Connectionists: Brain-like computing fanfare and big data fanfare

Fri Jan 24 17:59:47 EST 2014

First, no matter what the outcome, I must complement John for having the
courage to bring this up and for generating an open discussion.

I think from an algorithm perspective a small data set computed with
limited resources could emulate big data computed with the biggest
computers.  We must be careful that a big data bias does not introduce an
economy of scale that bars new researchers with limited resources or
expertise in signal processing.  This also gives big business an advantage
to compete for research grants.  My worry is that an overly strong bias
towards big data may hide important details and generate big marketing
gimmicks that do not produce more than incremental progress and burn up
taxpayer money.

Here is an example of how careful accounting of free variables and
computational resources can enable smaller data sets to emulate big-data
limitations:
http://reason.cs.uiuc.edu/tsvi/Evaluating_Flexibility_of_Recognition.pdf

Keep in mind, the field is underfunded which affects the little guys much
more than the big ones.  Adding on a big-data requirements further
alienates the little guys who may be students with great ideas, which I
believe, the field desperately needs to support.

Sincerely,
 -Tsvi

Achler, T., *Artificial General Intelligence Begins with Recognition:
Evaluating the Flexibility of Recognition*, in *Theoretical Foundations of
Artificial General Intelligence* 2012
PDF<http://reason.cs.uiuc.edu/tsvi/chap11_book_Wang_v10.pdf>

