One simple algorithm could explain human intelligence

Imagine if all of our intelligence could be encoded in an algorithm. It seems this may not be too far away from the truth according to researchers from the University of Georgia.

www.sciencealert.com...

A simple algorithm could explain the inner workings of human intelligence, and it could one day be encoded into artificial intelligence (AI) systems, researchers suggest.

It's a mind-bending idea: that all the complex thoughts running through our heads are the product of a set of definable sums. But scientists have identified clear patterns in the brains of mice and hamsters, and if a similar phenomenon could be found in human brains, it could form the basis of such an algorithm for intelligence.

"Many people have long speculated that there has to be a basic design principle from which intelligence originates and the brain evolves, like how the double helix of DNA and genetic codes are universal for every organism," says lead researcher Joe Tsien from Augusta University in Georgia.

"We present evidence that the brain may operate on an amazingly simple mathematical logic."

It seems mind-boggling, but the research suggest there may be more to this than idle speculation.

For his latest study, Tsien put his Theory of Connectivity and FCMs to the test, using electrodes implanted at specific points in the brains of mice and hamsters to monitor neuron activity.

Sure enough, his team was able to predict the neural cliques that formed in response to certain scenarios, such as the arrival of food or the presence of a threat. Depending on the scenario, the animals' neurons arranged themselves in very predictable groups.

In one test, four different foods were placed in front of a group of mice, and the researchers watched as the neurons grouped together instantly. They were even able to identify different clique formations depending on what combinations of foods were presented.

"For it to be a universal principle, it needs to be operating in many neural circuits, so we selected seven different brain regions and, surprisingly, we indeed saw this principle operating in all these regions," explains Tsien.

These cliques appeared almost immediately as the food appeared, which suggests that they're somehow 'pre-wired' during brain development.

At the centre of Tsien's hypothesis is the formula n=2ⁱ-1, where 'n' is the number of connected neural cliques, '2' indicates whether the neurons are receiving an input or not, 'i' is the information being received, and '-1' is accounting for multiple possibilities.

Tsien says this formula is enough to predict FCM grouping.

"This equation gives you a way to wire the brain cells in such a way to turn seemingly infinite possibilities into organised knowledge," he said.

Fascinating stuff, with potential far reaching consequences. Mass unemployment and Skynet, or something more benevolent?

a reply to: cuckooold

We already have mass unemployment, and it's getting worse, and as for Skynet, I give you the NSA and their information thievery, the installation of backdoor fascism, and the collapse of liberty.

It is coming we just don't know when or how.. But with all the research the mystery will be solved one day IMO.

a reply to: cuckooold

This is potentially extremely dangerous as well as unethical but I believe consciousness can not be replicated in a machine, machines self awareness is not the same thing as Conscious awareness which is of course independent of the soft wired fuzzy logic of the human mind but central to it's functioning.

It is possible to make a cascade set of subroutine's, million's or rather hundred's of million's of them with a hierarchical feed structure that would behave like a sentient mind and have practical sentience but it would still not be aware in a consciousness fashion and would rather function like a nervous network or perhaps more accurately a subconscious mind, that part of you that your consciousness is not aware of most of the time which regulate's your heart rate, breathing etc, make it complex enough and it can do anything a human can do but it is still not a true consciousness and would remain simply a complex mechanism.

But even then ethical question's have to be asked if the mind is advanced enough to simulate a self aware consciousness and know what is going wrong with itself when it is being tinkered with, as a potential toward cybernetic advancement's it is however an essential field of research but autonomous machines should never be brought up to that level.

I didn't read the article, only what was posted here, and I didn't see a thing showing that what they found was related to intelligence.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Your're correct.

Without AWARENESS you're already Dead.

There's much more to this than our intellect can possibly process on a subatomic level.

Intuition Speaks Volumes.

a reply to: cuckooold

Intelligence what an average DNC politician uses is even a simpler algorithm: X = 0 ... Steady flat line.

originally posted by: cuckooold
It's a mind-bending idea: that all the complex thoughts running through our heads are the product of a set of definable sums.

