Source: Networks (TVE) No. 376, 6/12/2005
Url document: http://www.rtve.es / ...
Jeff Hawkins, creator of the Palm PDA is one of the winners of the Silicon Valley electronics. The funds raised by their inventions enabled him to found the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, where she researches her passion: how the human brain from the perspective of a computer system, not the traditional neurological paradigm. His book "On Intelligence" explains the theories that so far has been established. Eduard
Punset
The day succeed producing what you suggest in this book about intelligent machines will probably be the happiest day of my life because I'm tired of be said that we are the only kings of the universe and we are best built, etc.. This means that for the first time end up with the story that computers are completely different from the brains, and you'll build a machine that actually works like a brain. Jeff Hawkins
actually do two things, first is to understand how the brain works, and not the entire brain but only the neocortex and some things related to it. We want to know what it does and how it does. Once we know what the brain and how we can build a machine that works similarly, with similar principles. My book is the cortex, and talk about how to build machines with the same principles ... when I was writing the book did not know how, but now we know.
EP Gee, and you will be able to play-well, say that since I've written the book has come a long way-to show in a cortical layer (cortical sheet ) these intelligent machines. Yes
JH Let me make a distinction I very carefully in the book. What we are doing is a neocortex We are not trying to create humans, because humans have many more things: they have the physical body, have emotions, aspirations and much beyond the neocortex. The neocortex is the part of the brain that thinks, is the intelligent, and since I wrote the book we have made great progress. Along with another scientist, George Deleep, we have written a mathematical formula to express what the neocortex is doing, how to put it in a mathematical framework, and with it we have started do and to build the systems. And actually we're doing, we started with the vision system, and we have systems that work much better than anything that has been done before, and it does so, it does how does a human. We are building a software tool, or a series of tools that allow building neocortex but in software. There is a computer, but an algorithm that runs on a computer and captures it all as does the neocortex. And we can build machines that are intelligent, although you will say they are not like humans. We can not sit down and have a coffee with them, but things may think, understand and perceive the world as we do you and me. EP
because they behave in the same manner as the cortex. JH
is like the cortex, can feel things and can say I know what this is, and will also have expectations for the future and can predict: after saying "I know what who is this "will make a prediction of what will happen. EP
incredible You say two things, first say you do not care so much sense, either sight, hearing or touch, because at the end of the neocortex everything becomes the same thing, the same signals, and this I'll explain, and the second thing is you say that to be intelligent you should be able to predict, and that is what makes the neocortex, as it can predict things, it stores what you called "patterns of observation" ( observational patterns). It is true that the first observed brain patterns, stores and thanks to the storage can make predictions. And you say that if you make predictions you're smart.
JH
If done the right way, yes. But let's get the first part of the question. That the cortex does everything it does using the same method, the same algorithm, is an amazing discovery. The first proposed 25 years ago in England, a man named Mauntcastle, and said that while the neocortex is like a large napkin, and the different parts do different things (there are parts that are sight or hearing, or music, or math), if cells are analyzed and its structure are almost identical everywhere. Mountcastle proposed what is that was identical in all parts and although it is hard to believe so. Many neuroscientists have asked if they believed in it or not, and do not believe half and half another, and when asked why he did not believe it, say it is hard to believe . But the most important discovery made on the brain and explains how it works and it's all the same. If you were a brain and analyzes the incoming signals-enter through the brain's nerve fibers called axons, which catch the eye are identical to which enter through the ears, or skin. There is no sound or touch visiónu into the brain because once they enter the brain are all patterns and are identical. The perception of the world is very different, but it has to do with the nature of the pattern, it has nothing to do with the mechanism itself, it is the same. EP
And then a question comes to mind. Yes this is true, the future of intelligent machines do not have to report what they report human traditional sense, they may be tuned to report de otras cosas, que no tienen nada que ver con estos
sentidos a los que estamos acostumbrados.
J.H.
