Food for Thought

[DaveW]

Apparently, there are 300 million synaptic pathways in the human brain, and if it were possible to create any system this complex, then it would be possible to create an artificial brain.

As of 2001, there were an estimated 500 million computers connected to the internet at any single point. In 5 years, how much has that number increased?

So we have in place a system that, suitably configured, could simulate the human brain...obviously with the vast distances involved it would be incredibly slow, but what do you think of the idea of an abstract system capable of artistic thought, no matter how slow it worked?

Just something that came to mind while i was studying...what do you think? Obviously it's a Science Fiction concept, the idea of a planet-wide sentience...but in this context, it doesn't sound too implausible, does it?

Feel free to laugh at the idea, or to tell me it's impossible...I just want to know what you think of this :D

Interesting Articles Relating to this:
http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/07/16/an_artificial_b.html
wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_company_to_research_artificial_brain)
wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_brain)

I'm not saying we should do this. I've seen Terminator. :D

-Dave

[Cevinzol]

So we have in place a system that [...], could simulate the human brain...it would be incredibly slow

I just want to know what you think of this :D
"I'm sorry Dave I'm a fraid I can't do that" - HAL

They have a prototype at:
1600 Pensylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
It looks human but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[nil8]

The problem with turning a computer into a human is covered in a wonderful lecture series called "Philosophy of the Mind" by John R. Searle at Berkley.
It's a wonderful study of philosophy and it's different aspects and how a turing machine works vs the human brain. Some of the best brain food I have found yet.

Another book on the subject(sort of) is "Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil.

Give both of them a shot, well worth the time.

[The Modfather]

That thought scares me very much. :) I've read more than a few books that touched on that topic very closely. (No, not Neuromancer type books). I think the Internet is far from being able to be any kind of artificial intelligence, even if you INCLUDE its users. <Smirk>

[DaveW]

I'm not talking about making a computer into a human brain, but i'm talking about making a computer do the functions of a single Neuron. As i understand it the brain is made up of different types of Neuron, so a software application could be written that allows a computer to work as a specific type of neuron, and communicate with other computer-neurons in the same way the human brain does. It would result, in my opinion, in a large-scale network capable of abstract thought, capable of the same mental feedback loop that results in our being able to think of our own thoughts; i.e. the computer would be self aware. The interesting thing is that, being artificial, we would be able to teach it all the information we care to from the word go. Unfortunately, something special would need to be configured should anyone decide to give it an interface, as it's fairly obvious that you can't interact with it through any 'neurons'.

Leading to the philisophical question of whether it is possible for a brain in a jar to truly be alive.


That thought scares me very much.

Isaac Asimov called that "The Frankenstein complex". He felt that people would fear their own creations. Philip K. Dick agreed with him as well, but then, he didn't have the 3 laws of robotics. The satirical author John Sladek stated that no suitably advanced intelligence capable of inventive thought could be bound by Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, and wrote an incredibly funny book called Tik-Tok which is sadly out of print. If you can get a copy, i'd highly recommend it.

Actually, i think Asimov was the first one to suggest a planet-wide sentience, he called it Multivac. Don't quote me on that, i could be wrong.

-Dave

[XcOM]

If there is a true AI somewhere, it will be able to explain the phrase:

"Time flys like an arrow, fruit flys like banannas"

[DaveW]

Fruit flys, as in the species, right?

You realise any one of us could be an AI...*paranoia kicks in*

-Dave

[Rankenphile]

Resistance is futile. Assimilation is inevitable.

I for one welcome our hulking robot overlords.

[Slug Toy]

ive been uncomfortably out of the loop here for a while. this was interesting enough to draw me back in.

heres the way i look at it. we have seti@home and folding@home and all sorts of grid computing going on. anything is possible given time. i think its more than a possibility that someone somewhere is working on a grid computing system to simulate the human brain and/or mind. if we can simulate global warming, and the earth in general, then im sure we can simulate thought.

look at what we've already accomplished. thanks to computers, we have years upon years of computational work done for us in various aspects. hell, last time i checked, i think we had 100 some odd proteins simulated that may hold the key to fighting HIV.

take spore for another example. i remember seeing that procedural stuff on tv years and years ago. it was creating primitive styrofoam robots that could only MOVE, and lego structures to stretch out as high or as wide as possible. now we have it implemented (in a much more advanced form) to make universes, galaxies, solar system, planets, and organisms. not only that, but from what i have gathered, the procedural stuff has a certain amount of learning that can take place, and the ability to dynamically react to things.

