backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 24 comment(s) - last by TheDoc9.. on Jul 28 at 1:02 PM


Looking like something out of an optical illusions book, Mark Changizi's perception based visual circuitry could allow humans to perform powerful logic calculations just be looking down the circuit.  (Source: Mark Changizi, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)
Think your computer is fast? Check out your brain.

The human brain is faster than any computer in the world, including the new RoadRunner supercomputer at Los Alamos National Laboratory that clocked in last month at a staggering 1.144 petaflop/s, just one part of the cerebral network can perform an as yet immeasurable number of calculations per second. The visual cortex alone, which scientists tried to mimic only a small part of while setting the supercomputer speed record, defies nature with its incredibly ability to process information.

Why not put that power to use to perform artificial calculations? Mark Changizi, Assistant Professor of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute thinks that harnessing human cognizance could produce a powerful system for doing just that.

Changizi has been developing a system of visual cues designed to represent simple circuit logic, much like the basis of all computer programming. His visual circuits so far contain a “wire” and NOT, OR and AND functions, which are important for logic operations.

To get to the heart of the Changizi's visual circuit system, it's all based on perception. The wires and constructs as represented can easily be seen in different ways, like an optical illusion. However, just like binary, the system has 0 and 1 settings, which serve to force a perceived angle onto the drawing. This angle forces the brain to see a particular wire as either a 0 or 1 wire, and can be switched by the different operators and their visual representations.

“A digital circuit needs wire in order to transmit signals to different parts of the circuit. The ‘wire’ in a visual representation of a digital circuit is part of the drawing itself, which can be perceived only in two ways. An input to a digital circuit is a zero or one. Similarly, an input to a visual version of the circuit is an unambiguous cue to the tilt at that part of the circuit,” explains Changizi.

He goes on to explain how the various operators influence the information processing being done by the visual cortex. “Visually represented NOT gates flip a box’s perceived tilt as you work through a circuit, and OR gates are designed with transparency cues so that the elicited perception is always that the box is tilted toward you, unless overridden. The AND gate is similarly designed with transparency cues, but contrary to the OR gate, it will always favor the perception that it is tilted away from you.”

To help make some sense of this, the NOT, OR and AND operators perform specific tasks in logic processing. The NOT operator simply changes a 0 to 1 or 1 to 0. In respect to the Changizi's visual system, this is the same as flipping the perceived tilt of the circuit towards or away from the viewer. The OR operator always outputs a 1 (tilted toward viewer) if either or any of the circuit's inputs are in the 1 state. Finally, the AND operator tilts the wire towards the viewer only if both or all inputs are in the 1 state.

While the system is powerful in scope, at the base of it still lays human perception, which can sometimes be flawed. Not everyone can follow the circuits correctly but Changizi feels this is something that could be learned by viewers, similarly to how humans learn to read. There are also more components a complex virtual circuit would require, which he hopes that other perception experts will help realize.

While new supercomputers continue to the push the limits of processing power, creeping closer to matching the abilities of human cognizance, the idea of using cognizance itself, particularly perception, an easily influenced area of the brain, is a novel approach that may hold promise not only for designing powerful means of calculating, but for unlocking the inner workings of the brain.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Please clue me in here...
By Schrag4 on 7/25/2008 11:41:45 AM , Rating: 4
I know the human brain has much more visual processing horsepower than any computer, but how exactly are we supposed to 'harness' it? Can we get some real-world examples? I mean, unless you had sensors hooked up to your noggin' to somehow detect how your brain sees an image, wouldn't any system rely heavily on slow, inaccurate human data entry to take advantage of, whatever it is you're supposed to be speeding up?

I mean, come on, even if a computer takes 100 times as long to process something than we could do in a snap with our visual cortex, wouldn't you trust the computer's results, and wouldn't you prefer to let these computations run while you sleep? And won't computers catch up to the brain in terms of processing power relatively soon anyway?

Maybe I just need a hypothetical scenario where this idea makes some sense. Ideas?




RE: Please clue me in here...
By blue7053 on 7/25/2008 1:11:34 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're on the right track. "What can the brain do" is theoretical but "what does the brain do" is pretty well defined in the field of "Consciousness".
The 5 senses digitized is a load of about 1.3Meg per second. Consciousness is about 50bits per second. Almost all of normal brain activity is subconscious, managing blood pressure, growing hair (in some cases), etc.

There is, however, an altered state left over from the days of hand to hand combat with sabertooths called, "Warrior" state. No idea what the brain is doing during emergencies.


RE: Please clue me in here...
By wordsworm on 7/26/2008 12:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No idea what the brain is doing during emergencies.


You know, one day I was going down the street on my bicycle at about 60 km/h or so (long descending grade) when some turd just ahead of me decided to pull over and stop (the witnesses had supported the fact that the accident was his fault). Along the right of me were cars lined up, parked, for about a km in either direction. I was in the area that should be enough room to pass in between the two cars, but he decided to close that gap, leaving no room for me to pass through. In retrospect, I figure I had about 2-3 seconds to make up my mind about what I could do.