Exactamente, es algo muy importante en los descubrimientos de la naturaleza
y es un método muy poderoso, que viene a decir: "si me das cualquier
dato sensorial, construiré el modelo que lo causó". Si estudiamos
a los mamíferos, y pensamos en los humanos, tenemos vista, oído,
olfato, tacto y gusto, pero también otros sentidos como el del propio
cuerpo, que en realidad es de la posición del cuerpo; y otros animales,
como los roedores, tienen los bigotes, que en realidad es un sentido completamente
diferente going to the cortex, which processes it. EP
And the bees ... JH
Bees have no cortex, only mammals do, but you're right because when we build the machines in the future, will operate on the same principle will not ; need to have ears and eyes, but may work with any type of sensor, simple things such as sonar or radar, and even more exotic ways. I have written in the book that if you have a Paisy you think of weather stations that are distributed throughout Spain, is the same as the retina of the eye that picks up all the points of light ... since the same would happen with the weather stations whose measurements could enter a system that would "see" the meteorological time in the same way you and I see the light. So that might be exotic senses and work well. EP
But Jeff, how do we communicate? Because if there are different ways, how we communicate with these machines operating with different ways than we know? JH
is not very difficult. Imagine this: there are people who do not have all the senses. Helen Keller is a woman well known and could neither see nor hear, I just had the touch, yet built a world model is not very different from yours or mine. He had a way different from ours, only had one and managed to build a model that could communicate with us. We are thinking machines to be built in this way, and will be very easy to communicate with them. Obviously we will not have a conversation like this, it is not this, but models such as meteorological time, etc. be possible questioning. For example, we can ask what have you discovered? Or what are you thinking? EP
predictions probably
When you use the metaphorical capacity to relate one thing with another and say it allows me to make a prediction because I have seen, etc. Is it this creativity? Or let me say it another way: what is creativity? JH
is creativity, but let me put it in perspective. When you make a prediction for every moment of life when you're awake are not aware of being doing. When I put a hand somewhere, I have expectations of how they feel and where and how you feel. I've never been in exactly this situation before, and I've never sat talking to you before, so this is all new, and I've never seen this role before, but if I touch it I have an expectation of what you will: you can burn, can return, has a touch ... and I'm making predictions because I know, because if it was different, as glass or as jelly or as cold would say, gee, how surprising. This means that the brain does this all the time and we do not realize. The second thing that is surprising is that the inputs to the brain are always new, unique, happen once and not repeated ever again, I can see 100 times and each time is a different model, because either I moved a little, or because the light has changed, ie Predictions are made about new things all the time, this is a fresh piece of paper that I have never seen before and I have a prediction about it. I've never played this chair and I have previously predicted, viewers are hearing and seeing and are predictions about what I say. So that makes new predictions about new situations, and this is the essence of creativity, but are at different levels, we see this as being creative. I do not think I'm being incredibly creative when I play this piece of paper, or advance what you will say, but it is the same: in the cortex do this at levels upper and lower. The upper levels are those we call creativity: we have a new problem that I have not seen before, maybe it's a scientific problem, it is a prediction that is the hypothesis about the cause and therefore makes a prediction of what will happen next. It means that it is an experiment that will test and make predictions, and a higher level we believe it is creativity, but is, we use information we have from the past and say this is something similar. A mathematician might say, this equation is similar to one in which I worked for 5 years and if it looks like I will use a similar methodology to see if I can solve it. EP
But if all brains are creative, why some people are more creative than others? JH
Okay, everyone is creative, and some people are more creative than others in certain areas. You could say I'm more creative than you on certain tasks, and may you're the other. I think it's part of the classic debate about nature / environment. Clearly some of it is that to which has been exposed, if I have not been exposed to a number of things I know not to make predictions for that, if I put forward a new language you've never been exposed before, to me does not make sense, and I will not be able to make predictions of what is being said, or what will be next, or what will make someone, etc. This means that you have to be exposed to the models to be creative, and the higher the more creative levels is: if I have spent many years studying physics, it can be very creative physics. The second thing is that there are differences between human brains, we know there is much variability in the human brain, and areas devoted to different tasks change much. An incredible fact is that if you take the human brain's visual area, which is the largest area of \u200b\u200bthe neocortex, varies by a factor of 3 between different people, ie is possible that a person has an area three times bigger than another. Everybody can see, but have a more accurate picture, but this is not known: I can not say I have a vision accurate than yours, do not know. And just as some people have a brain that is best for a particular task. But I will not predict or who or how, it is natural. EP
is true that if you damage the cortex of a rat are things that will happen differently, but not many, but if you destroy the cortex of a human completely paralyzed " , no? JH
This is for the development of the cortex as the cortex really began with the mammals, and non-mammalian tienen córtex, pero todos los mamíferos lo tienen. Y en
una rata el córtex es muy pequeño, quizá tiene el
tamaño de un sello de correos, o algo así, y no juega un
papel dominante en la vida de la rata. La rata tiene un cerebro primitivo
como el de un reptil y un pequeño córtex, es decir que es
de una cierta ayuda pero no es dominante, y como tu has dicho puedes extirpar
el córtex de una rata y ella sigue moviéndose y tiene una
apariencia casi normal. En los humanos, y en la progresión evolutiva,
el córtex juega un papel muy dominante en la vida and has a huge size: 1000 square centimeters. And it is very important, so that if you remove the cortex of a human is possible to breathe and digest food but nothing else. EP
Because really supplanted the cortex somehow ... JH
Yes, the cortex grew up physically in an incredible way around the brain and is a dominant force, though of course not controlling everything. For example, if I tell you to stop breathing may do it, but the primitive part of the brain at some point say you have to breathe, and you can not do without breathing, so it does not control everything, but almost everything. EP
So this behavior in most animals, and certainly not in mammals, due to the primitive brain, and humans have this kind of monster that grows in the brain and has supplanted many of its functions. We
the primitive brain, that of a crocodile or a snake or whatever, but when walking, for example, the majority of motor control, which is what causes them to move the legs, but not from the cortex primitive brain parts, but in humans, with the exception of a few basic movements, speech, hand movement, social interaction, almost everything we do, everything is controlled by cortex. We still have this primitive part, is still there and the best example is that when learning to ride a bike ... EP
has nothing to do with the cortex ... JH
Not much, most people do not know how to ride bicycles and that is why they fall, because the cortex not much to see and the primitive brain itself. It turns out that when you go left you should go first to the right for the bike to tip over and can make a left turn. If when you go to the handlebars are turned left immediately you fall, and this is something that the cortex does not control, and there is a similar story, but everything else he can do the cortex. EP
think you mentioned the evolution and in the cell, first ... I'm thinking that means intelligence prediction. The cell, or all living organisms, I guess do some prediction: the cell, plants and neurons. And if so, the obvious question that the audience would do is: Are the animals are intelligent? JH
This is a complex answer, but try to make it simple. Any animal behavior depends on having a world model that makes predictions, that's what the models. A plant makes predictions because it rises toward the roof in search of light, and sends down roots in search of water. This is not to think, plants do not have no say where I conversacióny a poner las raíces para buscar agua, pero sí que es predicción.
