[ExI] Brain emulation, regions and AGI [WAS Re: Kelly's future]

[Kelly Anderson]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Richard Loosemore <rpwl at lightlink.com> wrote:
> Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Richard Loosemore <rpwl at lightlink.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> Are there not different types of neurons in different areas of the
>> brain? Would this not contribute to different algorithms being
>> applied?
>
> There are differences, yes, but in the cortex the main differences that I
> know about are all within-column (the layers of a column contain different
> types).  I stand ready to be corrected here, if someone knows about
> particular differences across columns.  The more obvious situations where
> unusual neurons compute different functions would be cases like the
> cerebellum, which appears to be a fine-motor-control mechanism (its the one
> that comes into play when a pianist learns how to generate complex patterns
> of finger movement without having to think about the exact details) .... in
> this case there are some very specialized types of cells (e.g. Purkinje) and
> architecture, all of which appears dedicated to the one function.

This all sounds like there are pretty big differences between various
areas of the brain.

If I understand what you're saying, the cortex is structurally uniform
(other than perhaps connection patterns in the dendrites, which is
what I think you may be saying about within-column) but that different
functions somehow manage to navigate themselves into similar areas
across individuals. That's extremely interesting.

The cortex is just one brain area. If you look at the brain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_brain_left_dissected_midsagittal_view_description_2.JPG
it seems pretty clear that there are structures or regions that are
quite distinct. One would have to be crazy to assume that they did not
have distinct purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putamen
etc.

So, if I'm understanding right, what you are talking about is just in
the cortex, right?

>> It would be fascinating to understand how these neighborhoods get set
>> up. How much is genetic, how much experimental... probably a mix of
>> both, I would suspect.
>
> Indeed.  We have a bunch of information about the adaptability of the
> system:  if the left language area is damaged in early childhood, the
> corresponding right area takes over, and language develops normally. Later
> damage does not allow such a transfer to happen.  That single fact, as far
> as I am concerned, is a strong indication that the cortex is fairly
> homogeneous in its functioning, but only specialized as a result of the
> traffic that collects in the various places.

That's extremely interesting. I've heard that the brain has three
overall structures, the reptile brain (roughly the brain stem), the
mammalian brain (cortex), and the distinctly human part of the brain
(neo cortex). Are you talking about the mammalian part, the human part
or both?

And would it not make sense that part of our thought processes take
place outside the cortex?

>> Aren't there fully functional computational models of parts of the
>> brain now? Aren't those models based on bottom up analysis, rather
>> than top down?
>
> There is a model of the cerebellum, but that really is a separate, fairly
> simple function.

Oh, I wish I understood more about all this.

> If you are talking about the wiring diagrams that have recently been
> announced, I believe you will find that all those announcements are kind of
> sneaky:  what they actually mean by building a computational model is that
> they have *sampled* the neurons and patterns of wiring in a small area, and
> then done a *statistically* accurate reconstruction of that area.  I
> consider that to be a cheat.

Even if it is a cheat, it might be useful. Time will tell.

> I am less sure whether anyone has done a real circuit diagram or model.
>  Because all these announcements and press releases tend to be fuzzy on the
> details, it can be very frustrating to try to find out exactly what level of
> detail they claim to have done.  To the best of my knowledge, ALL of the
> current claims about having bottom-up models of parts of the brain are
> "cheats" in the above sense.

I am less interested in cheating than in utility... :-)

Kurzweil talks about areas of the auditory channel that have been
fully emulated, among others. Do you have any comment along those
lines?

>> The only reason I'm on the Whole Brain Emulation bandwagon is that the
>> brain is the only example of intelligence we have. I get the whole
>> bird/plane analogy, but without understanding the rules of avionics,
>> you can't build a plane, and studying birds is ONE WAY of
>> understanding avionics. Granted, this isn't the only way.
>
> The bird-plane analogy is, alas, wholly false.  It would be valid if the
> system we were trying to duplicate were not a complex system.
>
> So, the main implication of my 2007 complex systems paper was that it is
> extremely risky to assume that the plane (so to speak) can actually be built
> in any way other than by making it as close to a bird as possible.

Indeed. That does seem like the easiest way to do it.

-Kelly