Slashdot Mirror


A Mind Made From Memristors

Csiko writes "Researchers at Boston University's department of cognitive and neural systems are working on an artificial brain implemented with memristors. 'A memristor is a two-terminal device whose resistance changes depending on the amount, direction, and duration of voltage that's applied to it. But here's the really interesting thing about a memristor: Whatever its past state, or resistance, it freezes that state until another voltage is applied to change it. Maintaining that state requires no power.' Also theoretically described, solid state versions of memristors have not been implemented until recently. Now researchers in Boston claim that memristors are the new key technology to implement highly integrated, powerful artificial brains on cheap and widely available hardware within five years."

29 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like another pipe dream by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is nothing like the cognitive human brain. This is only a variable memory device.

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    1. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is nothing like the cognitive human brain. This is only a variable memory device.

      Variable memory, eh? Perhaps we can use it to replace politicians.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The state is read by applying voltage to it, this voltage is less than the threshold required to change the state.

  3. Hmmm 5 years they say? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ever notice that anytime some cool sounding new development is announced the people behind it say 'we see this having applications in/within/in about five years?

    Call me when you actually have something to show us.

  4. Neuromorphic CPUs by Kensai7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even if the rest of the things explained in the article happen many years away, the last couple of paragraphs explain the trend:

    Neuromorphic chips won't just power niche AI applications. The architectural lessons we learn here will revolutionize all future CPUs. The fact is, conventional computers will just not get significantly more powerful unless they move to a more parallel and locality-driven architecture. While neuromorphic chips will first supplement today's CPUs, soon their sheer power will overwhelm that of today's computer architectures.

    The semiconductor industry's relentless push to focus on smaller and smaller transistors will soon mean transistors have higher failure rates. This year, the state of the art is 22-nanometer feature sizes. By 2018, that number will have shrunk to 12 nm, at which point atomic processes will interfere with transistor function; in other words, they will become increasingly unreliable. Companies like Intel, Hynix, and of course HP are putting a lot of resources into finding ways to rely on these unreliable future devices. Neuromorphic computation will allow that to happen on both memristors and transistors.

    It won't be long until all multicore chips integrate a dense, low-power memory with their CMOS cores. It's just common sense.

    Our prediction? Neuromorphic chips will eventually come in as many flavors as there are brain designs in nature: fruit fly, earthworm, rat, and human. All our chips will have brains.

    Hopefully, this is the solution to 2018's problem of reaching atomic levels of miniaturization. We have a breaktrought to continue with Moore's law beyond current technology.

    --
    "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    1. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by limaxray · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it talks about transistor density per unit cost - as long as manufacturing continues to improve and drive down costs, Moore's law will continue beyond the physical limitations of transistor density (stuff will continue to get cheaper even if it doesn't get 'faster').

      I don't understand why most people focus on the maximizing transistor density part when 99% of applications call for minimizing cost.

    2. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think Moore's law is becoming increasingly pointless to most of the world. It talks about speed

      It doesn't actually talk about speed at all; it talks about the cost of manufacturing chips of 2^n density where n increments every 18-24 months cost remains constant. It is, in fact, exactly what you go on to say is relevant despite the fact that what you're describing IS Moore's Law exactly.

  5. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This opens up a whole huge assload of debate again.

    Let us assume they map out the brain, create an FPGA of memristor devices like this that can mimic the brain's exact structure.

    First round it doesn't work.

    Because robots can't have a soul. You need a spirit to have that kind of consciousness. You'll hear this argument immediately; I'm not going to argue directly against the spirituality thing, but the question to me is more complex than that, of course. Still, that'll be the first argument.

    Then someone will make it work.

    Now the interesting shit happens.

    A lot of people have told me they're never going to die because, by the time they're old, technology will exist to copy their minds into machines. Think about that. Immortality through perpetuated consciousness.

    Stop for a moment.

    Realize you are alive, aware, and conscious.

    Now, why do you experience consciousness?

    You want to say, well, all that "soul" bullshit is weird and freaky. Scientifically unsound. I experience consciousness due to a series of electrochemical reactions in my brain. End of story.

    Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

    To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

    So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

    Why are you conscious?

