The Neocortical Column is the keystone to Singularity

[bascule]

The Neocortical Column (NCC) marks the quantum leap from reptiles to mammals and therefore constitutes the birth of mammalian intelligence and the emergence of human cognitive capabilities.

 

The NCC seems to have been such a highly successful microcircuit design, that it was repeatedly copied to become almost 80% of the human brain (millions of columns were added).

 

This quote comes from the Blue Brain Project, which intends to use the world’s 9th most powerful supercomputer to create the most realistic, cellular level model of the neocortical column to date.

 

Daniel Dennett, one of the pre-eminent thinkers on consciousness, reckons that consciousness must come about through a cumulative, distributed effect. Imagine a thriving society of pattern analyzers who like to communicate with each other by posting little bits of “thoughtstuff” (phenomenological objects, or “phenoms” to the Dennett-initiated) on a sort of community bulletin board, which all the other pattern analyzers can read and respond to. All the pattern analyzers choose from the available “phenoms” and look for whatever patterns they choose to specialize in. And specialize they do, just like little people they all have their specific types of patterns they “like” to look for which they develop over time. So when a common pattern is discovered that enough of the specialists like, it gets reposted throughout the bulletin board of your brain, with added input from more and more specialists as the idea develops. This mimics human societal behavior, in which we figure out higher level concepts by listening to other people’s ideas and contributing back our own deductions. In collective human behavior, the role of the “phenom” is replaced with that of a meme, a “thought virus” which passes from person to person. In either case, the phenoms or memes which are replicated by the greatest number of individuals dominate the thought process or collective though process. In humans, the dominant phenoms control our behavior. In society, a tool like Google Zeitgeist can show what the collective consciousness is “thinking” about.

 

Now, I don’t want to mischaracterize Dennett; he’s quite adamant that consciousness cannot be localized to a specific part of the brain, and that the entire brain works for the benefit of conscious processing, therefore indicating that consciousness is an inseperable quality from any part of the brain. I, on the other hand, am going to be a little more brash than Dennett, and say that the most logical seat of consciousness is the part that has diverged so drastically in humans as compared to the rest of our common ancestral heritage. It only makes sense that the “specialists” Dennett talks about are the neocortical columns and that consciousness arises through their collective action.

 

If this is the case, then what the Blue Brain project is building a mathematatical model of is essentially the atomic unit of consciousness, a universal pattern analyzer which can work collaboratively with millions of variadic copies of itself to correct its own mistakes and deficiencies, who together comprise a society which can share the patterns that they individually see (and recognize that others’ see the same patterns) and also correct each others’ mistakes if the pattern doesn’t actually exist.

 

Once we have a mathematical model of this atomic unit of universal pattern analyzer, we don’t need a computer the size of Blue Brain to model this atomic unit of consciousness. I don’t mean to sound myopic, but it seems to me that it’s far more likely that we could already model tens of thousands of them, in realtime, on your modern day home PC. Blue Brain is, in effect, an emulator for the computer that the NCC’s “specialist” program runs on, and once we have that, the computational requirements will drastically decrease. The mathematical model that Blue Brain (or a project with similar methodology, if Blue Brain doesn’t pan out) produces will be the hot commodity among AI researchers, who I can only predict will begin building programs which model large communities of artificial NCCs. I really believe that once we can do that, AI researchers will finally be able to fill in the gaps themselves since they will finally have a surefire base framework to begin operating from, with the “hard stuff” already in place.

 

Furthermore, once we understand how the neo-cortical column works, we can begin to learn how to “talk” to them with electronic hardware. We can use the mathematical model to extract phenomenological messages that the columns are communicating, and then apply a (Bayesian) classification algorithm to begin divining meaning. From this we can build a “language map” of how the neocortex communicates internally. Once we have this, we can begin using computers to generate and inject phenomenological objects into the workspace of consciousness. When we can do this, and have a bidirectional interface directly into human consciousness, we’ve successfully created a direct neural interface (DNI), perhaps the ultimate form of Intelligence Amplification (IA) as predicted by Vernor Vinge.

 

So, following the successful extraction of a mathematical model of the NCC’s operation, I would predict that both strong AI and DNI are in the not-too-distant future. And if you believe all of this, then the Singularity could happen in a decade’s timespan, or less…

 

This is a syndicated meme

[JohnB]

Bascule what is the "Singularity" you're talking about?

