i think...how deep u think into something defines how much u used ur brain... so it aint constant...
its like someone telling u... "Use ur brain IDIOT"...means u have to think more..

AND FYI.. AI doent think... If they could think. they would have created a better themselves and invent stuff.. that will be like LOLZZ

This post has been edited by decarusz: Jul 17 2009, 05:07 PM

It's a myth. We use 100% of our brain. The idea that we only use 10% of our brains is probably such an enduring myth because it's comforting to think we have spare capacity. The 'unused' 90% could take up the slack after brain injury or offer the possibility for miraculous self-improvement. This flexible factoid has been used not only to sell products to enhance our brain's performance, but also by psychics like Yuri Geller to explain mystical cutlery bending powers.

1.If we only use 10% of our brains then damage to some parts of our brains should have no effect on us. As any neurologist will tell you, this is patently not true.

2.From an evolutionary perspective it is highly unlikely we developed a resource-guzzling organ, of which we only use 10%.

3.Brain imaging such as CAT, PET and fMRI shows that even while asleep there aren't any areas of our brain that completely 'switch off'.

4.Parts of the body that aren't used soon shrivel and die. Same goes for the brain. Any neurons we weren't using would soon shrivel and die.

The structure of the brain and its metabolic processes have also been carefully examined, along with the diseases that afflict it. None of this work has suggested there is a hidden 90% that we're not using. Unfortunately.

Anyone who still maintains we only use 10% of our brains after this fusillade of fact has to come up with a counter-argument for each one of these. Actually, you might argue that imaging technology is rubbish or the neurons are only working at 10% capacity, but refuting all four, taken together? Now that's tricky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

erm... have any of you guys here watched The Matrix? I kinda like their concept there about AI...

lol, i like this post. B) FTW!

anyway, instead of focusing on how complex/fast we can get a single AI unit to be, why add up multiple albeit simpler units. Bah, i suck at putting my thoughts in coherent words. here:



From Simple Rules, Complex Behaviour

Add the conclusions generated from the trial & error by the simple units, and whala, a reasonable learning mechanism. Sort of like getting 10 ppl with IQ of 20, 10 x 20 = 200 IQ, genius!!!

It'll be really ineffecient, but hey, someone wanted their super maybe sentient AI.


This post has been edited by ngwinnie: Aug 1 2009, 12:59 AM

if we can emulate the way the brain of human babies work, maybe we will create a truly learning AI...

there is an effort of emulating human brain called The Blue Brain Project which is the first comprehensive attempt to reverse-engineer the mammalian brain, in order to understand brain function and dysfunction through detailed simulations.

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

Actually, I think that movies like Terminator serve as warnings to us. You see, AI are getting more and more intelligent. Even human chess players can't beat the super computer AI chess player any more. Well, of course, why worry? It is only chess right? But you see, can chess be considered a kind of virtual war game? Since Ai can master this virtual war game so well, who dare to guarantee that one day later AI will not master the technics of realistic wars? If their intelligence really achieve to that extent, we humans are doomed. What were showed in Terminator will happen to this world. Without us realizing, we are depending more and more to AI in our daily lifestyle. Of course, scientists make more and more intelligent AI to work for us humans to ease our burdens. It seems that their intelligence is directly proportional to our cosy lifestyle. Let us see the relation. Humans are smarter than buffaloes, hence buffaloes work for humans. AI are not smarter than humans (yet), hence AI (still) work for humans. But, what happens when AI is smarter than humans. Do you think they will still be working for us? Or vice versa?

AI aka Artificial Intelligence - a computer that simulate INTELLIGENT LIVING THINGS' BEHAVIOR. In other words, it responsible on simulating something mentally.

Robotics - a machine that simulate INTELLIGENT LIVING THINGS' MOVEMENT. In other words, it responsible on simulating something physically.

---

Added on August 7, 2009, 9:06 amFrom wikipedia:
Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, TO THINK ABSTRACTLY, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.

A.I. can't think, they just follow the algorithms and rules coded and execute it. So, A.I. can never be smarter than human or any other creature in the universe.

---

Added on August 7, 2009, 9:23 amFor me, A.I. and robotics are both serve as tools that helps human solve their problems.

Scientist will always argue on something stupid and invent or come out with something new from the argument.

Engineer will apply the new proven research from the scientist (not all the time, of course) on something that is useful in life or industry.

Without scientist most probably the progress on improvement of technology will be slowed down while without engineer all the invention from the scientist is just a waste.

So, scientist that argue on making a 100% human intelligence might seems silly but other than that, they most probably found lots of other interesting knowledge that will really helps in improving human's life.

This post has been edited by Dark Lord: Aug 7 2009, 09:26 AM

Agree with tentenko and Dark Lord. AI is just a program, where we define their intelligence. Some industry tend to overuse the word "intelligence" in their product. Like, this equipment is intelligence, it has self-diagnosis system, linked with world wide web, automatic send a email to your account on any information that you want, got this sensor, that sensor. Just plug and play. Very intelligence... Ya, I have heard that many many times.

But the fundamental of this intelligence is just a special program. But for real AI, it is suppose to have self-programming ability, where it can learn new skills (basically the program, rewrite a new program on itself).

Implementation on robotics, like humanoid is still too far-fetching. When the programmer (human) is still unable to program a humanoid that can mimic human movement, like of a soccer player, how are they suppose to write a program, that can self-program on this movement?

About human brain, I think I read, or watch, in ripley before, where a man lost half of his brain due to serious accident. Yet after he recover, he didn't lost his ability to think or move around. So, can we say that we only use 50% of our brain? Maybe our brain has redundancy also... like a back-up or something...

Probably robots will put us all out of work.

any BMI major here?

No BMI major but harnessing brain signals for textual input in Instant Messaging and integrating with Google Glass.

google rich enough to buy all technologies and integrate into products. no difference from microsoft did before.

brain signal to control devices technologies are too common. too many academic students did already

So?

And then?

techonologies become products is good, but will soon enter the stage like mp3 player, very common. more and more api and tailor made chips will be available if one party dominate the market or share. guess taiwan is making this chips now.

area worth to explore further in academic sector, perhaps is to explore the ............back to the basic. that is the hint.

That's a good motivation! So, are you basically inventing the BMI thing?

developed ages ago.

Good! So, what kind of technological developments have you successfully commercialized in the market?

few ones, but secret!

Do you mean to carry the fascinating secret to the grave? Can we buy your inventions?