how far ahead is the development of biological computers ?

Inspirer

Member
Jul 11, 2002
50
0
0
are biological computers something we might see in the the next 20 years or so ?

will they be synchronous or asynchronuos ?

what will the power consumption be compared to silicone ?
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
What do you mean by "biological computers"? The molecular kind (computation using DNA for example) or something else?
 

yodayoda

Platinum Member
Jan 8, 2001
2,958
0
86
hehehe, silicone computers... i think you mean silicon =)

don't expect a DNA computer on your desk--i worked in the lab of len adleman, the father of DNA computers. we are probably headed to the end of moore's law in about 15 years, but i would expect more from quantum computers than biological ones. biology will probably be very useful for computations that are biological in nature, like single-molecule detection (my project) or genome analysis, but it is very hard to make a general purpose computer from biological components.

as of a few years ago, the most challenging computation problem solved was a 20-variable 3-CNF-SAT computation. while being NP-complete, it would take a human people several hours to solve by hand but milliseconds for an electronic computer. it took our biological one a few days to solve. this is not too bad, but it is not even close to a general purpose computer.

personally, i would look to chemical or quantum computing to carry on in twenty years, not biological.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
Actually I had heard somehting of an experimental bio computer, joint project between the pentagon and IBM. speculation only. It was bio, in that most of the parts were made of bio material. For example...
Brain matter from a dead person was used to act as memory, both storage(HDD) and workspace (RAM) Spinal material was the bus communication pathway. etc etc... but due to the ethical implications it was destroyed and kept secret.
 

Shalmanese

Platinum Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,157
0
0
bs, if they did, it would be for curiousity reasons only and there is no reason they could not have used animal cells which would not have had those ethical impilcations.
 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123
Actually I had heard somehting of an experimental bio computer, joint project between the pentagon and IBM. speculation only. It was bio, in that most of the parts were made of bio material. For example...
Brain matter from a dead person was used to act as memory, both storage(HDD) and workspace (RAM) Spinal material was the bus communication pathway. etc etc... but due to the ethical implications it was destroyed and kept secret.

Either A) it wasn't kept secret, or B) this is a baseless rumor.

What reasons do we have for developing a biological computer other than for analog processing toward a milestone in artificial intelligence?

And "power consumption" opens up a whole new door. For example, is it possible that energy can be gained photosynthetically? Will you have to water your analog computer? Perhaps feed it a jar of Gerber carrots twice a week?
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
I believe the ethicalness came from religious concerns.... I guess it may no longer be a secret, as this was about 6 years ago I heard this and I just found this article containing similar info to what I had heard...


Yoohoo, Mr Moderator...Anti-Plagerism Banner found here...
Portions of atricle posted here are taken from:
http://www.megafoundation.org/UltraHIQ/HIQNews/Machine_Intelligence_Sort.htm


Incredible Complexity and Storage Capacity:

It is hard not to wax eloquent when describing the construction and the capabilities of the human brain. From a purely computational point of view, your brain may be one to two orders of magnitude faster and more complex then the upcoming 1 teraflops Cray T3E or Intel Touchstone supercomputers, or perhaps 100,000 to 1,000,000 times more elaborate than the new 200 MHz Intel P6 personal computer. Your brain contains about 50 billon to 100 billion neurons (nobody knows how many for sure), each of which interfaces with 1,000 to 100,000 other neurons through 100 trillion (1014) to 10,000 trillion (1016) synaptic junctions[6]. Each synapse possesses a variable firing threshold that is reduced if the neuron is repeatedly activated. If we assume that the firing threshold at each synapse can assume 256 distinguishable levels, and if we suppose that there are 20,000 shared synapses per neuron (10,000 per neuron), then the total information storage capacity of the synapses in the cortex would be of the order of 500 to 1,000 (1015) terabytes. (Of course, if the brain's storage of information takes place at a molecular level, then I would be afraid to hazard a guess regarding how many bytes can be stored in the brain. One estimate has placed it at about 3.6 X 1019 bytes.)

Not bad for a 3-pound gob of pink goo!