what im getting at is this. if we can simulate how virtual organisms move and behave.... if we can search the stars and atoms for the next big breakthrough, we sure as hell can simulate a brain. although, perhaps the large scale arrays arent the way to go. if you think about it, cpu's and gpu's are pretty close to having the level of complexity needed. the unified shader architecture is probably best suited, and im sure we can add on to that to create some sort of general purpose brain.

interestingly, when i was heating up some home made curried chick peas and potatoes for lunch... mmmmm... the microwave kept shutting off as if to voice its opinions about its current situation. not being one to take any sass talk, i gave it a good talking to, and a slap upside the microwave equivalent of the head-region. ive got my eye on the minifridge downstairs... i think it egged on the microwave, and im just waiting for it to slip up.

[The Modfather]

I've read Tik-Toc, great book, been ages since I read it though. :)

It's amazing that after all these years and advances in AI, we still haven't gone much further with it than Eliza. :)

[opengswede]

I just can't let a topic like this go unanswered... being who I am.

There are a few researchers working on artificial brains, mainly using neural networks (given that a node, ie neuron, is a fairly simple unit). There biggest problem is the reconnection between neurons, and that the brain is constantly changing. In addition, for the brain, the sum of the units doesn't explain the whole. We have functions that are so complex that they are yet to be explained, including memory.

Other functions that are hard to explain include consiousness, which is even hard to define (can you guys give me a good example?). And given that, we can pose the philosophical question of whether a though (which doesn't necessarily have to be complex) can exist without consiousness? " cogito ergo sum" . Thus, if we can't define consiousness, can we define thought and thinking?

On a different topic. Simulations of various human functions (language, reasoning, etc) have shown that neural networks (ANN) are performing quite poor, both in accuracy and time. This just leads us back to the sum-of-the-parts problem.

Internet is good for distributed computing, but will (at least is my guess) never be able to even remotly mimic the human brain behaviour. I think that a single computer is more likely to handle that (given that high-order cognitive functions can be explained).

Hmm, I just realize i'm breaking a vrey important rule here, but I can't be bothered to find the exact references, so if you want them, ask me. Is that OK?

Nice way to start a monday morning...

cheers
-.erik

[xmastree]

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas"Tits like coconuts. :p

[Rankenphile]

Tits like coconuts. :p

...and a brain to match. :p

[crazybillybob]

Resistance is futile. Assimilation is inevitable.

I for one welcome our hulking robot overlords.



Here's one now (http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/showthread.php?p=29894#post29894), And Here's Another one (http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2614), Holy Crap Look at this one! (http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/showthread.php?t=609&highlight=R2D2)

See Their already here and you didn't even notice.....Silly human :) :eek:



CrazyBillybob......The Ultimately Screwed Up AI!8)

[nil8]

The problem with the idea of a computer as a human brain is even if the technology was there, all it's doing is simulating action.

Let's take disgestion as an easier example.
If you write a program that goes through the entire process of human digestion, and run the program, the computer isn't digesting. It is going through the process without have any of the components to do the said act.
You can't feed a computer a pizza while the program is running and expect it to form hcl acid.


As for defining most of the upper workings of the brain, this is more metaphysical than physics-based. Defining existance, awareness, and knowledge isn't easy.

[opengswede]

I disagree with the analogy: yes programming a computer to simulate the digestive system would just be a simulation and nothing more. However, that wouldn't stop us from creating an artificial system with real fluids and nutrients that could actually digest, perhaps inefficiently or poorly but still we would could do it using mechanical or electronic receptors and valves to regulate the hcl onset ect. But would this be a simulation?

This is where the definition gets muddy: if we have a system that does all that a human do, is this a simulation? Same goes for AI; the Turing test: if it acts like a human and responds to input like a human, is the system a human?
To me it looks like we could accept that a simulation of a digestive system (i.e. a computer model) is not the same as a real one, but is an artificial system the same as a real? Is dialysis machine the same as a kidney? The function is similar, yet mechanical.

However, if we build a complete model of a cognitive ability, is this a simulation? It handles input as a human, (acts like a human).
I'm thinking this is just philosophy.

As for the metaphysics comment, my question then is: How can it be metaphysical? Is there another force acting upon the human brain, other than chemical and electric reactions among neurons. To answer that we'll have to look at religion I guess.

