Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Artificial brain 'Spaun' passes IQ tests
TG Daily ^ | 12/3/12 | Flora Malein

Posted on 12/03/2012 9:13:28 AM PST by LibWhacker

Researchers at the University of Waterloo, Canada, have built the world’s most sophisticated artificial brain to date.

Known as ‘Spaun’, (short for Semantic Pointer Architecture Unified Network), the model is able to simulate complex brain behaviour and is capable of thinking remembering, seeing and interacting with its environment using a mechanical arm.

Although Spaun currently exists in the simulated world inside a computer, it is one of the most advanced models ever created by scientists to understand how the human brain functions.

Unlike previous brain models, such as the 'million processor computer', which feature large networks of neurons with generally limited functions, Spaun’s 2.5 million neurons are designed to mimic our own brain’s structure with a prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and thalamus that allow it to ‘think’ about its environment and respond to the patterns it encounters.

"It has been interesting to see the reactions people have had to Spaun," says Chris Eliasmith, a professor in the department of philosophy at Waterloo University.

Even seasoned academics have not seen brain models that actually perform so many tasks. Models are typically small, and focus on one function."

A collaboration between neuroscientists and software engineers, Spaun receives its visual input via a 784 pixel digital camera this is relayed to its ‘thalamus’ which performs the same function it would in a human brain: processing the data it receives.

Once processed, the data is stored in Spaun’s neurons and directed to its basal ganglia which selects the appropriate action it should perform. Using this system, Spaun has been able to perfom well in a variety of IQ-testing tasks, including a test which demonstrates its understanding of numerical concepts.

However, Spaun’s mental abilities are not something to get too worried about just yet. As Eliasmith explains, they’re still a long way off being able to replicate anything like the sorts of tasks the human brain is able to perform.

"People are enormously more complicated," he says, "[Spaun] is nowhere near as intricate or sophisticated as human brains…it’s miles away."

It is hoped, however that Spaun could provide insights into what happens when parts of the brain become diseased and stop functioning. The researchers have already looked at what happens when you ‘kill’ some of the synthetic neurons.

"There are not only deep philosophical questions you can approach using this work — such as how the mind represents the world – but there are also very practical questions you can address about the diseased brain," Eliasmith said.

I believe that critical innovations are going to come from basic research like this. I can’t predict what specific industry or company is going to use this work or how — but I can list a lot that might."

Videos for Spaun simulations


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: artificial; brain; iq; spaun

1 posted on 12/03/2012 9:13:37 AM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Work on this is incremental, but it’s progressing. I expect viable android brains within my childrens’ lifetimes.


2 posted on 12/03/2012 9:19:04 AM PST by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Always one shortfall....It’s not living!!!!


3 posted on 12/03/2012 9:24:17 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

it’s a simulation, not an actual construct. in a simulation, things occur in a predicted manner, in the real world there is the unexpected.
this is an accomplishment of it;s own, but it still doesn’t exist in the real world.


4 posted on 12/03/2012 9:25:45 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Oh, Really?

Does this unit have a soul?


5 posted on 12/03/2012 9:33:09 AM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

yeah, it all sounds like so much fun

but just wait until it becomes self-aware


6 posted on 12/03/2012 9:33:24 AM PST by Mr. K (some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Lest one changes the definition.


7 posted on 12/03/2012 9:35:40 AM PST by Republican1795.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Skynet became self-aware on ... The more we try and create these mistakes in machinery the more real jobs are lost. I chuckle when I watch the movie "Wall-E" with my kids and cannot help but think that is us in a few generations... if we make it that long.
8 posted on 12/03/2012 9:39:43 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Quantum Consciousness (Stuart Hameroff)
9 posted on 12/03/2012 9:55:14 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
The Complete Interview
10 posted on 12/03/2012 10:03:57 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

No need to go all hyper on fear of a human like brain anytime soon. In order to put it on a chip, you need to have an adequate model of the human brain. Neuroscience is no where near where it needs to be. This is why AI has largely stalled. We were supposed to have androids walking amongst us by now, according to the predictions of the AI community in the 1960’s. They have grossly underestimated what it takes to model the brain.

