Hacker News Reader

Can you elaborate on the parts of what Spaun can accomplish that they can't quite explain? I'm very interested in this.

He was talking about how current models of the brain, such as the one by IBM (http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-simulates-530-billon-neurons-1...) which has over 5 billion neurons, might be larger than Spaun, but none have demonstrated any of the AI that Spaun has. In particular, it's ability to solve basic problems, similar to that of a toddler. He didn't mention a problem in particular, simply that some of the things Spaun was able to solve, they weren't entirely sure how to explain it - but they were sure that they could reproduce. Which to me echos the fact that the brain is a very complex thing that we are still very far away from understanding.

Oh. I was under the impression you were saying the team behind Spaun found unexpected and unexplained results.

I was excited because I think we'll find unexpected and unexplained results when we create a model that brings together the constituents of whatever make up the brain; they'll rise up and create something 'magical'. It's like how the saying goes: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

It's funny because just today I was feeling sad that software no longer feels magical to me anymore because I've learned so much about how it works. It makes me think of consciousness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com