Sorry guys, this is a my area and I tend to ramble about these things...

For a good Turing test, check out ELIZA (http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html).

-.erik

[nil8]

To me it looks like we could accept that a simulation of a digestive system (i.e. a computer model) is not the same as a real one, but is an artificial system the same as a real? Is dialysis machine the same as a kidney? The function is similar, yet mechanical.

Just because 2 things function the same doesn't make them the same. A dialysis machine is built, not grown. That's the real question and it is a philisophical one. Is built existance as valid?



As for the metaphysics comment, my question then is: How can it be metaphysical? Is there another force acting upon the human brain, other than chemical and electric reactions among neurons. To answer that we'll have to look at religion I guess.


Physics can't explain many brain states and why we are sentient beings. Thus it is metaphysics. It is something outside of our current model.
Philosophy itself is metaphysical. The 'big' questions aren't answered with science. There are no real answers, and that's hard for rationalizing beings to grasp.

[DaveW]

Considering that the brain simply uses electrical signals, and all our so-called sentience is merely a by-product of a unique evolutionary pathway, there's no reason to see why a mechanical life is any less valid than an evolved one.

Take this hypothetical scenario: You have a man who's involved in a horrific accident. In order to save him, a brilliant surgeon manages to remove his brain and his nervous system, intact, and implants it into a robotic body. Then, a robot, identical in appearance and able to simulate human actions right down to artistic expression, is placed in the same room. Would you be able to tell them appart?

Another hypothetical scenario: the surgeon cannot save the man, but knows a brilliant engineer, who has devised a way of making a mechanical brain that can be configured as a direct copy of another brain. The dying man's brain is scanned, then he dies: The mechanical brain is, for all purposes, everthing that was in his brain. Is this new brain deserving of the same rights as the weaker fleshy variant?

I think the biggest fears people have is that they know, were a brain made equal to that of a human, then it will surpass the human brain in no time; it will be faster, quicker to learn, and it will not forget.

But, to bring up a good point before i bore you to death: Theoretically speaking, a brain is an impossible thing in digital electronics, simply because there's no way to generate random variables. The most we could ever make would be a powerful calculating machine. On another note, our own artistic visions are enforced through social interactions, and thus, no artificial intelligence could ever become suitably creative...unless it had access to all sorts of social ideologies, and a vast input of random information. Such as the internet would provide....

I considered going into robotics for a while, but now i'm considering going into AI when i graduate. It's a fascinating field.

-Dave

[Exley]

When i saw the first post i did this -> :eek: then i thought of these movies: The Matrix, The Terminator, I Robot. in short AI will lead to the destruction of the human race. Just my 2 cents, could just be that i like Sci-Fi a little too much :D

P.S. when i read the title, i did this, MMMMMM food for thought *DROOL*

[Slug Toy]

Theoretically speaking, a brain is an impossible thing in digital electronics, simply because there's no way to generate random variables.

and here's where i come in. i know a thing or two about biology and chemistry. theres no such thing as random even in our own heads.

A. chemicals dont really move randomly in an organism... at least the useful chemicals dont. proteins and various other useful molecules disperse according to concentration gradients, and follow some fairly strict rules about polarity and ph and whatnot. if anyone who has seen folding@home at work, they will know that atoms in the molecules attract or repel each other with some very strict rules too. further to that, cells have the ability to "force" molecules to go where they are needed eg. Na-K pump, carrier proteins, cytosis of various forms. actually, to generalize and really make things messy, atoms of any sort follow plenty of rules that kind of prevent random from happening. random really only happens in very rare cases (like a single atom in a perfect vaccuum).

B. dealing with our mind, random doesnt even exist there, except in my mind. most people (not me) draw their ideas and creativity from past events/knowledge even if they dont realise it. its kind of like how people always choose the number 7. there are just certain things that we inherently mimic, if you can think of it that way.

so i would have to say that the brain and mind are either complete impossibilities (randomness aside), or they are both complete possibilities (randomness still aside).

further to that, we dont NEED random. think of things like primordia (i think thats the atomic simulation benchmark). those programs incorporate real life rules that the atoms follow. this is all we need to simulate what happens in a brain. we just need the proper quantity and type of atoms to allow things to happen. for instance, if we want to make virtual proteins, just make sure we have some virtual carbon compounds, nitrates, and phosphates around, maybe a little sulphur, and the enzymes found in the brain. you can then watch natural processes unfold on your computer.

i think i had a larger point to make, but i forgot now, and i think what ive said about that is good enough. im definitely staying out of the theoretical "human mind in a machine" thing because that is a topic of morality more than anything, and it brings out the idiot in a lot of people. its a decision i dont want to be making.

ill close by saying once again that i believe its perfectly reasonable to have a computer performing neural functions. we would just need a freaking huge computer to handle the trillions of atoms involved. quantum computing would be handy for that.