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Ralph Etienne-Cummings <
ralph.etiennecummings at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey, I am happy when our taxpayer money, of which I contribute way more
> than I get back, funds any science in all branches of the government.
>
> Neuromorphic and brain-like computing is on the rise ... Let's please not
> shoot ourselves in the foot with in-fighting!!
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph's Android
> On Jan 24, 2014 4:13 PM, "Juyang Weng" <weng at cse.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Yes, Gary, you are correct politically, not to upset the "emperor" since
>> he is always right and he never falls behind the literature.
>>
>> But then no clear message can ever get across.   Falling behind the
>> literature is still the fact.  More, the entire research community that
>> does brain research falls behind badly the literature of necessary
>> disciplines.  The current U.S. infrastructure of this research community
>> does not fit at all the brain subject it studies!  This is not a joking
>> matter.  We need to wake up, please.
>>
>> Azriel Rosenfeld criticized the entire computer vision filed in his
>> invited talk at CVPR during early 1980s: "just doing business as usual" and
>> "more or less the same" .   However, the entire computer vision field still
>> has not woken up after 30 years!   As another example, I respect your
>> colleague Terry Sejnowski, but I must openly say that I object to his "we
>> need more data" as the key message for the U.S. BRAIN Project.  This is
>> another example of "just doing business as usual" and so everybody will not
>> be against you.
>>
>> Several major disciplines are closely related to the brain, but the
>> scientific community is still very much fragmented, not willing to wake
>> up.  Some of our government officials only say superficial worlds like "Big
>> Data" because we like to hear.   This cost is too high for our taxpayers.
>>
>> -John
>>
>> On 1/24/14 2:19 PM, Gary Cottrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi John -
>>
>>  It's great that you have an over-arching theory, but if you want people
>> to read it, it would be better not to disrespect people in your emails. You
>> say you respect Matthew, but then you accuse him of falling behind in the
>> literature because he hasn't read your book. Politeness (and modesty!) will
>> get you much farther than the tone you have taken.
>>
>>  g.
>>
>>  On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Juyang Weng <weng at cse.msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Matthew:
>>
>> My apology if my words are direct, so that people with short attention
>> spans can quickly get my points.  I do respect you.
>>
>> You wrote: "to build hardware that works in a more brain-like way than
>> conventional computers do.  This is not what is usually meant by research
>> in neural networks."
>>
>> Your statement is absolutely not true.  Your term "brain-like way" is as
>> old as "brain-like computing".  Read about the 14 neurocomputers built by
>> 1988 in Robert Hecht-Nielsen, "Neurocomputing: picking the human brain",
>> IEEE Spectrum 25(3), March 1988, pp. 36-41.  Hardware will not solve the
>> fundamental problems of the current human severe lack in understanding the
>> brain, no matter how many computers are linked together.  Neither will the
>> current "Big Data" fanfare from NSF in U.S..  The IBM's brain project has
>> similar fundamental flaws and the IBM team lacks key experts.
>>
>> Some of the NSF managers have been turning blind eyes to breakthrough
>> work on brain modeling for over a decade, but they want to waste more
>> taxpayer's money into its "Big Data" fanfare and other "try again"
>> fanfares.  It is a scientific shame for NSF in a developed country like
>> U.S. to do that shameful politics without real science, causing another
>> large developing country like China to also echo "Big Data".  "Big Data"
>> was called "Large Data", well known in Pattern Recognition for many years.
>> Stop playing shameful politics in science!
>>
>> You wrote: "Nobody is claiming a `brain-scale theory that bridges the
>> wide gap,' or even close."
>>
>> To say that, you have not read the book: Natural and Artificial
>> Intelligence <http://www.brain-mind-institute.org/press.html>.  You are
>> falling behind the literature so bad as some of our NSF project managers.
>> With their lack of knowledge, they did not understand that the "bridge" was
>> in print on their desks and in the literature.
>>
>> -John
>>
>> On 1/23/14 6:15 PM, Matthew Cook wrote:
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>>  I think all of us on this list are interested in brain-like computing,
>> so I don't understand your negativity on the topic.
>>
>>  Many of the speakers are involved in efforts to build hardware that
>> works in a more brain-like way than conventional computers do.  This is not
>> what is usually meant by research in neural networks.  I suspect the phrase
>> "brain-like computing" is intended as an umbrella term that can cover all
>> of these efforts.
>>
>>  I think you are reading far more into the announcement than is there.
>>  Nobody is claiming a "brain-scale theory that bridges the wide gap," or
>> even close.  To the contrary, the announcement is very cautious, saying
>> that intense research is "gradually increasing our understanding" and
>> "beginning to shed light on the human brain".  In other words, the research
>> advances slowly, and we are at the beginning.  There is certainly no claim
>> that any of the speakers has finished the job.
>>
>>  Similarly, the announcement refers to "successful demonstration of some
>> of the underlying principles [of the brain] in software and hardware",
>> which implicitly acknowledges that we do not have all the principles.
>>  There is nothing like a claim that anyone has enough principles to
>> "explain highly integrated brain functions".
>>
>>  You are concerned that this workshop will avoid the essential issue of
>> the wide gap between neuron-like computing and highly integrated brain
>> functions.  What makes you think it will avoid this?  We are all interested
>> in filling this gap, and the speakers (well, the ones who I know) all
>> either work on this, or work on supporting people who work on this, or both.
>>
>>  This looks like it will be a very nice workshop, with talks from
>> leaders in the field on a variety of topics, and I wish I were able to
>> attend it.
>>
>>  Matthew
>>
>>
>>  On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Juyang Weng wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Anders,
>>
>> Interesting topic about the brain!  But Brain-Like Computing is
>> misleading because neural networks have been around for at least 70 years.
>>
>> I quote: "We are now approaching the point when our knowledge will enable