Another failed hypothesis before it even starts.
Thought is not manufactured in that wet lump of meat in our skulls, and there is no evidence to suggest such.
Neither is thought 'stored' in the brain, for future reference.

We have the ability to expand our search parameters beyond the immediate vicinity, and time and space is not a hinderance!
We can tap into the entire Universal 'matrix' for 'answers'.
A machine cannot do that.
Well, to a much lesser extent, perhaps, if it is online, but for us, our 'data set' is potentially Universal.
One means of accessing is through imagination; not too sure that machines can 'imagine'...

a reply to: ArMaP

Indeed.

I believe that the implication one is supposed to take away, is that intelligence may be nothing more than a simple result of increasingly well informed cost/benefit analysis, performed over time on every single facet of life, from attempts at physical movement, to concept development. That being said, I am in agreement that not only have they failed to show this, but they have probably failed to correctly define intelligence before beginning to establish its origin.

a reply to: namelesss

Unfortunately, your claims have no scientific basis.

a reply to: cuckooold

What's the algorithm for human stupidity? Or are there many?

a reply to: FamCore

That reserved for the Senators and Congressfolk, you can only achieve so much stupidity.

Not to mention, A.I. will emerge in advertising / Search before anywhere else. Its already a serious machine learning beast now, and while that is still a few steps from true A.I there is Rank Brain which is only going to have to get smarter.

Now its going to be a search engine that fraks up and well makes something a bit too good for its own britches.

What if we are the machines??

a reply to: WUNK22

What if we are the machines??

Then I want to kick our " creators " arse...

He / She / It has some explaining to do.

originally posted by: namelesss
Another failed hypothesis before it even starts.
Thought is not manufactured in that wet lump of meat in our skulls, and there is no evidence to suggest such.
Neither is thought 'stored' in the brain, for future reference.

How does dementia play into your theory?

Or people with head injuries that result in amnesia?

Seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that the wet lump of meat in our skulls is pretty important.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: namelesss
Another failed hypothesis before it even starts.
Thought is not manufactured in that wet lump of meat in our skulls, and there is no evidence to suggest such.
Neither is thought 'stored' in the brain, for future reference.

How does dementia play into your theory?
Or people with head injuries that result in amnesia?

At any moment, we are pretty much thinking of a single thing.
At that/this moment, we have 'forgotten' almost everything else that we have experienced; we are not perceiving it.
When a thought floats by, we perceive it and call it 'remembering', no thought floating by, no 'memory/perception'..
We see/perceive what is before us this unique moment of existence... Now!

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!
See how 'ignorance' can be related to 'forgetting'?
We don't 'forget', we are ignorant, at the moment of that 'other' moment.

Seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that the wet lump of meat in our skulls is pretty important.

Of course, it is the 'control' tower for the body!

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: namelesss

Unfortunately, your claims have no scientific basis.

My 'claims' are logically and scientifically supportable (for those capable of understanding).

a reply to: namelesss

A lot of words but it sounds a little too much like a horoscope and you've lost me.

If brain's don't store thought, then why does bashing brains effect memory?

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: cuckooold

What's the algorithm for human stupidity? Or are there many?

You just don't need to search for all the consequences. Like putting down newspaper over wet floor varnish to stop dust from sticking.

Using a torch and extension cable to investigate a faulty car engine only to start the ignition and get the cable caught in the cooling fan.

Putting a crystal ball in direct sunlight, only to have it set fire to the room through focusing of sunlight.

Or plugging in an air conditioning unit next to an overheating power supply mains box.

a reply to: namelesss

Could you provide your sources for this?

I know that when you remove very small pieces of certain areas of the brain such as the Hippocampus, you are prevented from forming any new memories, the Amygdala for learning and formation of emotions etc, I could go on.

So while we do not completely 100% understand how groupings/clusters of neurons and connections form to create a type of biological hard drive, what you are saying is not supported in any type of real neurological sciences.