Scientst to build new brain...
Scientst to build new brain...
sure sure... Not that I want to be anti science, but can we please spend that money on something like space? http://bigthink.com/ideas/scientists-to-build-a-virtual-brain?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Fuck space, I want my virtual brain! I like this part: "Some scientists do not think the plan will work." IANASY (I am not a scientist yet), but put me down on the (extremely) skeptical side.
You see no useful applications for AI, but lots for space travel? And yeah, this is probably total bullshit, but the idea is still nice.
Slightly more info on this article. This looks like it will actually work to some extent, but it's going to be a really shitty brain. Considering that much of our knowledge of the brain in terms of behavior is largely at the level of gross anatomy and current processors can't handle anything close to a real brain, I can't see this thing doing all that much. It might make a really cool toy, though.
Its not that i actually see more use for space, it's that I'm so dubious of people who talk with this kind of "authority" in the "we will have it done", that I would much rather spend the money somewhere people are saying "this is what I want to build, and we'll go from there".
We are so far away from understanding how the brain actually works, and yet we will "make one". It's just annoying as hell, and makes me think these guys are either blowhards, or not-scientists.
I'm more than happy to spend money in any area of science. I just like big space things right nwo. :-)
So, you'd rather have people who are unconfident about their technology than those who are our confident? I mean, obviously they aren't really sure this will work, but they have to get a grant and sell it as good investment.
I find arrogant scientists to be destructive, aggressive towards others, and far more likely to cheat than ones who say "I'm pretty aware of my limitations, and want to push it". And yes, this is only one article, so maybe they are being slightly misrepresented, but I don't really think so.
The business of science is not to "make" or "do" something, it's to "let's see where this goes, and work from there".
The entire space race which had HUGE economic benefits comes from way too many short cuts, shoddy science, and lack of regard for safety. But it worked. so in that sense, maybe you are right. But I am by nature, not into that kind of work, evne if it means we might not have been teh first on the moon.
If you want to get somewhere, you can't say "Yeah, this technology maybe might work, let's just spend $100 quadrillion billions and see where it takes us". You see to be unaware that they need a shitload of money to do this, and you don't get it by being timid and realistic with your predictions.
Either I'm not writing well, or you are not reading well. Either way, I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying one only does known things.. that would be stupid. I'm saying people gung ho on "proving" that they "know" what they "know" and can "make it", are the ones who are going to cheat. People who are "curious", who are "pretty sure, but...", or who "this would be cool if it fails, actually, cause it means everything we know is wrong (ie., lack of a Higgs), are far more likely to give you results that are not only interesting and useful, but fully trustworthy.
You only have to compare John Southerland's work on "beginning of life" with the "science for sale" (god, why can't i remember his name) guy who "proved" that he could "start life" within an existing cell, then publish all over; or NASA's own Wolfe-Simon who proudly, and far too early proclaimed she had "found new life". This kind of arrogance gets in the way of really finding new life.
Can we build a brain? one day, maybe. Should we try now? Sure. Should these guys who "know it's possible' and do not seem at all to reflect modern understanding (or really, total lack thereof) of the brain be the ones to be funded this kind of money? hell no.