I can remember the second or two leading up to the impact, but not the impact itself or anything else until I stood up unharmed. But I remember with perfect clarity what went through my mind before the impact. I ran through 5 simulations in my mind complete with trajectories, estimates as to injuries that I would sustain from each, and how to minimize the damage. I imagined the damage I would go through if I tried to sneak through between the two cars and concluded that I would suffer broken limbs in the best case because of the crush. I might have also flipped and that would have caused some serious damage. If I tried to veer off as sharply as I could to go around the car, I would have clipped it and tumbled in cartwheels, striking the side of my head with the possibility of a broken neck and broken limbs. The fourth simulation was to absorb the impact as much as possible with my arms. But I realized I'd be headbutting the rear window with severe consequences resulting, including a head injury (who knows, maybe the helmet would've done its job), and certainly a broken neck. Finally, the simulation that I'd decided on was to hit the rear of the car at about 45 degrees so as to absorb as much of my momentum as possible with my arms, while allowing me to sail clear past the rear window, with the remaining energy being absorbed by rolling head over heels. I walked away from the accident with a limp and a terrible case of road rash along the right side of my face which about 3 days of intensive aloe vera application took care of (no scars - folks at work were amazed). I'd like to see the computer that can do that many simulations in 2-3 seconds. Truth is that I probably went through these simulations in about 1 second or less, because the other second or so required me to position the bike for impact. Without that intense computational power, I cannot help but think how different my life would be today.


RE: Please clue me in here...
By TheDoc9 on 7/28/2008 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 5 senses digitized is a load of about 1.3Meg per second. Consciousness is about 50bits per second. Almost all of normal brain activity is subconscious, managing blood pressure, growing hair (in some cases), etc.


Just wondering where you got these numbers. I've never heard of a complete successful digitizing of all 5 senses and there's certainly never been one of consciousness. If there ever was it would be far more 'load' - in whatever context that is - than the equivalent of an old style telephone modem (50bps).


RE: Please clue me in here...
By wsko on 7/25/2008 2:09:26 PM , Rating: 3
A good example of what a simulated Neural Network will be the Cellular Neural Network Universal Machine (CNN). It is a real-time stored-program supercomputer on a chip that is capable of executing tera (1,000,000,000,000) instructions per second. People have used it in artificial vision, dynamic associative memory (like how our brains remember things), video compression, mammogram diagnosis, image fusion, motion and pattern recognition, missile detection and tracking, etc.

I heard that for the missile defense system, the only supercomputer that can fit inside of a missile and is capable of tracking an incoming missile is CNN.

If you want to read more about it, wikipedia has a very long article about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_neural_netwo...


RE: Please clue me in here...
By blue7053 on 7/25/2008 2:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
What an unblievable waste of computational power!

The eye uses 99% of cells to detect motion, then refers that to the fovea (1%) to determine fine detail. A quick diagnosis is made (snake or rope)then occipital neurons go back to normal visual diagnosis.

The relative number of occipital neurons dedicated to each task is a reciprocal; 1% for motion, 99% for fine detail.


this is interesting--
By nah on 7/25/2008 9:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
but what exactly is the processing power of the human brain ? I read somewhere that the brain can/needs to process 1.72 GB/s of visual data, 500 MB/s of sensory (tactile) data, plus smaller amounts of auditory and olfactory data . Anyone have any info on this ?




RE: this is interesting--
By venny on 7/25/2008 10:09:32 AM , Rating: 4
blondes?


RE: this is interesting--
By perzy on 7/27/2008 7:01:02 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure all blondes have more processing power than you. And no hair on their back either. Go back to the jungle..


RE: this is interesting--
By laurentrepond on 7/25/2008 10:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure that one can measure what is processed in the human brain with bits. It is really a different system.

While a computer relies on "yes" or "no" that determines a certain path through an algorithm, the brain has neurons connected in every which way that each communicate with one another using paths that are not algorithm based.

The best we can do is try to simulate it with neural networks. This gives without a doubt an inaccurate picture of what's going on. (like using hertz to measure computing performance...)


I'll tell you...
By JonnyDough on 7/25/2008 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 1
"just be looking down the circuit."

I believe you meant "by".

An error occurs every 5 seconds. Hell, I can't even read a caption without needing to figure out what it says on my own.

I'll tell you what I just told Jason Mick.

HIRE AN EDITOR or LEARN ENGLISH!




RE: I'll tell you...
By Zshazz on 7/25/2008 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
Typos happen. Pointing them out is fine, but be try to be more respectful.


RE: I'll tell you...
By JonnyDough on 7/25/2008 10:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Typos shouldn't happen on four articles within the first three sentences on a professional "news" website. The occasional one, sure. But it's like they don't even bother here. After awhile it gets a bit tough to read, what with all the opinions thrown in too all the time.