Because of the neural-net organization of the brain and the high degree of redundancy that appears to characterize neural-net based memories, the effective storage capacity of the brain may be much less than 500 terabytes of computer memory. My considerations of our memory capacity suggest that its computer-equivalent storage size may lie closer to 500 gigabytes than to 500 terabytes. (The brain's storage capacity may primarily be used for other purposes than the retention of facts.)

Accuracy and Redundancy:

A considerable degree of redundancy in cranial memory storage may be needed to accommodate for the quantum unreliability of the brain's nanocircuitry. (The synaptic junctions are characterized by separations that are less than 100 Å.)

Complexity of Cerebral Functions

The English philosopher John Locke thought that a newborn was a "tabula rasa"?a blank slate?upon which the world wrote whatever it wrote. As recently as fifty years ago, it was thought that the cerebral cortex was a structure-less, pink pudding of identical neurons that somehow simply and magically produced human thought. The underlying cerebral hemispheres were known to have certain specialized functions?the left temporal lobe mediated speech while the occipital lobe specialized in vision?but memories seemed to be distributed throughout the brain. There was speculation concerning why 90% of all brain tissue was never used, together with the idea that some day, we might be able to learn to harness it. Today, we understand that the brain is highly structured and highly specialized. A great many functions are "wired in", compared to a digital computer which is truly a blank slate. It is these "wired in" functions that make us get out of bed in the morning rather than spend the day estivating. The 90% of brain tissue that was thought to be unused probably is used. Unlike many man-made machines which either work or don't work, certain brain functions degrade gracefully rather than abruptly as brain tissue is destroyed.

Experience with biological systems in general shows that they are exceedingly complicated, with multiple backup systems. My consideration of the functions of the mind suggests that it is also extremely complicated. The brain apparently contains a multitude of very complex and highly-specialized areas which we probably haven't yet fully mapped out and or understood.

Speed:

Neurons require about a millisecond to discharge, followed by a 4 millisecond refractory period That could amount to as many as 2 X 1018 connection updates per second. In practice, the firing rate and the synaptic count probably isn't that high. There are 40 Hertz firing waves that sweep the entire brain from back to front. The 6,000,000,000 neurons in the visual cortex also fire about 40 times a second to give us our 20-frame-per-second visual update rate, so we might be looking at perhaps 240 billion firings per second in the visual cortex. Each neuron connects to a number of other neurons through dendrites and an axon (an average of 15,000 interconnections per neuron in the visual cortex), so we might be dealing with about 50 trillion (5 X 1013) synaptic junctions in the visual cortex. At 40 firings a second, the visual cortex should be able to perform about 2 quadrillion synaptic activations per second?2 X 1015 connection updates per second or 2,000,000 Gcups (giga-connection-updates-per-second?compared to 10 Gcups for current neural networks. For the brain as a whole, assuming 10,000 interconnections per neuron, the number might be about 10 times this amount, or 20,000,000 Gcups. (A recent 3/17/96 article in Parade magazine places the total synaptic count at 1.5 quadrillion and the connection update rate at 10,000,000 Gcups.)

It has been estimated that computational speeds of 109 calculations per second (1 Gigops) would be required to match the edge and motion detection capabilities of the first four layers of the human retina, and 1013 operations per second (10,000 Gigops) to 1016 operations per second (10,000,000 Gigops) would be necessary to emulate what is done in the brain overall[7].

The Brain Needs So Little Power:

Still another impressive parameter regarding the brain is how little power it dissipates (of the order of 100 watts). By comparison, a 500-MIPS (500-Million Instructions Per Second) DEC Alpha chip dissipates about 50 watts. Using 20,000 DEC Alpha chips, we would need a 1,000 kw behemoth to achieve the lower threshold of 10,000 Gigops, or about 20,000 times as much power....

 

Shalmanese

Platinum Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,157
0
0
lesse, 500Gb HD's are on the horizon, an ATI Radeon is doing around 1 Tflops at 30W so only 300W at 10Tflops or just 3 times as much as the brain. Im guessing a mobility Radeon 9600 might actually match the brain for W/Tflop. Of course, the software currently sucks.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
Since this information was written about the time a Pentium 200Mhx was the new top of the line CPU, it still a good basis for biological computers.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Nope I've seen pictures of one. It was a simple computer made out of nerves taken out of leeches and kept alive in a petri dish. They used leeches because there nervious system is very simple, but big enough you can dissect easily, plus the nerves are well documented due to the use of leeches to teach student doctors basic nuerology.

