Yet Olds cautioned that simulating the human brain is "such a complex problem that we may not be able to get to an answer, even with supercomputing."
"There are no guarantees in this game because the sheer complexity of the problem really dwarfs anything we've tried to do," he said.
Computer researchers say they've made a significant advance in their attempts to build a computer that "thinks" more like a brain - able to deal with ambiguity and abstractions. Until now, thinking computers have been the stuff of science fiction - HAL anyone? - and, in spite of this development, may remain there for awhile, say the researchers.
I don't know. Perhaps they could begin with something far simpler, like Sarah Palin's brain?
Ouch! Sorry to my conservative friends. But can anyone tell me they would seriously consider her worthy of national public office?
When thinking computers are created, and yes, I do believe they will be, it will not be done by the colossal task of mimicking the human brain (hardware) or thought process (software), but by a very simple realization of what constitutes thinking at its most fundamental level. Is what a gerbil does thinking? How about a fish, or a bee or a geranium, algae or chrystal? Once we make that one tiny (accidental perhaps?) realization of what separates non-thinking from thinking, watch out.
Posted by: jim spice | 2009.11.19 at 01:26 PM
http://bit.ly/62iVPR
Posted by: jim spice | 2009.11.20 at 04:45 PM