Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!smu.UUCP!lewis From: lewis@smu.UUCP (Eve Lewis) Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Intelligent Nanocomputers Message-ID: <8801301626.AA07266@uunet.UU.NET> Date: 30 Jan 88 14:18:40 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 105 Approved: ailist@kl.sri.com Re: Godden's review of >Engines of Creation< by K. Eric Drexler > Drexler makes the fascinating claim (no doubt many will vehemently > disagree) that to create a true artificial intelligence it is not > necessary to first understand intelligence. All one has to do is > simulate the brain, which can be done given nanotechnology. He > suggests that a complete hardware simulation of the brain can be > done, synapse-for-synapse and dendrite-for-dendrite, in the space > of one cubic centimeter (this figure is backed up in the notes). > Such a machine could then just be allowed to run and should be > able to accomplish a man-year of work in ten seconds. The unstated > assumption is that a computer that is isomorphic to the human > brain will ipso facto be intelligent, and presumably will be able > to construct its own 'mental' models once power is supplied. No > need to supply it with software. Perhaps we can suggest an approach to dovetail with, and enhance, Drexler's. One supposes that the structure of the brain is alright, as far as it goes. It's even been referred to as "Nature's Masterpiece." Nonetheless, it's important to understand that the human brain per se, is a product of the structural genes, to wit: the respected exons. I say the following: 1) Get an advance copy of that gene map of the entire human genome, a project now underway. (Be apprised that the human genome is the nanocomputer to end all nanocomputers, and anything else that comes along can only be second-best.) 2) Discard the real junk, the exon sequences. 3) Retain the alleged "junk," the intron sequences. Design a program to look for matches between two stores of complex data. Feed all the intron "junk" (one store of complex data) into the program. Accumu- late from all cultures, but particularly from Western "civ," a plethora of human thought fossils, i.e., Edward O. Wilson's cultur- gens (the second store of complex data), and feed the stuff into the program. Set the program going, to look for "matches," and voila! There you have it. A functional facsimile of the code underlying human thought processes. > The unstated assumption is that a computer that is isomorphic to > the human brain will ipso facto be intelligent, and presumably > will be able to construct its own 'mental' models once power is > supplied. No need to supply it with software. 4) The structure of the human brain is an excellent starting point, and I wouldn't neglect it entirely, "form following function," and all that sort of thing. Nonetheless, when push comes to shove, molecular biology is really where it's at. I mean, there are degrees of fidelity, when it comes to isomorphism. Besides, what A.I. really needs, is isofunctionalism. For example: One could construct a life-sized metal and plastic model of the human brain, even one good enough, in terms of isomorphism, for teaching purposes in a neuroanatomy class. Even one that could be taken apart, and put back together, with the nuclei properly enscon- sed, and the tracts properly aligned. If one then put clock innards inside, and supplied electrical power, would it "think"? We know that it would not. Indeed, if we imbedded a small clock face, with hands and numerals, in Broca's speech area, it would give us excellent time, just like any old Westclox!!! If we put in one of those talking mechanisms, Broca's speech area would TELL us the time. But our poor isomorphic brain, here, would not come up with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or anything like it. And that's really what we're after, isn't it? 5) Now, what kind of a mind would we really like in our A.I. act-alike? Do we want the mind of a conformist? Or do we want the mind of a meshuggener? No, on both counts. We want the mind of a quality Zeitgeist smasher. So we have to discern the in vivo give-and-take of the repressors and enhancers, as well as the coding sequences themselves, and work that into any program, along with the base pair sequences that determine the culturgens. ("This one's no good," "That one's terrific," "Maybe we can use that one another time," etc.) We may even be able to avail ourselves of binary simplicity by equating the purine bases with 1, and the pyrimidine bases with 0. The entire thing is degenerate, anyway, and could do with some streamlining. 6) Some closing comments: Don't get hung up on morphology; it's a Linnaean trap, set for the sentimental. There isn't creature, a physiological structure, neurons included, or a neurotransmitter, that doesn't owe its life to several strings of base pairs. Really, it isn't the brain that thinks, or the neuron(s) that think; it's the differentially-expressed genome in the neuron(s) that thinks. In regard to the disdained pseudogenes, referred to as "junk" DNA, and believed to be "silent," which like Rodney Dangerfield, "Don't get no respect," perhaps like Alexander Fleming's penicillin mold, they could be the "bluebird of artificial/natural intelligence, right in our own DNA," and so, worthy of attention. It holds true for natural intelligence, artificial intelligence, and impressive isomorphs: "You can lead a 'mind' to information, but you can't make it think." And finally, hopefully there are no male chauvinists among the readers of, and contributors to, this net. If so, let me warn you that any aspirant to the Holy Grail, i.e., the comprehension of in- ternal rep, is doomed from the start if he overlooks the "junk" DNA in the maternally-inherited mitochondrial genome. - Eve Lewis