 

From what I gathered in your post there could be incredible applications for reprogramming a psychotics mind and curing most mental illness, but abused it would be the most dangerous breakthrough that humanity has ever faced.

 

If you could directly interface with and influence a persons neo cortex, then it won't be long before some Demagogue realises the benefits of an army of followers who are literally convinced that their leader is a God.

 

While DNI is probably a good thing, it would seem that we should be careful. Otherwise 10 years from now we may all have the same sig "We are the Borg, resistence is futile".

[padren]

Bascule what is the "Singularity" you're talking about?

I believe he is referring to:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[bascule]

Bascule what is the "Singularity" you're talking about?

 

padren nailed it. See also Vernor Vinge's Singularity paper. Vinge covers the implecations quite extensively in his section on Intelligence Amplification (IA).

 

From what I gathered in your post there could be incredible applications for reprogramming a psychotics mind and curing most mental illness, but abused it would be the most dangerous breakthrough that humanity has ever faced.

 

Kurzweil, perhaps the pre-eminent Singularitarian, gives us about a 50% chance of surviving it. Then he goes on to claim he's an optimist.

 

If you could directly interface with and influence a persons neo cortex, then it won't be long before some Demagogue realises the benefits of an army of followers who are literally convinced that their leader is a God.

 

Or we can inflict the most painful and brutal torture that anyone has ever experienced. Or people will have their brains "hacked" into, ala Ghost in the Shell. There are a great number of negative possibilities to DNI.

 

While DNI is probably a good thing, it would seem that we should be careful. Otherwise 10 years from now we may all have the same sig "We are the Borg, resistence is futile".

 

It's just one of many things we need to worry about in the near future.

[padren]

Now' date=' I don’t want to mischaracterize Dennett; he’s quite adamant that consciousness cannot be localized to a specific part of the brain, and that the entire brain works for the benefit of conscious processing, therefore indicating that consciousness is an inseperable quality from any part of the brain. I, on the other hand, am going to be a little more brash than Dennett, and say that the most logical seat of consciousness is the part that has diverged so drastically in humans as compared to the rest of our common ancestral heritage. It only makes sense that the “specialists” Dennett talks about are the neocortical columns and that consciousness arises through their collective action.

[/quote']

 

Well, you should be able to localize consciousness to some degree, even if it is just "the area other than were the tumor was removed" in a cancer patient.

 

 

Something I can't help commenting on is the nature of consciousness in the brain: when I was rather young (13ish, so I could have misunderstood) I recall watching a documentary that heavily influenced two elements of my understanding of the mind.

 

The documentry covered observations of people with severe epilepsy, including a patient who had radical surgery surgically seperating the two hemispheres.

In that patient's case, they did a number of experiments, including one where they asked the patient to leave the room, while one side of his head was sensorily deprived.

Then, they switched sides and asked the fellow why he left the room, and his response was he was thirsty, and wanted to get a coke.

 

The impression it left me with is that conciousness can be divided (as both sides of the brain appeared to have and act on different experiences when stimuli to one side was supressed) and secondarily, that at times we mentally try to retroactively understand our actions under the guise of choosing our actions. (Such as emotional states of denial we often make up logical reasons for our behavior).

 

But on the topic of divided conciousness, I found this especially erie.

 

Is it medically considered impossible to have a divided conciousness? I am mostly curious because I want to know if I totally misunderstood that documentry somehow.

 

[edit, I found these two links eye openers that seem to support split conciousness]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html

[ / edit]

Sorry to go so off topic, on topic regarding the DNI:

 

I can't help but to think one of the most powerful positive technologies we could invent would be anything that allows us to communicate actual feelings, thoughts, and emotions between people.

 

It would make human existance up to that point appear to be dreadfully isolated with absolutely no points of reference other than oneself. It would be the ultimate in lie detection, if a politician actually wanted to convey their sincerity they could do it directly.

 

It would of course have a huge capacity for mis-use and in terms of privacy violations would be unparalled, plus the other risks mentioned above.

 

 

When it comes to the development of run-away superintelligence, I doubt that would run a high risk of human existinction, even if we became obsolete. It took 4 billion years for us to evolve, any intelligence that could decide we were not needed could also decide if a more advanced version of itself wanted to revise that conclusion it would be very costly to reproduce us. IMO cost-of-mistake management is a large factor in intelligence.