[Rankenphile]

I'm not going to weigh in too heavy into this discussion, as there is already a lot going on.

However, I am going to voice my opinion in this regard - everything in the universe can be explained logically. Whether or not we posess the logical circuits in our own collective conciousnesses to make logical sense out of it is a completely different topic altogether.

In my opinion, the human brain works exactly the same way. It is a perfectly logical combination of logical circuits which are constructed (notice I didn't say designed... THAT is an entirely different can of worms that I'm not going to get into) in a way that allows us to learn, to reason and to abstract. A computer, among other things, is a logical processor - it takes input and spits out information that may be surprising, may even appear completely random, but will always, always have a logical source, if analyzed close enough.

I think that duplicating the human brain, and every single one of it's functions, is certainly something that could be done using circuitry. Do we possess the technology to do so now? Hardly. Will we ever? Undoubtedly, if we as a species can survive that long (100 years tops until the technology is capable of such a leap). Are we as a species smart enough to create a machine that could perform this task? I don't know, but I don't think so. At least not yet. I don't think we're nearly close enough to understanding exactly how a brain does everything it does to be able to rebuild it exactly.

Sci-fi horror stories are very much the Frankenstein syndrome. I'm one hell of a lot more frightened about what we have already done, as a species, without fully understanding the consequences than I am about accidentally creating a race of malicious super-inteligent robot overlords.

Then again, I've been watching a lot of dinosaur stuff on the history channel lately. To think that those creatures existed for tens of millions of years, while the human race is only tens of thousands of years old, is astounding. It really puts you in your place, on an evolutionary scale, and forces you to think that maybe, maybe we are not the end-product of evolution at all.

Hell, we're barely a speedbump.

[Rankenphile]

For a good Turing test, check out ELIZA (http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html).

-.erik

Eliza still has a long way to go before Turing would give her the gold star, but she's good for a laugh or two.

It reminded me of this (http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0952/), which is good for more than a laugh or two.

[maximan1]

AAAAAAA!!!
COMPUTERS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!
Ack!
*DIES*

[CanaBalistic]

Well i could make a few huge paragraphs for you all to read but what im submiting would fill a novel or two.

Its a documentary style movie on where we stand as humans. There are sevral top level educators from berkley, harvard, ect. Quantum physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, The list is extencive. The name of the film is "what the bleep do we know". I found it on my p2p program, Ares.


Genre: Comedy / Drama
Tagline: a quantum fable

Plot Summary: "WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown...

[MitaPi]

I only read the first post first off.. but I think of technology this way.. However many years ago we thought up laser guns for star trek (and star wars) but said it was impossible. We will now be seeing within 15-30 years completed hand held laser weapondry. SO! I think we are a far ways away from a cyber brain but I think it will be possible sometime in the future. This reminds me of a series/movie called "ghost in the shell".

[GT40_GearHead]

Hell, we're barely a speedbump.


true true

[Airbozo]

I only read the first post first off.. but I think of technology this way.. However many years ago we thought up laser guns for star trek (and star wars) but said it was impossible. We will now be seeing within 15-30 years completed hand held laser weapondry. SO! I think we are a far ways away from a cyber brain but I think it will be possible sometime in the future. This reminds me of a series/movie called "ghost in the shell".


Pssst! Here's little secret I learned in the military. If they say we will have it in 15-30 years, the military is already playing with it. Take sound weapons. They are already being deployed for use in civilian forces which means the military has been using them for at least a decade.

I also am sometimes taken in by the "frakenstein theory"(?), but then remember that so far computers are only as intelligent as the designers that built them and the programmers that put them to use. In 50 years we will be having the "computers don't kill people, people kill people" debate.

[overdosedelusion]

i actually think its impossible to create a machine with human thaught. im pretty sure a computer wouldnt understand morality or mortality. computers are logical so i dont think they would care about feelings. but whatever, if it happens then i pray to God we have control of them :S

[MitaPi]

Pssst! Here's little secret I learned in the military. If they say we will have it in 15-30 years, the military is already playing with it. Take sound weapons. They are already being deployed for use in civilian forces which means the military has been using them for at least a decade.