They hooked the nerves up into a simple curicit and hooked wires up to the nerve endings. Basicly it looked like a small dish full of lumpy mush with pins stuck into in various places with wires attached to the pins...

They made a simple compiler for it and designed a calculation program that could do simple mathmatical functions.

If you think about it, it wouldn't be that hard to do, you can set up a very simple transistor using anything that can conduct and react to electrical stimuli. The goal of the project was to simply prove it could be done.

They hope that they could eventually grow computers out of cloned neurons that could adapt and create their own pathways and that way adapt to programs. So that a programmer could create simple code for them and the nuerons would figure out how to execute it, instead of having to provide every little detail down to the assembly code like we do today. This was back in 1999.

heres a link
another link..
and here they say they want to leeches to be used for setient (ability to make independent decisions, not exactly be human like I assume) robots, just like in Isaac Asimov novels

Yet more proof that the human imagination is the key driving force in technology. We imagine the possible, because our minds are designed for this level of existance, so we "think" in a level of what can be considured extraordinary mathmatics of what can and might happen, It just doesn't mean that it all makes sense all the time and our natural built-in stupidities keep us from getting too dangerous... ;)
What we imagine we can make.. eventually. Data from Star Treck anyone?
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Oh and something else about human brains needing little power.. I heard somewher that as much as 75% of the calories that we intake are used up by our brains.. I am guessing that when we getting low on easily-used calories our brains aren't able to function at the high levels so well, thats why as we get undernourished we get confused and disoriented during the day.. Hence the term "low blood sugar" when we can't think strait after missing a meal.

Also another parallel between brains and cpu's is our brains produce large amounts of heat.

chimpanzees skulls appear to be similar to ours, but they are not as close as they seem from first glance. (now mind you I am no expert) First off the structure of arteries and veins going to the brain are different, chimps and other monkeys have blood vessels that flow up and down the inside of the skull, we have 2 large pipelines of blood vessels that travel up the back of the skull to supply the brain with blood. (or accelerate draining from the the brain, I can't quite remember) This is for 2 reasons,
1. we are upright, if a gorilla or a chimps had leg structure that are similar to ours (they don't there legs are completely different -designed for only on all fours walking, and occasional reaching up high) and could walk around on two legs for extented periods of time they would pass out from lack of blood to the brain (or at least get very dizzy).
2. our blood supply needs are very much more then theirs...

also another BIG difference is that primate skulls are completely solid. Our skulls are very porous in comparisions, we have numerious small blood vessels going in and out of the skull, these are not so much made for increased blood flow as for cooling purposes. That's why when we are out in the sun to much we get flush, the blood from the the inside rushes out to the outside layer of skin to be cooled off by large amounts of sweat quickly. Monkeys can't do that. They don't have to, there blood stream can move the heat quickly enough.. If we are out in direct sunlight to long with not enough liquids our brains overheat and thats when we get heat stroke. What do you do to help? put the victim in a shade and elevate his/her legs to facitate blood flow... Our brains overheat and then go into extreme underclock mode to prevent them from crashing all the way, that would probably stop our heart and breathing. No reboot after that...

So essentially we have brains that have had a extra pipeline of energy going into it for increased power consuption and are water-cooled. Our brains have been overclocked...leeches=8086 cow=286 cats=386 chips=486 with a mathmatical coprocesser and humans=2-3ghz... Heh, what do you think?
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,647
1
81
not even close to being soon. being able to compute does not a computer make.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Ya I know it's pretty unlikely... I sure you guys already knew about the leech stuff, but its weird to know that there are people that are working hard to make it a reality.

Ha any body been able to create a AI that can take 2 simple facts and extrapolate a 3rd previous unknown one, a unexpected one... something as simple as I see the sun, I feel warmth, the sun is the source of the warmth.. and would it be able to figure out that it must prove this to itself and that it could prove it by putting itself in the shade or waiting to dark? This is so far beyond what hardware is capable of it is not even funny. A 150 ghz proccessor wouldn't be able to figure that one out, or if you put it into a robot, it shouldn't bash itself to peices by running into a wall 50 times, even if someone told it to do it.

