly:
We have a lot of silliness, such as worst moral of the story ever... Lilo and Stitch. "If you're just nice enough to the fundamentally evil creature, it will have to love you.
That's at 31:50. So yeah, check it out. My and Michael's philosophy are quite similar, so you can learn more about how I think by listening to the podcast as well.
Check out 41:00, where Michael explains the whole reason for having a Singularity Summit and Singularity Institute.
At 49:30: "So how do we keep it from deciding that it wants to make ice cream out of human brains?"