I also am sometimes taken in by the "frakenstein theory"(?), but then remember that so far computers are only as intelligent as the designers that built them and the programmers that put them to use. In 50 years we will be having the "computers don't kill people, people kill people" debate.



This is very true. I remember reading a story about a UFO (aka the kind that when people see them they think aliens are attacking.. morons) that actually turned out to be a top secret air craft we developed (I think it was one of our stealth bombers?). Which after a decade or two (or something like that) we finally admitted to. I've also read that there is a base that is more area 51 than area 51 itself (I believe it was built into the side of a mountain of rock or something like that? does anyone know what I am talking about?). And they had developed or had started to develope an aircraft with some deal that reversed gravity. Meaning that it could float and fly around at huge speeds. Kind of like the air crafts that everyone talks about when you mention aliens. There is actually alot of information on this "reverse gravity" stuff. It was a while ago so I am having one heck of a time trying to recall it. But point of story. The government hides alot of stuff. If we hear rumors about something being developed. The truth is probably like how you said it. Its probably already been around for a decade or two.

[MitaPi]

i actually think its impossible to create a machine with human thaught. im pretty sure a computer wouldnt understand morality or mortality. computers are logical so i dont think they would care about feelings. but whatever, if it happens then i pray to God we have control of them :S

Nah forget the human thinking robots. HOW BOUT MECHA'S! NOW THAT WOULD BE MAJOR COOL! ^_^ I'd be like a real power ranger man! lol No but really, wouldnt mecha's be friggen amazing? Maybe not anime or video game big. But maybe like tank sized? I first thought that there wouldnt be enough material to make them in mass production. But after conversing with one of my buddies, he convinced me that there would definitely be enough material. The only problem I see is this. Energy. The only think I can think of is some type of nuclear battery pack. Unless... we develope the worlds largest lithium Ion AA battery... Which would probably power the worlds largest energizer bunny.. lol

[overdosedelusion]

aye, mechs would be cool, like the ones from C&C Tiberian Sun or maybe some ED:209's from robocop ^^

[tennysol]

Well, this thread is certainly interesting. The brain versus a computer brain...

The problem is that the brain is not a difference engine, while a computer is. Yes it's true that neurons fire on and off, like the Ones and Zeros created by the processor's computations, but the shear complexity of the brain shames any current attempts to mimic it. The real issue is that the brain is actually a whole network of computational devices working in conjunction to come to a conclusion for each problem it encounters, and each facet of our brain works on the problem from a different aspect...logic, emotion, historical precident, similarity to other problems, and dozens of other aspects developed within our personality.
It's why babies can't do complex geometry, or change their own diapers...because our brains are not technically doing anything but storing everything we encounter and then referencing it later. Young brains learn by experience, not programming, which is why many attempts to create true AI are based in creating experiences for the computer...a learning process. The problem is access, a computer generally has perfect recall, the brain is an imperfect system which utilizes imperfect memory to create personality, choice, etc. Once a computer learns something they know how to do it...but only as long as all of the variables are accounted for. A human brain cannot perfectly duplicate actions time after time, but the brain can adapt to changing situations based on our ability to recall and adapt situations.

Computer = Learns something...duplicates the process perfectly (but only if the conditions are known) - Simple and Complex Processes Equally duplicated in perfection.
Brain = Learns something...duplicates the process imperfectly (but adapts to constantly changing conditions without knowledge of them) - Simple Processes more likely to be recreated perfectly/Complex Processes less likely to be recreated perfectly

Examples
Simple Problem: 2+2
Computer once programmed to do math will always get 4
Human once taught math will most likely always get 4, but not with 100% certainty.

Complex Problem: Swinging a golf club
Computer once programmed can hit the ball exactly the same way each time, given no outside conditional changes
Human once taught to hit a golf ball will do its best to recreate the situation, regardless of external conditions, with the chance of successfully recreating perfect swing depending on a myriad of aspects and conditions.

A computer cannot do anything except what it is programmed to do, and programming cannot take into account every single variable and other previous programs in order to create a decision, whereas a human brain can deduce an adaption from previous situations and attempt to solve the problem at hand in new ways.

