Newsmaker: Getting intelligent about the brain

There's no mistaking what they study at the Redwood Neuroscience Institute. There are brains all over the place.

From the colorful pictures of brain coral that hang on the walls to the promotional key chains sporting little plastic cerebral cortices, you'd have to be gray-matterless not to notice the decorative theme at this nonprofit scientific research organization. Though it may all seem a little over the top to the average visitor, such brain mania seems excusable for someone who's spent about 25 years studying the workings of this most thoughtful of organs.

Our brains work on a completely different principle than computers. It doesn't mean you can't emulate a brain on a computer, but you have to understand what the brain is doing first.

The cortex is a thin sheet like a dinner napkin, and it's about as thick as six business cards stacked flat on top of one another, about six millimeters thick. It is important because it was determined many years ago that this is where all intelligence lies. It is the location for language, map, music, art, programming culture--everything that we think about (as) humans. This is where all the things that we think (of) as higher-level thought perception occur. The key to understanding what intelligence is, is in understanding the cortex.

So if I want to build intelligent machines, I'm not going to base them on the old brain. I want to base them on the rational part of the human experience. Fortunately, the cortex is this extremely uniform structure.

You talk about the brain as always predicting things. Humans act on those predictions, and experiences provide sensory input that's sent back to the brain, which develops new predictions. A computer is mostly computing its most recent thing and involves very little prediction. Elaborate on that difference.
Well, our brains work on a completely different principle than computers. It doesn't mean you can't emulate a brain on a computer, but you have to understand what the brain is doing first. The failings of (artificial intelligence) come from the idea that you have some input and then you have some output. You feed in some information, and the output you get determines the success of the system.

They didn't have a concept of what thinking is or what perception is or what it means to understand something. The biggest conceptual difference between computers and brains is the ability to predict. Brains have this input, and their output is this internal prediction mechanism. It's basically saying, "Hey, before I act, before I do anything, I need to check. Do I understand what's going on?" Success is not whether you have the right behavior; it's whether you actually compute (with the future in mind) and you can see what's going to happen next.

Assuming your theories are correct and there is a common algorithm that allows the brain to essentially process different sensory inputs in a similar manner, how close are we to understanding that algorithm?
There are some things that I don't understand, but for the most part I think I've got the basics of it down. It's not like years away. I have a graduate student here who is building this stuff now. There are also a couple of computer science departments working on this. Computer scientists love this kind of stuff; biologists are very receptive to this; so I've had some really great feedback.

		Special report Invasion of the robots Machines that can perform tasks usually reserved for humans are finally becoming mainstream.

How long before this work moves out of academia and into commercial uses?
I would predict within a year there will be start-ups working on this. I am debating whether I want to do that myself.

What do you see as the challenges to making this into a commercially appealing product?
It's just time and effort. The idea is there; the technology is there; it's good enough. The only hesitation I would have about doing this is that I am still involved heavily in PalmOne. I also run this institute...Right at the moment I am in more of the mood of, "Let's see if I can get 1,000 other people working on this."

But it takes a long time.
Two years now, no problem: It will be happening. You know, there will be businesses started on this, and people will be working on it.

Is that project and your work at PalmOne at all complementary? Or are they really two different things at this point?
They are complementary, and I am interested in both projects because I think they represent the future of computers. In PalmOne, it's the future of personal computing where devices that fit in your pocket are going to have superfast wireless connections. The work here is like the future of computing in general.

Do you feel like you're still able to contribute in the ways that you want at PalmOne? In the early days, obviously, you were crafting a whole direction.
In the early days I came up with the direction and then I would craft the nuts and bolts. What I am doing now at PalmOne is I have a few really big ideas that I am pursuing and I can't be as involved in the details. But the conceptual things, what do you do after smart phones--I can write a position paper, go and meet with the team, get a manager to explain what these products have to do. But I can't be there day to day when someone comes back and says, "You know, the button is sticking."

Do you think this book writing effort is a one-time thing? Or are you going to come out with another one?
Oh boy--I hope so. This is hard work. I found I could only really write if I had huge blocks of time, and I only have those on weekends.  

More Newsmakers

The book name???

Umm, Excuse me if its staring at me in my face but what is the book's name?

I am very interested as I have some theories as well ;o)

The book name???

Umm, Excuse me if its staring at me in my face but what is the book's name?

I am very interested as I have some theories as well ;o)

Getting Intelligent about the Brai n

Great remarks and great claims by J Hawkins
Brains do NOT produce an output from every input

Some of the main differences of Brains and Computers are teh books
"Understanding Computers and Cognition" Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores (Ablex Publishing)

and

The embodied mind:cognitive science and human experience by Francisco Varela, Helen Reusch and Evan Thompson, (MIT press)

Understanding the brain AS a computer is a common trap and error.

Getting Intelligent about the Brai n

Great remarks and great claims by J Hawkins
Brains do NOT produce an output from every input

Some of the main differences of Brains and Computers are teh books
"Understanding Computers and Cognition" Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores (Ablex Publishing)

and

The embodied mind:cognitive science and human experience by Francisco Varela, Helen Reusch and Evan Thompson, (MIT press)

Understanding the brain AS a computer is a common trap and error.

[brothe]

The Brain and Computer...

Has anybody else figured out that the internet is really like a gigantic brain? Think about the information stored, relevent content, linking within itself, various systems...etc.

Google has it right. Search is way more important as there is plenty of content to pull from.

Brandon
www.hotgigs.com

[feranick]

Interner does not work in the same way the brain does.

There is no prediction or understanding from the net itself. The content is provided by human brains, but the actual net is not different from any computer. As far as google, you feed in the input and google delivers the results. That's quite differenct from the brain activity...

[brothe]

The Brain and Computer...

Has anybody else figured out that the internet is really like a gigantic brain? Think about the information stored, relevent content, linking within itself, various systems...etc.

Google has it right. Search is way more important as there is plenty of content to pull from.

Brandon
www.hotgigs.com

[feranick]

Interner does not work in the same way the brain does.

There is no prediction or understanding from the net itself. The content is provided by human brains, but the actual net is not different from any computer. As far as google, you feed in the input and google delivers the results. That's quite differenct from the brain activity...

My reply about IT and the parties ended up in the wrong place

Sorry. I agree that this Palm guy has got something with his approach to AI. So far AI has been dominated by the types who seek to mimic complex human behaviours without understanding the brain processes behind them. They think that, for example, if you can get a computer to spit out language that seems human, it's AI.

My reply about IT and the parties ended up in the wrong place

Sorry. I agree that this Palm guy has got something with his approach to AI. So far AI has been dominated by the types who seek to mimic complex human behaviours without understanding the brain processes behind them. They think that, for example, if you can get a computer to spit out language that seems human, it's AI.

[dudleyking]

The Brain

Ive been reading Jeff's new book which i got with my treo 650 and have been comparing eveything i see and hear with what ive read. Its a very good book and would recomend it

[dudleyking]

The Brain

Ive been reading Jeff's new book which i got with my treo 650 and have been comparing eveything i see and hear with what ive read. Its a very good book and would recomend it