About the SA Blog Network

Streams of Consciousness

Streams of Consciousness

The scoop on how we think, feel and act
Streams of Consciousness Home

On TV, Ray Kurzweil Tells Me How to Build a Brain

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil. Courtesy of Humanity+ via Flickr.

I recently interviewed author and inventor Ray Kurzweil about his new book, “How to Create A Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed.” The 58-minute segment aired on December 1, 2 and 3 on the C-SPAN2 program “After Words.” The book’s thesis is that it is essentially possible to reverse-engineer the human brain to create a computer mind that works like yours and mine. The advantages of such a creation, Kurzweil told me, are three-fold. First, we can gain an improved understanding of the brain so that we are better able to fix problems with it—for example, developing new treatments for psychiatric and neurological disorders. Second, biologically inspired, more intelligent machines can help us solve numerous practical problems. Third, such a brain-replica may help us understand ourselves, and ultimately to help us become more intelligent. “We are a human machine civilization and we create these tools to make ourselves smarter,” he says. (Hear this response at about 13 minutes.)

Courtesy of Image Editor via Flickr.

These intelligent machines will take various forms, he suggests, evolving from the cell phones virtually all of us carry. If you ask a phone to do something for you, in most cases, it doesn’t do what you ask on its own. The action, he says, takes place in the cloud. Future devices, he predicts, will also be gateways to the cloud. These gadgets will evolve in stages. They soon will be small enough to put in the display in your glasses as in Google Glass, which is a computer embedded in the frame of your glasses. Your screen, which displays all of visual reality, could be augmented to provide information so that when you look at someone, information about that person pops up. Just knowing a person’s name will be “a killer app,” he quips. These systems will become intelligent, he predicts. Search engines won’t wait to be asked for information; they will know you are struggling with something beforehand.

How will they know? “They will be listening in on everything you are doing, everything you write, everything you read, everything you say, everything you hear—if you let it,” he says. The system, he says, “should be listening in like a friend and realize: she needs this particular piece of information.” Of course, no friend of mine can tap into my brain. And I have some serious reservations about uploading my thoughts to the cloud. But Kurzweil is optimistic about this future state of affairs. (Check out the dialogue starting at 17 minutes.)

Kurzweil predicts this technology will be blood cell-sized by the 2030s and 2040s, and will eventually live inside us. Tiny computers in our bloodstream will keep us healthy by augmenting our immune system. They will also enter our brains, enabling our neurons to act as gateways to the cloud and thereby expanding our mental capacities. (Listen to the chat at about 22 minutes.)

Schools for Computers

IBM's Watson computer beat human champions at Jeopardy! Courtesy of Clockready via Wikimedia Commons.

To create this future, Kurzweil says, you not only have to simulate the mammalian neocortex (the brain’s outermost layer), you have to educate it. If you don’t, Kurzweil says, the resulting electronic brain won’t do much. It might be cute, he suggests, but it will behave like a newborn. There are several approaches to educating these machines. For a detailed brain simulation such as the one being developed under the auspices of The Human Brain Project, you could use an electronic model as a teacher. That is, one computer could instruct another. When Kurzweil pioneered speech and character recognition systems in the 1970s and 1980s, he taught them by exposing the software to examples of real world speech. Watson, a computer system designed by IBM that beat two human champions at Jeopardy! in 2011, was educated over the course of weeks using Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. (Hear Kurzweil’s explanation at about 31 minutes.)

What about the body? Many researchers believe that our intellect is strongly influenced by interactions between our physical selves and the environment. I asked Kurzweil how we incorporate this concept, called embodied cognition, into our artificial brains if they lack eyes, limbs and the rest. Kurzweil acknowledges this limitation, but believes we have developed the capacity to conceive of abstract concepts in a way that is removed from the body. In addition, he suggests that there is a conceptual, or limited body for these artificial minds. Watson has the ability to speak, for example, to display text and to hear. In addition, the body can be a liability at times: We don’t have to worry about the system having aggression or feeling jealousy, he points out. (This discussion starts at about 35 minutes.)

Humans have other deficiencies, too. Our memories are biased and distorted, for example, our decision-making suboptimal and our behavior often irrational. So I wondered whether our brain-based computers were really going to mimic such imperfections, or instead, perhaps improve upon us? Of course, he reminds me, we created computers in the first place to compensate for limitations of the human brain. A computer can remember literally, something we can’t do. Critical thinking is another one of our weaknesses. Inconsistent notions often coexist in our minds. If you can identify and reconcile the inconsistencies, you can come out with some higher truth. Critical thinking is something we try to teach students—and can similarly teach artificial brains, Kurzweil says. He proposes that our artificial minds include a critical thinking module that continually looks for, and tries to resolve, contradictions. (Tune into the conversation at 39 minutes.)

bicycle wheels lined up, creating a pattern

The human brain excels at recognizing patterns. Courtesy of Light Play via Flickr.

Kurzweil’s ideas about the human brain and artificial intelligence can be traced back to age five, when he first decided to become an inventor. As a young boy, Kurzweil had an inventory of parts from various construction toys he’d been given and old electronic gadgets he’d collected from neighbors. “I had this idea that if I could figure out how to put these parts together in the right way, I could solve any problem,” he recalls. At 12, he discovered the computer. Although most kids now “discover” the computer long before then, Kurzweil turned 12 in 1960, when, he estimated, only a dozen computers existed in all of New York City. He began programming, and wrote some statistical programs for the predecessor of Head Start. When Kurzweil was 14, he penned a paper about thinking. The paper proposed that the human brain was essentially a pattern recognizer, that it recognizes patterns really well, foreshadowing the ideas in his latest book. He then created a computer program that could find patterns in music and write original music using those patterns. The program won the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, among other contests. (Tune in at 52 minutes for this story.)