RE: I'll tell you...
By wordsworm on 7/26/2008 12:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, DT isn't a news website. It's a place where folks report techno interests on blogs and then people end up arguing over points, politics, and the lamer trolls attack the blogger over typos, spelling, grammar, and syntax mistakes. Being polite about it is cool, I figure, but being disrespectful is idiotic.

If you're going to attack the blogger over their English, perhaps you ought to brush up on yours first: "what with all the opinions thrown in too all the time." That barely makes any sense. As an English teacher, I have to deal with barely legible, and sometimes illegible constructs all the time. That ranked as 'barely legible.' I first had to wonder if what you meant was 'to' instead of 'too,' but that made no sense at all. Then I realized that you had simply forgotten to punctuate your sentence.


RE: I'll tell you...
By JonnyDough on 7/26/2008 1:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
If DT isn't a news site I was unaware. If it's an opinions column then I guess I should go to stick with Phoronix or something. DT gets its "techno interests" from other websites anyway.

As for you being an English teacher, you know what they say about teaching.

Those who can't, teach.

What's interesting is that I'm dating a 37 year old beautiful professor from my college who likely makes twice your salary. My, aren't you just fancy.

I've got some modern day English ready for you, if you would like to stop by sometime. Sidle it with a bit of modern hospitality and we'll see how arrogant you are then, ok chap?

For holding high honors on my H.S. diploma and only taking a business English course for a semester during college I'd say I'm pretty close to on-par with you. It's no wonder you teach such an easy subject. Now if you were a math professor at a school of engineering I would be impressed.


Numbers Facts
By dgovmntwrkr on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Numbers Facts
By DanoruX on 7/25/2008 12:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
Human eye has 100M+ cells, so divided by color channels that's at least 33M pixels. We can see in at least 24 bit color so that's 33M x 24, which is 792Mb, or ~100MB. Per frame. The we can perceive somewhere between 30 and 100 frames per second to that's up to 10 gigs of data per second...


RE: Numbers Facts
By Ammohunt on 7/25/2008 2:00:10 PM , Rating: 3
yet not all of its stored! only the meta data is stored and cataloged thoughts, emotions, smells, impressions etc..


RE: Numbers Facts
By xRyanCat on 7/25/2008 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Many humans can see more than 24 bit colors. Also, you actually have "holes" where your nerves connect to your eyeballs. You can't actually see anything in these spots but your brain maps out the areas around it and interpolates to fill in the segments.

See here:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html

I would guess that half of the information our eyes perceive isn't analyzed by our brain but discarded as useless information

Amazing how our minds work...


RE: Numbers Facts
By boogle on 7/26/2008 5:07:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Many humans can see more than 24 bit colors.


ALL humans can see way beyond 24bit. Most digital cameras support at least 24bit colour (SLRs are often far in excess of this internally), go outside on a bright day and take a random photo, then compare it to what you see. You'll see where the camera has nowhere near the dynamic range to support what your eye can see.

However, it's impossible to give the human eye a 'bit' value because you build up an overview of the whole scene with many eye movements and lots of processing within the brain. In essence, the amount of data the brain is actually handling is significantly higher than just 1 frame at a time.

Interesting (and painful) experiments involving removing ALL eye movement causes subjects to see absolutely nothing, it just becomes a grey wash. Even when staring directly ahead, your eye is moving ever so slightly to ensure there is movement - and that movement is what allows you to see. Why go to all the effort of all that processing in the brain, rather than just passively 'see'? So you can see movement really easily, which will either be a predator out to get you, or prey for you to get.


looks too complex
By Torched on 7/25/2008 10:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just leave the visual processing to text or other simplified "yes or no" circumstance. A simple "0" or "1" would invoke a similar response in the brain and at a faster speed than a large image. How about flashing a light on or off. Is that not the same neural response?




Oh, no....
By rtrski on 7/25/2008 1:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
He's beginning to construct the higher-level optical language for the Langford Visual Hack. Our technology suppression program must've let him slip thru the cracks.

Off to the next parallel universe we go. Don't say we didn't warn you.




Hmmm
By xcskwng on 7/26/2008 11:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
I read this article and my first thought was mentats...




Run-on sentences
By ggordonliddy on 7/25/2008 8:50:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The human brain is faster than any computer in the world, including the new RoadRunner supercomputer at Los Alamos National Laboratory that clocked in last month at a staggering 1.144 petaflop/s, just one part of the cerebral network can perform an as yet immeasurable number of calculations per second.


Please learn how to avoid run-on sentences! It is extremely poor use of English to combine two sentences into one by just dropping a comma between them.

I don't understand how someone who is paid to write can make such glaring mistakes, but here is a quiz that may help you: http://www.quia.com/pop/35933.html




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki