My first post on these forums, since I've done some thinking around this topic before, and was interested. I have a small background in computer topics, none in medical, but I HAVE spent some time contemplating my own thought processes.
I wanted to start with better defining the diferences between computers and natural neural networks. Why were computers developed in the first place? To process large amounts of numerical calculations. More to topic, to perform a function that the human brain found boring and difficult, and to do it faster and more accurately than the human brain ever could. Why were "brains" developed? Dunno, but my best guess is, to recognize patterns in the flood of information comming from the newly evolved "eyes" of primitive organisms. This is something our current computers are barely beginning to be able to do.
Of course, both systems have evolved considerably since their beginnings. Still, this was lead by their initial purposes, and evolution went in completely different ways. "Brains", needing to process hugh amounts of data quickly, but without the initial need for much accuracy, evolved a network of individule processors all working simultaneously. Computers, needing to process set amounts of data accurately in as much time as it takes, and requiring a human engineer capable of understanding at once it's entire workings, evolved a single, rule based processor and other specialized components with simple, well defined connections.
We understand computers because they've been engineered to be easily managed by humans with limited intelligence. We don't yet understant the brain because nature has no need to evolve systems that require management (by anything less than supreme intellegence), being mostly self-regulating.
Does this mean that we can't understand the brain? Not at all. In fact, I believe (to directly answer your opening post) that we DO have enough information to understand the brain. We understand it the same way we do the weather. It'd be an exact science if it weren't for the fact that every breath you take influences how much rain we'll get 10 years from now! In other words, it's a relatively simple system that happens to depend on more variables than humanity is capable of collecting or processing in any reasonable amount of time.
As for developing a "brain"-based AI on computers, it would have to be done either a) completely emulate a neural network, or b) discover the "thought" function and engineer a software program to make use of it. a) takes only time to accomplish. It could be done right now if someone would take the time to find a simple brain, disect it, and reconstruct it in a digital form within a software package that, again, only takes time to accomplish. I believe that this would take too long and the results would be almost as difficult to study as the initial brain itself.
b) is far more interesting. How do you think? What does it take to develop a thought? I talk to myself in my head, in english, mentally pronouncing every word I type to you. Would this be a needed function in a created intellect? Sight, sound, motion, can they all be eliminated from the initial creation? How much of intellect is "pure thought" and how much is required for the human life we lead?
Wow not much opinion in here except my opinion about what the facts are. I'll leave that for later as this is getting long. Side feedback about my length and writing style would be appreciated. I hope I helped open some new avenues of discussion for you all!