“I’ve been thinking about thinking for 50 years,” Kurzweil says at the close of our conversation. “Now, we have enough information to articulate a really clear theory of what I call the pattern recognition theory of mind and then use that biologically inspired paradigm to create even better AI.”

Ingrid Wickelgren About the Author: Ingrid Wickelgren is an editor at Scientific American Mind, but this is her personal blog at which, at random intervals, she shares the latest reports, hearsay and speculation on the mind, brain and behavior. Follow on Twitter @iwickelgren.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 7 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. RSchmidt 2:24 pm 12/11/2012

    It certainly may be possible to reverse engineer the brain but why would you want to? True, there is a benefit to understanding the brain for medical applications but in terms of building AI, my sights would be set much higher than human intelligence. For one thing, we’ve already got lots of human brains and they are much cheaper to make than supercomputers. They are also harder to program, unreliable, irrational, slow and fragile. In terms of AI I would want to build a machine that combines the best of both worlds. It would have the pattern recognition abilities of the human brain with the arithmetic/logic abilities of the digital computer. One of the greatest abilities of the human brain is language. It is an amazing thing. But my computer can send and receive more information in a few minutes than I could by speaking with someone my entire life. After decades of solving math problems it still takes me much longer to solve even simple problems than it does for my computer to solve complex problems. My stereoscopic vision tells me relative distances to things, a laser range finder can tell me the precise distance. My skin tells me if something is cold or hot, a thermometer tells me the temperature. Signals travel through the body at about 200/kph while travelling through a computer at close to the speed of light. Most brains operate in the 40-100 hz range whereas my PC operates at +3GHz. So, the brain is an amazing thing, no doubt, but it isn’t the droid we are looking for.

    Link to this
  2. 2. jennidavid36 6:27 pm 12/11/2012

    until I looked at the bank draft which was of $8738, I didnt believe …that…my neighbours mother was like they say realy bringing home money in their spare time on their computer.. there neighbour has done this for under nine months and resantly cleared the morgage on there appartment and bought a great Mini Cooper. read more at,…… BIT40.ℂOℳ

    Link to this
  3. 3. jewelry 9:53 pm 12/11/2012

    COLORJEWELRY is rich in good quality rings, necklaces, bracelets and earrings made of gold, precious stones. We have our own factory which located in China’s largest jewelry design and manufacturing center – Shenzhen, We offer wholesale and retail and processing on order, processing of customer’s materials, processing of imported materials for export,processing on giving materials. Our services always by your side, each of our staff stand ready to provide you with the most intimate communication, make sure your shopping is very easy, very comfortable. You would enjoy luxury fashionable shopping experience here. Get more benefits,including most affordable Largest discount and completely free shipping.
    Sincerely thank you for shopping at COLORJEWELRY —— !

    Link to this
  4. 4. Germanicus 12:17 am 12/13/2012

    Beware the Borg…

    Link to this
  5. 5. dubina 5:26 pm 12/13/2012

    @ RSchmidt

    You wrote:

    “It certainly may be possible to reverse engineer the brain but why would you want to?”

    I suggest you browse the Internet for pages on the Human Brain Project. Motives abound. One paper indicates invention and testing of a cortical core, typical of a 1.5 by .5 mm core taken from human cortex. The core is scalable, so it would be a simple matter to assemble many more cores than exist in a human brain. Imagine a brain in-silico with 24/7 access to all Internet information (with appropriate filters and aggregators, of course). Imagine such a device designed to learn like a human. Now, imagine the effect of an immortal superhuman intelligence, or a representative group of immortal superhuman intelligence machines. Would we still need informed electorates, or congresses, or parliments, or presidents or prime ministers, etc.?

    The HBP is competing for funds to build a shoe-box human brain by 2020 or thereabouts. IBM is several years deep in a similar project. Next time you hear news of our continuing political gridlock, habitual obfuscation, moat economic systems, fiscal cliff, etc, imagine those problems mitigated by very smart referees.

    Link to this
  6. 6. mounthell 6:23 pm 12/14/2012

    What pretentious and risible presumption informs this naive speculation into the dynamics of mentation. First off, that, as this neo-Cartesian suggests, “we have developed the capacity to conceive of abstract concepts in a way that is removed from the body” cannot be demonstrated and is so wrong that it is beyond being correctable in any timely way.

    Second, if, in fact, this whimsy-ist actually understood how “mind” works, he would know that his prior statement and his declaration that he possessed a (self-proclaimed) “biologically inspired paradigm” reveal inconsistence. Both err.

    Lastly, his success as an early researcher into pattern recognition has apparently caused him to prematurely embrace the odd notion that real minds are adequately described in his “pattern-recognition theory of mind.” Certainly minds can do that, as can retail-store bar-code readers, but the former can invent bar-code readers where there were none which could serve as patterns to be recognized. If he knew beans about brains he would know that he has fastened his fascination prematurely on a conceptually beguiling ‘hammer’ and everything he now seeks can be found in the nail and to the exclusion of mind’s actual architecture.

    Without knowing the architecture, anybody has as much chance in simulating the mind, let alone making a widget that actually “thinks,” as my dog has in figuring out how to open a can of her food (arguably, that might be because we only feed her moistened dry food). Before launching his inevitably heralded breakthrough, Kurzweil might get cozy with some usefully integrated research.

    Link to this
  7. 7. Dalton 8:08 pm 04/16/2013

    I’ve seen several interviews with Kurzweil including his participation in the Singularity conferences. I hear him hype the coming of intelligent machines and still find myself wondering “Where’s the Beef?” Lots of generalizations, but no meat.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article