[GreenDestiny]

Interesting. The possibility of a DNI sounds rather scary to me though. I agree that it could (and probably would) be heavily abused.

 

I found a news article about the project at this site: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_bluebrain.html

 

I'm not so sure if it's really possible to put all these ideas into practice that easily (or even at all). It will be quite interesting to follow how much AI will be able to improve in the future.

 

padren, there has been some talk about the split-brain syndrome in one of my earlier threads. You can find it here.

 

Here's a quote from a site I mentioned in my last posting from that thread:

As discussed in the experiments on split brain patients, if a perception does not go to the left hemisphere (our center for speech) the patient says they are not conscious of it. (see a standard experiment for a review) However, his right hemisphere is aware of it and can respond accurately. For example, if the person in the experiment was asked to use the object, he would be able to accurately use the key, or if asked to write down the name of the object, the left hand would be able to write the names of simple objects. Even so, the person says they do not know what the left hand is doing. This seems to tell us that we may become conscious of something only if the information about it reach the circuits that control speech in the left hemisphere. It seems that the consciousness of the right hemisphere is largely disjoint from that of the left, the right forms a kind of unconscious mind for the left. It can be disputed that the right hemisphere is not as conscious as the left because it manifests its consciousness in other ways. The right hemisphere has an unconscious knowledge of the stimuli that is presented to it.

 

[...]

 

It is important to note that in these patients the hemispheres are not completely disconnected, the right hemisphere can inject ideas into the left through the brainstem. Split brain patients experience these communications as unexplainable hunches from the unconscious.

 

This brings us to an interesting question, are the right and left hemispheres of a split brain patient of different consciousness? Sperry rejected this notion, and most scientists agreed with him. While split-brain patients could be manipulated into displaying two independent cognitive styles, the underlying opinions, memories, and emotions were the same. This could be explained anatomically. As discussed earlier, deeper structures of the brain that are critical to emotion and physiological regulation remained connected. Split brains, actually, are not really split into two but instead form a Y.

 

From: http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/ubnrp/split_brain/Consiousness.html

 

(Unfortunately the link is no longer working - however, you can still see it at the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20040820125746/http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/ubnrp/split_brain/Consiousness.html The text needed to be highlighted with the mouse cursor in order to be seen on my computer though)

[JohnB]

Bascule and Padren, thank you for an informative and interesting read. I will read more on this subject.

 

I must admit I found the Wiki entry amusing though. We start with the definition;

In future studies, a technological singularity is a point where technological and social change passes a point where there is a fundamental change in the nature of technology, society, and of human beings.

That's cool. The article then goes on to say;

The nature of such things after such an event would not be comprehended or predicted by individuals prior to such a point.

The article then names several groups intent on predicting the world after the singularity. For example;

Others, such as the Foresight Institute, advocate efforts to create molecular nanotechnology, believing that nanotechnology can be made safe for pre-Singularity use or can expedite the arrival of a beneficial singularity.

Does anyone else see the flaw in their arguments?

[granpa]

This quote comes from the Blue Brain Project, which intends to use the world’s 9th most powerful supercomputer to create the most realistic, cellular level model of the neocortical column to date.

 

Daniel Dennett, one of the pre-eminent thinkers on consciousness, reckons that consciousness must come about through a cumulative, distributed effect. Imagine a thriving society of pattern analyzers who like to communicate with each other by posting little bits of “thoughtstuff” (phenomenological objects, or “phenoms” to the Dennett-initiated) on a sort of community bulletin board, which all the other pattern analyzers can read and respond to. All the pattern analyzers choose from the available “phenoms” and look for whatever patterns they choose to specialize in. And specialize they do, just like little people they all have their specific types of patterns they “like” to look for which they develop over time. So when a common pattern is discovered that enough of the specialists like, it gets reposted throughout the bulletin board of your brain, with added input from more and more specialists as the idea develops. This mimics human societal behavior, in which we figure out higher level concepts by listening to other people’s ideas and contributing back our own deductions. In collective human behavior, the role of the “phenom” is replaced with that of a meme, a “thought virus” which passes from person to person. In either case, the phenoms or memes which are replicated by the greatest number of individuals dominate the thought process or collective though process. In humans, the dominant phenoms control our behavior. In society, a tool like Google Zeitgeist can show what the collective consciousness is “thinking” about.