>> successful demonstrations of some of the underlying principles in software
>> and hardware, i.e. brain-like computing."
>>
>> What are the underlying principles?  I am concerned that projects like
>> "Brain-Like Computing" avoid essential issues:
>> the wide gap between neuron-like computing and well-known highly
>> integrated brain functions.
>> Continuing this avoidance would again create bad names for "brain-like
>> computing", just such behaviors did for "neural networks".
>>
>> Henry Markram criticized IBM's brain project which does miss essential
>> brain principles, but has he published such principles?
>> Modeling individual neurons more and more precisely will explain highly
>> integrated brain functions?   From what I know, definitely not, by far.
>>
>> Has any of your 10 speakers published any brain-scale theory that bridges
>> the wide gap?  Are you aware of any such published theories?
>>
>> I am sorry for giving a CC to the list, but many on the list said that
>> they like to hear discussions instead of just event announcements.
>>
>> -John
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/14 12:14 PM, Anders Lansner wrote:
>>
>>  Workshop on Brain-Like Computing, February 5-6 2014
>>
>> The exciting prospects of developing brain-like information processing is
>> one of the Deans Forum focus areas.
>> As a means to encourage progress in this research area a Workshop is
>> arranged February 5th-6th 2014 on KTH campus in Stockholm.
>>
>> The human brain excels over contemporary computers and robots in
>> processing real-time unstructured information and uncertain data as well as
>> in controlling a complex mechanical platform with multiple degrees of
>> freedom like the human body. Intense experimental research complemented by
>> computational and informatics efforts are gradually increasing our
>> understanding of underlying processes and mechanisms in small animal and
>> mammalian brains and are beginning to shed light on the human brain. We are
>> now approaching the point when our knowledge will enable successful
>> demonstrations of some of the underlying principles in software and
>> hardware, i.e. brain-like computing.
>>
>> This workshop assembles experts, from the partners and also other leading
>> names in the field, to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in
>> theoretical, software, and hardware aspects of brain-like computing.
>> List of speakers
>>
>> *Speaker*
>>
>> *Affiliation*
>>
>> Giacomo Indiveri
>>
>> ETH Zürich
>>
>> Abigail Morrison
>>
>> Forschungszentrum Jülich
>>
>> Mark Ritter
>>
>> IBM Watson Research Center
>>
>> Guillermo Cecchi
>>
>> IBM Watson Research Center
>>
>> Anders Lansner
>>
>> KTH Royal Institute of Technology
>>
>> Ahmed Hemani
>>
>> KTH Royal Institute of Technology
>>
>> Steve Furber
>>
>> University of Manchester
>>
>> Kazuyuki Aihara
>>
>> University of Tokyo
>>
>> Karlheinz Meier
>>
>> Heidelberg University
>>
>> Andreas Schierwagen
>>
>> Leipzig University
>>
>>
>>
>> *For signing up to the Workshop please use the registration form found at
>> http://bit.ly/1dkuBgR <http://bit.ly/1dkuBgR>*
>>
>> *You need to sign up before January 28th.*
>>
>> *Web page:
>> http://www.kth.se/en/om/internationellt/university-networks/deans-forum/workshop-on-brain-like-computing-1.442038
>> <http://www.kth.se/en/om/internationellt/university-networks/deans-forum/workshop-on-brain-like-computing-1.442038>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ******************************************
>>
>> Anders Lansner
>>
>> Professor in Computer Science, Computational biology
>>
>> School of Computer Science and Communication
>>
>> Stockholm University and Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
>>
>> ala at kth.se, +46-70-2166122
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>     <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>> Detta epostmeddelande innehåller inget virus eller annan skadlig kod för avast!
>> Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> är aktivt.
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Juyang (John) Weng, Professor
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU Neuroscience Program
>> 428 S Shaw Ln Rm 3115
>> Michigan State University
>> East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
>> Tel: 517-353-4388
>> Fax: 517-432-1061
>> Email: weng at cse.msu.edu
>> URL: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Juyang (John) Weng, Professor
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU Neuroscience Program
>> 428 S Shaw Ln Rm 3115
>> Michigan State University
>> East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
>> Tel: 517-353-4388
>> Fax: 517-432-1061
>> Email: weng at cse.msu.edu
>> URL: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>  [I am in Dijon, France on sabbatical this year. To call me, Skype works
>> best (gwcottrell), or dial +33 788319271]
>>
>>  Gary Cottrell 858-534-6640 FAX: 858-534-7029
>>
>>  My schedule is here: http://tinyurl.com/b7gxpwo
>>
>> Computer Science and Engineering 0404
>> IF USING FED EX INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LINE:
>> CSE Building, Room 4130
>> University of California San Diego
>> 9500 Gilman Drive # 0404
>> La Jolla, Ca. 92093-0404
>>
>>  Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
>> who hustle. -- Abraham Lincoln
>>
>>  "Of course, none of this will be easy. If it was, we would already
>> know everything there was about how the brain works, and presumably my
>> life would be simpler here. It could explain all kinds of things that go on
>> in Washington." -Barack Obama
>>
>>  "Probably once or twice a week we are sitting at dinner and Richard
>> says, 'The cortex is hopeless,' and I say, 'That's why I work on the
>> worm.'" Dr. Bargmann said.
>>
>> "A grapefruit is a lemon that saw an opportunity and took advantage of
>> it." - note written on a door in Amsterdam on Lijnbaansgracht.
>>
>> "Physical reality is great, but it has a lousy search function." -Matt
>> Tong
>>
>> "Only connect!" -E.M. Forster
>>
>> "You always have to believe that tomorrow you might write the matlab
>> program that solves everything - otherwise you never will." -Geoff Hinton
>>
>>  "There is nothing objective about objective functions" - Jay McClelland
>>
>> "I am awaiting the day when people remember the fact that discovery does
>> not work by deciding what you want and then discovering it."
>> -David Mermin
>>
>> Email: gary at ucsd.edu
>> Home page: http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~gary/
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Juyang (John) Weng, Professor
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU Neuroscience Program
>> 428 S Shaw Ln Rm 3115
>> Michigan State University
>> East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
>> Tel: 517-353-4388
>> Fax: 517-432-1061
>> Email: weng at cse.msu.edu
>> URL: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20140124/e0be8342/attachment.html>