Everything that a computer does is completely meaningless and has no source of knowledge other than what we feed it in binary format. All the flickering screens and text and the entirity of the super information high way is eventually dependant on our interpitation for any meaning, and that meaning is supplied completely by other humans anyways. It's just a caculator, a communication device. It's no more thoughtfull than a telephone or a morse code beeper.

But if we were able to create something that could interpet US, instead of being a one-sided relationship. We give it information and it is able to figure out what to do with that information independent of our instructions, what is that worth? Would you want something that can click on and off at a 30ghz or something that can go ok you gave me a 1 and a 2... now I get you one screw driver and 2 screws because you are trying to fix the table...

(I personally choose the high-speed on-off switch thank you very much)
 

AbsolutDealage

Platinum Member
Dec 20, 2002
2,675
0
0
This is so far beyond what hardware is capable of it is not even funny. A 150 ghz proccessor wouldn't be able to figure that one out, or if you put it into a robot, it shouldn't bash itself to peices by running into a wall 50 times, even if someone told it to do it.

Actually this has very little to do with hardware. AI is based entirely in software, and until there are extreme advances in languages and design, we will never see a truly intelligent AI as you have described. Personally, I think that I will never see such a thing in my lifetime.

Ha any body been able to create a AI that can take 2 simple facts and extrapolate a 3rd previous unknown one, a unexpected one... something as simple as I see the sun, I feel warmth, the sun is the source of the warmth.. and would it be able to figure out that it must prove this to itself and that it could prove it by putting itself in the shade or waiting to dark?

In short, no. You can come close to this type of operation, but only with significant coaxing. The fact is that as AI exists today, you will never see actual independant thought. A computer can make "smart" decisions, but cannot make "unexpected" decisions. Every "thought" that the AI has must be (in some capacity) hardcoded into the logic of the program. We are far, far, FAR from an AI that will work as you described.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Originally posted by: drag
Ya I know it's pretty unlikely... I sure you guys already knew about the leech stuff, but its weird to know that there are people that are working hard to make it a reality. Ha any body been able to create a AI that can take 2 simple facts and extrapolate a 3rd previous unknown one, a unexpected one... something as simple as I see the sun, I feel warmth, the sun is the source of the warmth.. and would it be able to figure out that it must prove this to itself and that it could prove it by putting itself in the shade or waiting to dark? This is so far beyond what hardware is capable of it is not even funny. A 150 ghz proccessor wouldn't be able to figure that one out, or if you put it into a robot, it shouldn't bash itself to peices by running into a wall 50 times, even if someone told it to do it. Everything that a computer does is completely meaningless and has no source of knowledge other than what we feed it in binary format. All the flickering screens and text and the entirity of the super information high way is eventually dependant on our interpitation for any meaning, and that meaning is supplied completely by other humans anyways. It's just a caculator, a communication device. It's no more thoughtfull than a telephone or a morse code beeper. But if we were able to create something that could interpet US, instead of being a one-sided relationship. We give it information and it is able to figure out what to do with that information independent of our instructions, what is that worth? Would you want something that can click on and off at a 30ghz or something that can go ok you gave me a 1 and a 2... now I get you one screw driver and 2 screws because you are trying to fix the table... (I personally choose the high-speed on-off switch thank you very much)

I'd rather not have a machine that can interpret us. It sort of scares me like some of the X-files episodes or one of those sci-fi movies that have machines taking over humans. If we had machines that could think for themselves, then it would actually be a possibility that the machines could make our lives very tough (imagine a computer that is really being moody because it doesn't like you). If these machines become more efficient learners than humans and they develop human-like vices I think the game would be over. I really can't comment on whether such a machine will develop human-like vices. Maybe those vices come automatically with a certain amount of intelligence or maybe it is just something humans are cursed with. I've noted that you agree that truly intelligent machines could open up a huge can of worms.
 

