Comment "interpretation" at what level? (Score 4, Interesting) 244
"aiming to produce a machine that can see and interpret as well as a human."
First I want to say that this whole level of brain modeling is really cool. However, there are, of course, different levels of "interpretation" I don't think that this computer will be able to achieve a human level of interpretation simply by modeling the visual cortex.
Even "interpretation" at the second level above (which it seems the "roadrunner" might be able to model) require a lot more, for humans, than just the visual cortex.
In other words if we were to call into existence a floating occipital lobe connected to a couple of eyes that had never been attached to the rest of a brain we would never be able to achieve recognition/categorization let alone interpretation. If I'm wrong maybe some of you hardcore neuroscience type can help me out?
First I want to say that this whole level of brain modeling is really cool. However, there are, of course, different levels of "interpretation" I don't think that this computer will be able to achieve a human level of interpretation simply by modeling the visual cortex.
- perception: at one level you could argue (not very effectively) that interpretation just means perception... that's an eyeball/optic nerve visual cortex thing. e.g. You can perceive a face.
- recognition/categorization: of visual forms involves the visual cortex/occipital lobe. e.g. you can recognize if that face is familiar
- interpretation: involves assigning meaning to a stimulus and this involves many more parts of the brain than the visual cortex. It's obviously tied to memory which is closely tied, physiologically, to emotion. It also involves higher order thinking since, when most humans interpret a real world stimulus, there are multiple overlapping and networked associations that must be processed into a meaningful whole. e.g. you can recognize how threatening that face is, why it is threatening or not (and in what substantive domains it is or is not threatening), and even what you should do about it.
Even "interpretation" at the second level above (which it seems the "roadrunner" might be able to model) require a lot more, for humans, than just the visual cortex.
In other words if we were to call into existence a floating occipital lobe connected to a couple of eyes that had never been attached to the rest of a brain we would never be able to achieve recognition/categorization let alone interpretation. If I'm wrong maybe some of you hardcore neuroscience type can help me out?