Once the model is made, creating the hardware is easy. The problem is with the definitions of “human” action and thought that the neuroscientists are using.

Basic philosophical principle: You can’t give what you don’t have. We do not have a good understanding of “understanding”. Most people walking around today have no idea what their purpose in the world is, so I doubt a few scientists could give that ability to a machine.

The only reason that a Skynet may happen is because whoever programs it would have put that seed in there. It would not be able to determine it’s own purpose. Even our children will not see anything more complex that the pint-size companion from the 1984 Buck Rogers TV series.


11 posted on 12/03/2012 10:14:13 AM PST by Seraphicaviary (St. Michael is gearing up. The angels are on the ready line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

If you design a machine specifically to pass a test, it will pass a test. As Big Blue with chess. I’ve seen nothing to convince me that AI is still not a chimera.


12 posted on 12/03/2012 10:20:27 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Define “living”.


13 posted on 12/03/2012 10:23:08 AM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Seraphicaviary
The model is coming along quickly. I'm just got done reading Ray Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind. He says it's pretty close and will only accelerate thereafter.
14 posted on 12/03/2012 10:25:50 AM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

It is not the “how” that makes the model. You need the “why”, which is philosophy, not science.

Kurzweil’s idea could create the proverbial “tabula raza” brain: capable of processing all the thought that a human could process, but has no inherent idea as to its purpose in the universe except for what the programmer puts into it.

Kurzweil has not solved the perennial “mind-brain” duality question. He thinks that the human brain is just a chemical computer, and if he can duplicate the processes sufficiently it will produce the “mind”, but you cannot produce a “mind” without its purpose and place in the universe being determined.

People do not create a sense of purpose on their own; purpose by its nature is something given to the person. Any purpose you can create for yourself can be just as easily dismissed. Anything so easily dismissed was never really important to begin with. It is because purpose is given from without that it has meaning and importance to us. We do not regard things in our life as important because we made a decision (wife, children, bacon, etc.) but because it was put into us and we recognize something wrong when people do not consider these things important.

So it is with machines. Machines througout history have had their purpose given to them by us, their creators. A machine mind would need a starting point for all its projected sense of morality. Be very wary of whoever programs that first machine “mind”.


15 posted on 12/03/2012 10:51:50 AM PST by Seraphicaviary (St. Michael is gearing up. The angels are on the ready line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

How does one ‘pass’ an IQ test?


16 posted on 12/03/2012 11:28:20 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seraphicaviary

Beyond the philosophical questions, the human brain seems to have a storage capacity beyond what could simply be measured by a cell-count alone. I think I read somewhere the brain has a trillion cells; I don’t know if that is right, but let’s use that figure as an example. In this digital video age, we know that a single movie can require from megabytes to gigabytes for storage, depending on resolution and compression. How many movies (to say nothing of life events) have you watched that you can replay in your mind? Of course the mind is analog, but how much storage must it require? Is that few pounds of gray matter alone really capable of such storage, or is the mind simply a terminal connected to a larger storage elsewhere?


17 posted on 12/03/2012 2:20:27 PM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; discostu

It’s technically possible to program a computer to play chess flawlessly. It would just take millions of years to make a move.


18 posted on 12/03/2012 2:54:26 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

What is the passing score on an IQ test?


19 posted on 12/03/2012 3:05:49 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I agree 100% They, computers, do what they are programmed to do and that’s it. No one has a clue how to write a program that will confer intelligence or understanding or self-awareness to a machine. Not even close, imo. The human race is quite safe — for now.


20 posted on 12/03/2012 4:16:46 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
What is the passing score on an IQ test?

That depends on whether you are a democrat or a republican...

21 posted on 12/04/2012 9:15:44 AM PST by null and void (Going Galt: The won't of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson