mdkersey

Most research into brain function and AI employs models that are at the lowest level atomic (i.e., basic chemistry). In ignoring quantum mechanical effects, we are like physicists who approximate a function with a Taylor's series and then truncate the series' higher-order terms. They shouldn't be significant but there's that nagging thought that sometimes they are.

In the book "Tending Adam's Garden : Evolving the Cognitive Immune Self" Irun Cohen discusses (among other things) how evolutionary processes may set up shop in any available ecological niche, regardless of how inefficient or convoluted the process may be. More nagging thoughts.

Degrees of freedom involving quantum mechanical operations are available; there's no reason they wouldn't be used. And as others have stated here, evidence is accumulating that they are used in biological systems. Hard evidence that the brain uses such processes would be revolutionary.

Many models of atomic and electromagnetic theory lie strewn by the roadside as science moves forward: ">Maxwell's molecular-vortex model of electromagnetism ( http://victorian.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/victorianweb/science/ma... ) and William Thomson's (Lord Kelvin) vortex model of the atom come to mind. I hope we're not as far off the correct path with current theories of intelligence and the mind.

Two cups of Vietnamese coffee (cafe sua la) each morning hit the mark! Brewing details at http://www.ineedcoffee.com/04/vietnamese/

I may like iced Vietnamese coffee (Ca phe sua da) even more on sultry summer days. Just pour the above into ice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca_phe_sữa_đ...

While I've used other coffees, Cafe du Monde has almost a monopoly among Vietnamese restaurants. Cafe du Monde is a blend of coffee and chicory easily identified by it's bright orange container: http://www.cafedumonde.com/coffee.html

Perhaps the U.S. government is smart enough and coordinated enough to do such a thing but...

Who's to say that this isn't a fantasy spun to enhance the reputation of the U.S. intelligence community whilst providing a coverup for some poorly-written software?

I certainly wish I had the option of saying "The CIA made me do it!" when a bug is found in _my_ code.

I've worked with CODASYL network databases, which are essentially the same as object databases (except no storage of methods in the database, which most OO databases don't do either).

Pros: - very fast for queries/updates along the designed network paths.

Downsides:

- not necessarily fast if network path is complex,

- proprietary API,

- corruption can be difficult to impossible to fix,

- corruption _does_ occur,

- depending on data structures used, DB may need re-organization (resizing),

- design requires skill: not easy to redesign or modify once deployed.

While fun to work with, I would hesitate to recommend using such a database unless absolutely necessary. Relational databases are much easier to set up, reconfigure, query and update. These characteristics alone usually preclude the use of an object database.

I try to establish

1) when Mary got the record,

2) whether she got the same record as Jane and Fred, and finally

3) whether Mary = Jane or not!8-))

[Hint: the example was not properly stated.]

What's scary is trying to write code that implements a legal document. That's when you find out that much legal language is shot through with logical holes big enough to drive a tank through.

I was asked to implement a municipality's recently-revised alarm permit legislation. I read the old legislation, the new legislation and wrote down questions that weren't covered by either (never mind how to handle the transition between rule sets). At a meeting with all the guilty parties and their lawyers no one was able to answer my questions. They were surprised and embarrassed that so many details had been overlooked. An additional constraint was that, given the political climate, the possibility of properly amending the legislation was slim.

I made a list of suggestions to plug the holes and asked for a sign off. No one wanted to accept responsibility. Finally a division chief relented and the details were swept under the political rug as "regulatory implementation".

So my experience is that legal language is far too vague to translate directly to code.

Thanks for finding this article, Donna!

"looks a lot easier"? Please let everyone know when you've got it working!-))

To the best of my knowledge there's no neural network technology available today currently that could be described as providing "raw cognition". Neural nets are for the most part focussed on backpropagation networks, which aren't prevalent in nature. The brain has much more variety in it's architecture.

Gerald M. Edelman has argued that a biological approach based on evolution and biology will prove more fruitful than the physical symbol system hypothesis(PSSH) of "good old-fashioned AI". Edelman explicates his ideas in "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind":

(http://www.amazon.com/Bright-Air-Brilliant-Fire-Matter/dp/0465007643/ref=sr_1_1/103-2087616-1051018?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182842907&sr=1-1).

In that book he clearly states his objections to the PSSH.

There is significant recent work on consciousness, tying it to neuroscience studies of the brain. Bernard J. Baars' explications of Global Workspace theory appear fruitful in leading us toward conscious computing. Right now I'm reading one of Baars' books, "In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind":

http://www.amazon.com/Theater-Consciousness-Workspace-Mind/dp/0195147030/ref=sr_1_1/102-9391404-9424956?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182841961&sr=1-1

The Galernter article is extremely timely since it mentioned several ideas that clicked into place as I read Baars.

I was surprised to find that Baars is now working at the The Neurosciences Institute which Edelman founded: http://www.nsi.edu/index.php?page=facilities_architecture