Hooking up 500 million computers just means hooking up 500 million of the same aspect to attack a problem. It's why hooking up 100,000 computers to analyse weather patterns is good, but putting 100 meterologists in a room together to analyse weather patterns isn't. As many different computers as there are, there is very little difference in their programming (fundamentally). Until each one of those machines is capable of analysing a problem from seperate aspects and from totally unique angles the attempt to recreate a human brain from them is unlikely to succeed.

Sorry about that...I just got going and couldn't stop...:rolleyes:

[.jrauck]

All that I can say is they probably already have a highly sophisticated robot. If they have had a robot that can walk, talk, see, and learn around 5 years ago what are they creating now? No the robot did not have a human brain but it still can learn. Why dont they use bloodless peoples brains, and stick them in a robot(I know its not that easy but can still try). Think if stealth bombers were made in the 50s what could they have now?

[Airbozo]

Well they did have stealth bombers in the 50's and flying wings, but the pilot could not controll the aircraft dur to the instability issues. Those issues were solved with computers "evaluating" the control surfaces and "interpreting" the input from the stick (fly-by-wire), to achieve stability.

I expect as our electronics capability evolves beyond silicon that computers ability to learn and demonstrate cognitive reasoning ability will also evolve. I remember reading somewhere that it is the multiple paths and method of storing information that makes our brains what they are and allows for high level reasoning and problem solving abilities. Compare this with say birds, that have a cyclical memory, where information is learned "seasonally". They know that during the summer when it gets cold they need to stay warm where they are, but during the fall/winter when it gets cold, they need to move on. They have problem solving skills (ex: the crow that will pick up a piece of wire to fish out a treat from an acrylic tube), but if they do not use them, they have to be re-learned.

Whereas in humans, the information is always there, it is a matter of what the "trigger" is (smell, touch, sight), and what makes human brains so unique is that we all do NOT have the same triggers for any specific piece of information. It really depends on when/where/how/why we learn a specific piece of data.

[DaveW]

Examples
Simple Problem: 2+2
Computer once programmed to do math will always get 4
Human once taught math will most likely always get 4, but not with 100% certainty.

I hope this doesn't sound insulting, but computers aren't programmed to count -they have a device in the CPU called the ALU, or Arithemtic Logic Unit. Having designed one on paper, i can actually say that it is possible to put the same sum into a computer and get two different answers (i've even encountered it at times).This normally only occurs during floating point calculations, which the computer is not equiped to do properly. For A computer to take 2+2, feed it into the adder, and return an incorrect answer; this reprisents a serious hardware fault, as the computer can no more 'make a mistake' than water can flow uphill. However, there are some things that the computer cannot handle properly...floating point operations are one of these things.

Meh, i'm too tired right now to remember what my point is. But i still think that it's possible on a huge, abstract point of view.

-Dave

[opengswede]

Putting human brains (complete) inside machines would cause some serious ethical implications. I mean, stem cells are controversial, then using living brains would be too. I can't see any research program getting a go from an ethics commitee for this, even if they supply their own brains. You would have to take living people, since the brain dies quicker than most organs.

And the problem is just not access to memory. Logical reasoning only use some memory access, pattern matching often. Creativity is another process that is pretty much unmapped. Consciousness is another one. But I think we been there already.
However, I love to hear your input on creativity. To me (this is recent thinking from my part) it's a process that is highly goverened by attention. A sudden switch in attention and you'll see different parts of the problem that previously were inaccessible. This, in turn makes specific memory access and a different pattern matching. The only problem now is that creativity, by definition, often requires novelty (i.e. a new thing or using an existing thing for something new). Simple pattern matching would fail to come to new solutions. Perhaps with relaxed constrained on the pattern and their mapping to reasoning?
what do you think? and how do you spot acts of creativity? perhaps this is a new thread?

-.erik

[tennysol]

This normally only occurs during floating point calculations, which the computer is not equiped to do properly. For A computer to take 2+2, feed it into the adder, and return an incorrect answer; this reprisents a serious hardware fault, as the computer can no more 'make a mistake' than water can flow uphill. -Dave

Simple calculations...c'mon here Dave. Use the windows calculator and add 2+2...you're gonna get 4...unless we're talking about "operator error", and that's a human problem. I was speaking in general terms here...not the dig deep and pick apart an argument terms. But I see your point...:rolleyes:

[DaveW]

Sorry...i tend to think about things at a lower-level language level these days...my course in Uni will do that to me :(

Curse you PIC! No, i love you really... ;)

-Dave