tranceport

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
4,168
1
81
www.thesystemsengineer.com
Originally posted by: sxr7171
Originally posted by: drag
Ya I know it's pretty unlikely... I sure you guys already knew about the leech stuff, but its weird to know that there are people that are working hard to make it a reality. Ha any body been able to create a AI that can take 2 simple facts and extrapolate a 3rd previous unknown one, a unexpected one... something as simple as I see the sun, I feel warmth, the sun is the source of the warmth.. and would it be able to figure out that it must prove this to itself and that it could prove it by putting itself in the shade or waiting to dark? This is so far beyond what hardware is capable of it is not even funny. A 150 ghz proccessor wouldn't be able to figure that one out, or if you put it into a robot, it shouldn't bash itself to peices by running into a wall 50 times, even if someone told it to do it. Everything that a computer does is completely meaningless and has no source of knowledge other than what we feed it in binary format. All the flickering screens and text and the entirity of the super information high way is eventually dependant on our interpitation for any meaning, and that meaning is supplied completely by other humans anyways. It's just a caculator, a communication device. It's no more thoughtfull than a telephone or a morse code beeper. But if we were able to create something that could interpet US, instead of being a one-sided relationship. We give it information and it is able to figure out what to do with that information independent of our instructions, what is that worth? Would you want something that can click on and off at a 30ghz or something that can go ok you gave me a 1 and a 2... now I get you one screw driver and 2 screws because you are trying to fix the table... (I personally choose the high-speed on-off switch thank you very much)

I'd rather not have a machine that can interpret us. It sort of scares me like some of the X-files episodes or one of those sci-fi movies that have machines taking over humans. If we had machines that could think for themselves, then it would actually be a possibility that the machines could make our lives very tough (imagine a computer that is <EM>really</EM> being moody because it doesn't like you). If these machines become more efficient learners than humans and they develop human-like vices I think the game would be over. I really can't comment on whether such a machine will develop human-like vices. Maybe those vices come automatically with a certain amount of intelligence or maybe it is just something humans are cursed with. I've noted that you agree that truly intelligent machines could open up a huge can of worms.

matrix anyone?
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
I'd rather not have a machine that can interpret us. It sort of scares me like some of the X-files episodes or one of those sci-fi movies that have machines taking over humans. If we had machines that could think for themselves, then it would actually be a possibility that the machines could make our lives very tough (imagine a computer that is really being moody because it doesn't like you). If these machines become more efficient learners than humans and they develop human-like vices I think the game would be over. I really can't comment on whether such a machine will develop human-like vices. Maybe those vices come automatically with a certain amount of intelligence or maybe it is just something humans are cursed with. I've noted that you agree that truly intelligent machines could open up a huge can of worms.


we already have software that can interpret our buying habits, driving habits, etc. insurance companies and banks use this kind of software all the time. i've heard that large financial institutions use neural-net loan programs to help them figure out who a good candidate for loans would be.

i'm kind of puzzled by your response about machines thinking for themselves. what's the big deal? people think for themselves all the time. look what that's gotten us so far: crime, wars, quake3. how would having thinking machines be any different? intelligence itself opens up a can of worms. look at babies. they're so cute. and then they grow up...
 

TheSeikenSamurai

Junior Member
Mar 28, 2003
1
0
0
many of you may say "it's not gonna happen soon" or "not in my lifetime". maybe true, however, i think it's imperitive that our current generation lead the way for the future. no other species before us has had the ability to chose it's own evolution. all religious points of view aside, this could be a great thing. after all, science has extended our lives, made us healthier, and increased the world population tremendously. those that argue "it's just not right to do this stuff" are in denile, because their own current existance would have most likely been denied without earlier technologies and inventions.

i feel that it's important that we figure out how to harness the power of our own brains. how strange, it is, that we are ALWAYS using something that we can't even fully understand. we don't know what keeps us alive, or what makes us die. or what we even are. thoughts like these may make some think that it's a futile effort.

but, i do belive that if we can increase our processing abilities (in computers, and ourselves), that the world will be a better place one day. who knows what other races somehwere in the unmeasurable universe have already done this. we can't wait for nature when this is in the grasp of our hands.