Scientists create circuit board modeled on the human brain

Scientists have developed faster, more energy-efficient microchips based on the human brain -- 9,000 times faster and using significantly less power than a typical PC. This offers greater possibilities for advances in robotics and a new way of understanding the brain. For instance, a chip as fast and efficient as the human brain could drive prosthetic limbs with the speed and complexity of our own actions.

Scientists create circuit board modeled on the human brain

Wow as incredible as this is, I can't help but see both sides of this amazing coin. First off, what an amazing leap forward in engineering functional bionic prosthetic devices using this chip tech enabling returning amputees from the theater, or bringing para, or quadriplegics into a functional relationship with our physical environment here-to-fore only imagined in sci-fi and bad 70s sit-coms.

However as we rush forward towards integrating all levels of machine and man IE hydraulic powered limbs capable of superhuman strength maneuvers coupled with all manner of on board weaponry, all working at a minimum of power expense, at the speed of thought... whats to say the same opportunistic greed driven agencies that perpetuate "evil" to this day wont utilize such capacity to utterly subjugate individual will in incredibly frightening new ways.

The potential is infinite, its certainly not limited to prosthetics, I mean what positive applications can you imagine with this fast coming marriage of man and machine/computer chip, what negative possibilities can you imagine..I'd love to see what evolves from this conversation.

JUST A MATTER OF TIME, Oops sorry cap lock was on ! Anyway there are supposed to be several programs on line by 2030 and more to follow that will make life and trying to work for a living very interesting.

a reply to: BlueJacket

These faster-chip stories always interest me, and they keep upping the speed at tremendous rates. What's nice is that each new advance paves the way for the next one...and with all the new materials coming into use now, this week's news may be next week's donkey kong.

Suppose that we abandon natural biology for synthetic substitutes designed to do what nature did, but better? Do you think we would make some decent competition for the evolutionary process, or just prove that nature rules man and not vice versa?

a reply to: Aleister
I kind of think about combining this through the agency of graphene I mean transportation could look alot like erratic UFOs flying any which way rather readily, wouldnt you think?

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Hmmm, perhaps it is a circular evolution, where we endlessly reach a zenith in whatever medium we last chose to technologically express ourselves through!

a reply to: BlueJacket

I've been following the graphene revolution too, but am not verbal enough on the subject to talk about it much. Anything that drifts into maths loses me on the drift. But I do make mental pictures of the advances though, and from that point of view follow news like this when it comes out.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Suppose that we abandon natural biology for synthetic substitutes designed to do what nature did, but better? Do you think we would make some decent competition for the evolutionary process, or just prove that nature rules man and not vice versa?

Maybe what you described 'is' evolution?
That's a crazy thought right there :-I

Wow, what a butt awfully written article. The author doesn't understand what he's writing about. It's not a 'new circuit board approach' at all. (facepalm)

It's not even a 'better faster pile of gates'. The article's about a new approach to neuron simulation. The guy's built a big neural net chip and has a demo board with 16 of them on it. If you've got a problem that's suited to that, it's exciting. But it's not a thing for general computation. You won't be writing video games on it.

a reply to: Bedlam

Agreed. Whoopie for the automaton!

but really… air craft, "smart" warheads, radar and weapons in general are already faster than thought and quite robotic.

What the hell is it with people that want false reality? isn't the real world amazingly quick enough? Go find a humming bird…

a reply to: intrptr
Um I suggest you read the article: Its speed and low power characteristics make Neurogrid ideal for more than just modeling the human brain. Boahen is working with other Stanford scientists to develop prosthetic limbs for paralyzed people that would be controlled by a Neurocore-like chip.

and respectfully, nobody is applauding the idea..its called discussing the premise of the technology. I work in the natural sciences, what an obtuse addition, or rather non-addition to the thread.

a reply to: Bedlam

You have anything constructive to add? just wondering, as the article DID describe an exciting application to the technology. Does it make you feel big in the trousers to just trash a thread?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Bedlam

You have anything constructive to add? just wondering, as the article DID describe an exciting application to the technology. Does it make you feel big in the trousers to just trash a thread?

Does it make you feel big in the trousers to post something that's not quite right, and try to expand on the bad bits?

As you know about it, certainly you'll be able to tell us what this does, and how that differs from sequential computation, and how that's good for some applications.

BTW, it's not trashing a thread to point out that the root article isn't quite up to par. If you want to run with bad info, that would be 'skunk works' or 'philosophy'. S&T requires a bit more rigor, although not much.

eta: for example, perhaps you could explain why is it suited to prosthetics? Is the salient feature of this that it is fast and low power - there are lots of fast low power gate technologies - or is it that it's a dense neural net on a chip that happens to also be low power?

originally posted by: BlueJacket

and respectfully, nobody is applauding the idea..its called discussing the premise of the technology. I work in the natural sciences, what an obtuse addition, or rather non-addition to the thread.

The nature of discussion is that it's not going to just be kudos to the OP. If you're looking for blanket approbation, I fear you won't find it, even if you snap at everyone who disagrees with you.

can anyone direct me to some reading material about the possibility of uploading the un/conscious mind to a computer. I have considered this as a possiblity for a few years now. and it seems to be coming out in hollywood scripts. I am familiar with Dr Michio Kaku and some of his theories.

a reply to: Bedlam

Anyway back to the premise of MY thread based on a very real portion of the article...its obvious you have nothing to add. move along

a reply to: frozenhotdogwater
There was mention in this article indicating hardwiring this technology to the human brain. I do recall seeing other applications mostly military, I'll see if I can dig some up.

a reply to: Bedlam

Also, the point of this thread was to discuss possible applications of this new technology, mine was in regards the suggestion that it could work in prosthetics/bionics, your addition was nothing except attempting to belittle others grasp on a the technology. You seem to be the only one not contributing to the actual OP.

a reply to: frozenhotdogwater

Here are just a few things I have casually perused while considering the potential of this portion of the article:For instance, a chip as fast and efficient as the human brain could drive prosthetic limbs with the speed and complexity of our own actions. - Maybe the resident genius can explain what my OP means better though...Bedlam? You seem to know so much on the topic please share with us.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.extremetech.com...

www.extremetech.com...

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Suppose that we abandon natural biology for synthetic substitutes designed to do what nature did, but better? Do you think we would make some decent competition for the evolutionary process, or just prove that nature rules man and not vice versa?

I've always thought and maybe even said it a few times in other threads that man does have the capability of controlling and manipulating evolution. It's happening now...

But it's important to understand that the notion of nature vs man is a fallacy. Man is part of nature, just like everything else. We are not separate from it. So looking at it in that sense, nature is somehow intelligently controlling it's own evolutionary fate. What would Darwin say?