    Hmm that would be convenient for suicide cases. So much easier. Copy my brain into a biological clone brain, swap, and destroy mine. I get to die and nobody else has to worry about it because I don't die. The ultimate escape: you make your life someone else's problem!

  6. Re:Artificial Brains? by mikael_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the whole problem with the destruction of the original could probably be solved by slowly replacing the original organic brain with the electronic one. Instead of copying everything at once and then deleting the original you basically "graft" the electronic brain onto the original (obviously it would be a lot trickier than that in practice but so would "just copying" it be) and slowly let the electronic hardware do more and more while the organic does less. Eventually you'll have an all electronic brain.

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  7. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, and this would work why? (in practice, would it?) My point is we don't understand consciousness (and have no way to verify things like this actually work) and that the question is very complex. Even if you don't accept the concept of a "soul," you have a very difficult problem in front of you. If you DO accept the concept of a "soul," you have something confusing and complex in front of you.

  8. Re:Artificial Brains? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

    I don't want to foster a false dichotomy but it seems to me that there IS something of a binary choice here. Either there is some undefinable quality we can call a "soul", or what you think of as "life" or "consciousness" is an illusion. The data of whatever was just going through your head is still there to some degree, so you perceive your continued existence, but life is actually only a series of moments and one only has to do with the other because they're somehow connected, not because there's something special about being alive.
    If there is a soul and you "die" tomorrow then destruction of the flesh is not the ending of your life. But if there is not a soul and you "die" tomorrow you won't care. And if there is not a soul and you copy yourself to a mechanical brain, then you're both "alive" in that you are both functioning. You're both "you", and yet, neither of you is really you. Change your memories and you're someone else.
    Or in other words, when we actually have the technology to mimic the behavior of the human brain, then we may actually be able to answer fundamental questions about the "soul" that cannot be answered today.
    Personally I don't see any need for a soul to explain the behavior of a human; it's the same physical processes at work all the way down through bacteria and vira. But we could argue about that all day and achieve nothing but a big fat waste of time, both user and CPU.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:Artificial Brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I don't know why works. "Why" is a question above my pay grade. But your body is already doing it when it replaces dead cells with newly created cells.

  10. Re:Artificial Brains? by 2names · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is my great-great-great-grandfather's axe. It has had the head replaced twice and the handle replaced three times.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  11. Re:Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by rts008 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hell, you don't even need to go that high tech.
    Replacing her brain with a Roomba would likely triple her IQ.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  12. Never mind AI by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Couldn't this be used to make cheaper solid-state storage?

  13. Re:Artificial Brains? by KnownIssues · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you go to sleep (or are knocked out, or drugged, or in a coma, etc) your consciousness ends. When you wake up, your consciousness resumes. You do not freak out about that. You remember your consciousness from before, that it was in the body from before. We believe we have a soul that is immutable from our consciousness because we have had no other experience and cannot comprehend what it would be like.

    Look at the experiments that have "reprogrammed" people to believe they like something they didn't before by creating memories of experiences where they liked it. They cannot remember not liking it.Or schizophrenics or people with split/multiple personalities. Our brains are not the infallable machine devices that we like to think they are; they are squishy, malleable things. Consciousness is not a black and white state; it only appears to be because that is the typical way of experiencing our mind.

    What makes us conscious? The belief that we're conscious. If you cloned your mind and put it in another body you would have two minds that both believed they were you. But why should we have trouble with that? We don't believe twins are one person. Their actions distinguish them. The two entities that shared one mind at one time would diverge and quickly become two distinguishable entities.

  14. Re:Artificial Brains? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

    Which is the exact reason I'd never take a ride on a Star Trek teleporter. I don't want to die and leave my entire physical, mental, and emotional estate to my identical twin who hasn't been born yet.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  15. Re:Artificial Brains? by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amnesia and Alzheimer's is enough proof we don't have souls, no doubt what we call "consciousness" is really just a network of developed cells and memories that are attached to it. After all no one claims to be able to remember what it was like as an embryo, also when one is under amnesia. One's "soul" doesn't float away. The concept of "soul" is just our irrational psychic defense against the fact we all die someday. That so many peoples and cultures have come up with an afterlife speaks volumes that it is just a reaction against our powerlessness to heal and fix ourselves because of the expense, energy, intelligence and tools to do so.

