Miguel Nicolelis Says The Singularity Is Hot Air

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis

 The Singularity
Miguel Nicolelis, the neuroscientist whose team was responsible for recently giving rats the ability to sense infrared wavelengths, and for wiring monkeys to play video games and control robots with their minds says computers will never replicate the human brain and that the Singularity is “a bunch of hot air.”
Miguel Nicolelis, the neuroscientist at Duke University, whose team was responsible for recently giving rats the ability to sense infrared wavelengths says computers will never replicate the human brain and that the technological Singularity is “a bunch of hot air.”

It is interesting that the man, who in some respects is helping make the Singularity a reality, does not subscribe to the idea; or at  least the mind uploading elements.

"The brain is not computable and no engineering can reproduce it," says Nicolelis, a long-time researcher into brain-machine interfaces.

The Singularity, as 33rd Square readers know, is that moment predicted in the not-to-distant future where exponential technology leads to a greater-than-human self-improving artificial intelligence.

Ray Kurzweil, recently hired on at Google as a director of engineering, is the greatest promoter of the Singularity and believes that once machine intelligence exceed our own people will also be able to upload their thoughts and memories into computers.

Nicolelis calls that idea total bunk. “Downloads will never happen,” Nicolelis said during remarks made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston recently.

“There are a lot of people selling the idea that you can mimic the brain with a computer.” The debate over whether the brain is a kind of computer has been running for decades.

Although many scientists remain in the camp that mind uploading will not be possible, there has been a growing scientific and academic acceptance of the possibility.  Last year, the International Journal of Machine Consciousness, put out a special issue on the subject.

Also, neuroscientist Sebastian Seung does not discount the idea in his book, Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are.  He writes that we are our connectomes. Our unique selves—the way we think, act, feel—is etched into the wiring of our brains. Capturing the connectome and simulating it in a computer might therefore be an avenue to mind uploading.

Kurzweil delves into the idea of “reverse-engineering” the brain in his latest book, How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed, in which he writes that even though the human brain may be immensely complex, “the fact that it contains many billions of cells and trillions of connections does not necessarily make its primary method complex.”

However, Nicolelis thinks that human consciousness simply can’t be replicated in silicon. That’s because its most important features are the result of unpredictable, non-linear interactions between billions of cells, Nicolelis says.

“You can’t predict whether the stock market will go up or down because you can’t compute it,” he says. “You could have all the computer chips ever in the world and you won’t create a consciousness.”

The neuroscientist, originally from Brazil, instead thinks that humans will increasingly subsume machines (an idea, incidentally, that’s also part of Kurzweil’s predictions). His study giving rats the extra sense is one example of this.







SOURCE  TEDxTalks, MIT Technology Review

By 33rd SquareSubscribe to 33rd Square

9 comments: Leave Your Comments

  1. I find it strange that people who oppose the principal idea typically are lazy. What i mean by that, is that 'futurists' like Ray make a very well orchestrated effort to view the problem from different angles, address criticism, and thus make a good argument. Maybe they do so precisely because they know that there is so much skepticism and these concepts sound like something out of a sci-fi novel.

    People who oppose it however, simply seem to repeat the same statements, they don't really make a case for why not. They don't in turn address the proponents' arguments. Instead they simply say these things like "It won't happen, because it is too complex and therefor not computable."

    Following that logic and his stock market example, how could we have engineered the stock market then? We can't predict it, i won't argue with that, but nonetheless it is a human made thing - why then can't we make a complex system like an intelligent mind in a machine?

    This has actually been debated in the domain of 'Do we have free will?' - using the game of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life). Daniel Dennett has argued, that even though the game has very simple rules, it is impossible to predict the outcome. But we can EASILY compute it, by just letting the game run, any cheap calculator can.

    So why wouldn't we be able to simulate a brain the same way, by defining a set of rules which can be executed in real time by hardware with enough computational power and memory, and get intelligence as an emerging phenomenon?

    A much more interesting argument, with regard to uploading, is "identity" (in a sense of 'does the new version stay true to the old version?'), if drugs like alcohol, thc, lsd etc. which relatively speaking change very little in our brain have a very strong (short term) impact on our brains, how can we manage to stay the same when making such a radical change?

    Again, i feel like opponents don't really familiarize themselves with the arguments of proponents, to me it feels like they typically pick up bits and pieces and talk about these topics based on that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't understand his arguments. This so called unpredictability. Either you have a religious thinking, where you believe the consciousness doesn't lie withing the neurons and the brain, or you have a more naturalistic set of beliefs and you think it is in fact the brain that enables consciousness.

    If his beliefs, like most of us here in this website lies within the latter, then I can't fathom why it would be impossible to replicate the brain. Does he believe that neurons don't work within a mathematical model? Does he believe that invisible "cosmic" dice somehow make the whole thought process unpredictable?

    I can understand why someone could say that the timelines proposed by Kurzweil are rubbish (many people do). But I cannot conceive that the brain is not computable. The fact that it is very complex, does not make it impossible, just harder to do so. But neurons do work within a logic. Therefore, I can't see why the mind, which is created by a large number of neurons, wouldn't be subjected to logic as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It reminds me of the Three Laws of Clarke:

    1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

    3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your web
    site, how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account aided me a acceptable
    deal. I were a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast
    provided brilliant transparent idea

    Stop by my blog post; three certain photo Methods for getting Rid of " moobs "

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm gone to say to my little brother, that he should also pay a quick visit this weblog on regular basis to take updated from hottest gossip.

    my site; Is Prilosec effective with regard to moobs treatment?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's Taking place i'm new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It
    positively helpful and it has aided me out loads. I'm hoping to give a contribution & aid other customers like its helped me. Great job.

    Here is my website - perform organic treatments work with moobs Sufferers?

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is a very good tip particularly to those fresh to the
    blogosphere. Brief but very accurate info… Many thanks
    for sharing this one. A must read article!

    Also visit my web site; Pills that work well successfully with regard to man boobs remedy (gynexin

    ReplyDelete