 

Now, I don’t want to mischaracterize Dennett; he’s quite adamant that consciousness cannot be localized to a specific part of the brain, and that the entire brain works for the benefit of conscious processing, therefore indicating that consciousness is an inseperable quality from any part of the brain. I, on the other hand, am going to be a little more brash than Dennett, and say that the most logical seat of consciousness is the part that has diverged so drastically in humans as compared to the rest of our common ancestral heritage. It only makes sense that the “specialists” Dennett talks about are the neocortical columns and that consciousness arises through their collective action.

 

If this is the case, then what the Blue Brain project is building a mathematatical model of is essentially the atomic unit of consciousness, a universal pattern analyzer which can work collaboratively with millions of variadic copies of itself to correct its own mistakes and deficiencies, who together comprise a society which can share the patterns that they individually see (and recognize that others’ see the same patterns) and also correct each others’ mistakes if the pattern doesn’t actually exist.

 

Once we have a mathematical model of this atomic unit of universal pattern analyzer, we don’t need a computer the size of Blue Brain to model this atomic unit of consciousness. I don’t mean to sound myopic, but it seems to me that it’s far more likely that we could already model tens of thousands of them, in realtime, on your modern day home PC. Blue Brain is, in effect, an emulator for the computer that the NCC’s “specialist” program runs on, and once we have that, the computational requirements will drastically decrease. The mathematical model that Blue Brain (or a project with similar methodology, if Blue Brain doesn’t pan out) produces will be the hot commodity among AI researchers, who I can only predict will begin building programs which model large communities of artificial NCCs. I really believe that once we can do that, AI researchers will finally be able to fill in the gaps themselves since they will finally have a surefire base framework to begin operating from, with the “hard stuff” already in place.

 

Furthermore, once we understand how the neo-cortical column works, we can begin to learn how to “talk” to them with electronic hardware. We can use the mathematical model to extract phenomenological messages that the columns are communicating, and then apply a (Bayesian) classification algorithm to begin divining meaning. From this we can build a “language map” of how the neocortex communicates internally. Once we have this, we can begin using computers to generate and inject phenomenological objects into the workspace of consciousness. When we can do this, and have a bidirectional interface directly into human consciousness, we’ve successfully created a direct neural interface (DNI), perhaps the ultimate form of Intelligence Amplification (IA) as predicted by Vernor Vinge.

 

So, following the successful extraction of a mathematical model of the NCC’s operation, I would predict that both strong AI and DNI are in the not-too-distant future. And if you believe all of this, then the Singularity could happen in a decade’s timespan, or less…

 

This is a syndicated meme

interesting.

[scrappy]

I am assuming that all of this discussion is about the special consciousness of humans (HC), and not about dog consciousness or fish consciousness. Having read just about every book on consciousness that I can get my hands on, I’m still in a quandary about the role of a written symbolic language in emergence of HC. To me, it still seems that the appearance of our symbolic language is more of a precursor to HC than it is a result of it.

 

The hummingbirds that come to my feeder are far more conscious than you might think possible. If the feeder is dry or the sugar water is stale they will fly at my door or catch my attention through the window to “signal the need” for me to get out there and do something about it. They “know” exactly what they are doing; and they “know” that I’m the one who is in charge of maintaining their feeder. My friend George, a farmer, has a lot more hummers than I do, and he is quite familiar with hummer consciousness. They even fly into his cabin when their feeder is dry and flutter in his face with the obvious appeal for a little service out there. And they will fly around his head and sit on his hands while he replaces the feeder. The size of a hummer’s brain is about that of a pea.

 

My point: With such a small brain the hummers can do and learn an incredible amount of consciousness-like things, even to point of communicating with humans for their sugar fixes. But what don’t they have that humans have? A recordable symbolic language.

 

Once a recordable symbolic language is invented a new condition is made possible: recursive thought and reflection, which (I boldly claim) is the key aspect to HC. That is why I am not so charmed by the imposition of fleshy analogues and big, fancy nervous systems. To me, HC still seems to have emerged with advent of our recordable symbolic language (which, btw, is digital).

 

So I have this question: Is HC possible without a recordable symbolic language?