A.I Concept built after Neurons in the brain

[iNow]

K, I'll have a look at this, but my first q is: say the cat isn't given a dose of LSD, now explain how what happened in the cat's subjective brain wasn't something like what a dose of LSD would do?

 

This question doesn't make any sense to me. Can you perhaps rephrase it? Also, what is a "subjective brain?" Is this supposed to be some internal structure like the parahippocampal gyrus or is it how you... when viewing the cat as an observer... attribute consciousness? And how does LSD play any sort of role here?

 

As you can see, I am really lost by your post and if you care to help me find my way toward your point it would be greatly appreciated.

[bascule]

K, I'll have a look at this, but my first q is: say the cat isn't given a dose of LSD, now explain how what happened in the cat's subjective brain wasn't something like what a dose of LSD would do?

 

You're asking about perception, which is quite a bit different from encoding a sensory input.

 

The geniculate nucleus processes data directly from the optic nerve before it moves onto the visual cortex. Perception would occur at a much later point in terms of visual processing.

[iNow]

glad you understood it...

[Fred56]

You're asking about perception, which is quite a bit different from encoding a sensory input.

Got it. But again, how do the experimenters know that what they are 'seeing' is a valid internal process (that produces a 'real' image as far as the cat can tell)?

How does artificially inducing some 'experience' in a subject's brain produce a 'real' experience. How can we tell?

[iNow]

Got it. But again, how do the experimenters know that what they are 'seeing' is a valid internal process (that produces a 'real' image as far as the cat can tell)?

How does artificially inducing some 'experience' in a subject's brain produce a 'real' experience. How can we tell?

 

Perhaps a better question: When neural structures are activated, does it matter if the stimulation which caused that activation is a natural response to external stimuli or if it's an induced response due to selective application of current to those neural structures? If so, how?

 

I believe one of the first studies that led to our concept that it's no different (to react the natural world or stimulate parts of the brain artificially) came with work on a frog where we tried to measure what part of the brain showed activity when the frog's leg moved. The researcher touched that same region with electrical current and found that the leg moved in response, hence the equivalence.

 

The above is an enormously rusty recollection, and may not be even close to accurate, but it was studies such as that which allowed us to conclude that artificially activating neural structures is indistinguishable in terms of response from when those structures are activated naturally.

 

This is the premise behind occipital impants helping blind people to see. Stimulate the right spots, and they do have vision, despite the failure of their eyes.

[Fred56]

Sure, artificial visual prostheses work 'like' the real thing, and give impaired people 'real' visual experience (brain function?), there isn't much room to shoot anything at it. Microprobes presumably afford a localised precision to neuronal interfacing, but it (interfacing) needs to get more precise, and more accurate. This will undoubtedly happen at some point.

 

The resolution we are getting to is making some difference (maybe quite a big difference) to how we 'interface' with and examine brain function. And the development of miniature (nanoscale) devices --particularly organic ones, or polymers of organic molecules, maybe even DNA processors of some kind-- will probably lead us to new and more detailed pictures of the encoding, or layering of information --are there compression algorithms? There are many sophisticated signal processing algorithms in there (transforms), and some have been studied a bit (Fourier transforms). There will be the other kinds of development (prostheses), and eventually (military at first, no doubt), enhanced brain-function, because of this. I'd say this is a fairly safe prediction, just when it might be arriving is the tough bit.

 

P.S. bascule: was there any investigation of mirror neurons? I know these function during someone's observation of another subject performing some task and they 'mirror' the spatial and motor processing (without effecting any movement) the observed subject is doing, is there any known parallel in the visual system? Or connections to mirror neurons from the visual cortex?

 

Here's some stuff about a new book on the subject of biotech:

In Beyond Human, Gregory Benford and Elisabeth Malartre (a husband-and-wife team) take a more personal, promotional approach, ... Interviews with pioneers and participants in enhancement research, robotics and engineering, and informed perspectives on the theory, economics and actuality of life extension, give Beyond Human the flavour of a tourist guide to the future...

 

The authors detail the experiences of our true cyborgs — disabled people whose high-tech prosthetics may make them more competitive than their able peers. They try to answer technical questions about the smallest size attainable for nanobot fingers and the practical limits of very small manipulators, and by implication, tiny intelligence devices ...

 

As biology and synthetic biology converge, and true artificial life becomes more and more feasible, the power for change will exceed that of nuclear energy. The fire of life is more subtle and pervasive and, through mass production and the internet, is being made available not just to well-funded government institutions but to private individuals. Training and research at secondary school will be essential for the biotech future, but could put dangerous tools into the hands of those whose aim is mass destruction — be they terrorists or domestic bigots ...

 

Together, these books serve up a feast with many side-dishes. The future is not behind us. Full of danger and potential, it is still unexplored territory[.]

P.S. please excuse any appearance of making a plug for this book, this is not at all my intention.

[amiya]

AI based on human brain is possible. Research is going on to 'map' the neural circuitry and 'Brainbow' is a step towards that direction. You may wish to read about this (neural neurode analogy) in http://www.benbest.com/computer/nn.html. Brain computer interface is gaining foothold and enabling a paraplegic person to move simply by thought, is a stones throw away.

As of "lots of products were invented by creativity machines but i'm obliged by contract to not tell you which" it reminds me of the person who wrote in the London sub, about Fermat's last theorem that he knew the answer but did not have time.