    We experience the self as a unified thing but it isn't. This is proven by people who've had brain damage in accidents and strokes where their "self" functions but they lose specific functions and aspects of 'who they are'.

    You can find out more by reading the following book by a Neurologist.

    This is Damasio's refutation of the Cartesian idea of the human mind as separate from bodily processes draws on neurochemistry to support his claim that emotions play a central role in human decision making.

    http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/

    Also related clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

  16. Re:Artificial Brains? by Burnhard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mod this guy up. He's quite right. In my view consciousness is non-physical. That is to say it is not a measurable physical property. If this is the case, simply replicating the cognitive structure of a conscious organism does not necessarily instantiate a conscious state. Don't forget only 10 years ago photosynthesis was well understood in physical and biological terms, but now we discover that leaves take advantage of quantum effects to increase efficiency. There's a whole lot more going on in the brain than simple classical state change.

  17. Re:Artificial Brains? by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

    That was the old theory. Years ago it was discovered that new brain cells are in fact produced throughout your lifetime.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  18. Re:Artificial Brains? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least some are, just at a slow rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis#Adult_neurogenesis
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxar9m

    Also in mice at least, fetal cells can get into the mother's brain and grow neurons etc there: http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2006/07/20/on-a-mothers-mind/

    Maybe that's why some couples start looking like each other over time :).

    --
  19. Re:Artificial Brains? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is my great-great-great-grandfather. He has had his head replaced twice and his, erm, "handle" replaced three times. Grandad is a randy old gentleman.

  20. Solves the wrong problem by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This technology fundamentally mistakes what is the hard part about building brains as adaptable as biological ones. The physical instantiation is not important, if the Church-Turing thesis is true. (And if you're saying Church-Turing is false, that's an enormous claim and you'd better have very compelling evidence to back you up.)

    The hard part about building a brain is figuring out the patterns of connectivity between neurons. Biology solves this in some brilliant way, starting from a seed with almost no information (the genome) and implementing some process to incorporate environmental data, self-organizing into a very robust and complex structure with orders of magnitude more information. The great unknown is the process whereby this growth and self-organization occurs. Figure that out, and you'll be able to make any kind of computer you like function as a brain.

    1. Re:Solves the wrong problem by Schroedinger · · Score: 3, Informative

      The process of figuring this out isn't going to occur magically. You need to test out your models at the systems level, with all the components working together. The more powerful the hardware we have to do this the more we can test and refine our models of how the brain achieves the same thing. This is both true if you're trying to model existing neuro architectures (like BU is) or if you're modeling evolutionary approaches like you describe above.

      These memristive neuromorphic architectures hold the promise to get us orders of magnitude more processing speed while also keeping power levels low.

    2. Re:Solves the wrong problem by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The summary really only promises enhanced speed and efficiency, but after reading the article, I agree with your complaint: "Researchers have suspected for decades that real artificial intelligence can't be done on traditional hardware, with its rigid adherence to Boolean logic and vast separation between memory and processing." Huh?

      Now, I have some sympathy for the pragmatic argument that getting good tools into enough hands is the best way to raise the odds of cracking hard problems. Some people will point out (for example) that a modern 3d game like Crysis might have been emulated (at a fraction of real-time speed) 20 years ago, but nobody figured out how, or bothered to do so, (and no, Castle Wolfenstein doesn't count) because hardware limitations made it too cumbersome and only a few parties had the resources to even try.

      Even so, claiming it "can't be done" is going too far. People are building conventional computers that simulate neurons on the order of a cat brain, but programming them is the problem.

  21. Re:Artificial Brains? by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the program I wrote in 5th grade. I replaced the computer twice, the monitor 3x, and now it runs in an emulator.

  22. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm just replying AC so I can read your comment.

  23. Re:Artificial Brains? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Informative

    The reason slow replacent would work is because the opposite also works. Consider that everyday, hundreds of neurons in your brain are dying right now. Some are replaced by new neurons while others are not. And yet the continuity of you still exists.

  24. Re:Artificial Brains? by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    See the twins that can understand and/or hear each others thoughts

    http://gizmodo.com/5682758/the-fascinating-story-of-the-twins-who-share-brains-thoughts-and-senses