La definición de la inteligencia es construir un modelo del mundo
y hacer predicciones. Hay una gama: desde lo más simple, como los
animales unicelulares o las plantas, etc. hasta los más sofisticados
que son los humanos. Y a un nivel muy elevado se hace lo mismo, lo que
se tiene que pensar con los mamíferos es que hemos desarrollado
un sistema para hacer esto durante la vida, es decir que aprendemos mucho
durante nuestra vida. Casi todo lo que sabemos del mundo, sobre los programas
de TV, o ciencia, o sillas, o lo que sea, no nacimos sabiendo eso, lo hemos
aprendido; and the plant does not, do not learn anything during his life, but we learn all through life. And the cortex has a very generic way to do this: you can learn almost anything earlier in genetics had to learn in an evolutionary way, but we can learn almost anything in life. At one level the plants are intelligent, but it is a very minimal level, no one can say with a great level of intelligence. But when it comes to mammals, rat, is it smart? Sure it is. It's not as smart as us, nor can understand the world as we can not learn the same, but by definition can make predictions and has a world of perceptions, so the rat is minimally intelligent. It is not much intelligence to marks: this animal is intelligent and it is not, everything is a spectrum ranging from humans to the simplest organism. EP
When I hear you talk about creativity ... I'm so afraid because I think: wow, my creativity may miss me, take me somewhere that ... JH
Let me explain another term we use: beliefs. When the brain is exposed to the world, build a model of the world, and this model is basically how the world works, and this leads to belief. All human beings share some beliefs. Share common beliefs about the sun, about gravity, about food, on water and everyday routines. But when we go up in abstract ideas in the hierarchy of beliefs differ cortex, we formed different beliefs, each religion has a different set of beliefs, and not all may be correct. We can also form false beliefs sometimes called stereotypes, but easy for humans to create false beliefs. The algorithm that has led us to understand the world and allows us to make predictions, and be creative, can form false beliefs in the world, and therefore can create false predictions and lead us to do bad things. And here's where it produces most of the world's conflicts, and because we all have a different set of beliefs at the top, while all share the basic: men and women do the same, but is at the top where we have fundamentally different beliefs about how the world works. EP
We will return the machines, to intelligent machines. People are still afraid of intelligent machines: why? JH
have a history: when they built the steam engine was afraid it was like a miracle, a machine that moves as one body, and that's scary. When the computer was invented, people thought that would exceed human behavior, and this did not happen, people have the same fear of intelligent machines will think like humans. It's like science fiction as if they were a robot, R2-D2 in Star Wars or something. Believe it will be like a human robot, but it will not, intelligent machines look very boring and you may be like computers, but they may be thinking or feeling the world will not Hunger, or wanting to have sex or protect themselves, or wanting to reproduce themselves in the same way that computers are not like steam engines or are not. People are nervous because they are recreating humanity, but I think it is a mistake, and actually I have no desire to do so, however, to understand how the context and recreate it I think that will bring great benefits, it will be great. EP
Like what? What do intelligent machines? They work faster than the brain, that's for sure. JH
work faster than the brain and can be larger and more intelligent than the brain. But let me put in two categories which can make intelligent machines. The first category is the obvious but a little boring. The machines can do what humans can build machines that drive cars, or look at the security cameras to monitor what happens, you can build machines that make automatic translation language policy, etc..: things that can make humans, but not really interesting. There are a number of things that traditionally the world of artificial intelligence has tried to do. For me what is more interesting to build cortex as the brain is to do things that Humans have trouble doing, like what we talked about earlier to innovate in new sensors. Or, for example, humans are not very good at physics or math, it costs us a lot and need much time to be good at it, and I think we can build machines that can be really excellent. What is interesting, and indeed is what motivates all the work I do is build a machine that helps us understand how the whole world, to answer big questions such as the nature of time and space, or where it comes from the universe and where it goes. These are for me very interesting questions, and I think that building some very intelligent machines that focus on these problems, missing a few years to happen but I'm sure that will happen, we will be able to have a greater understanding of the world and what actually happens here and eliminate some of the false beliefs.
