What correlation is the author trying to make? To my knowledge, Blue Brain has so far gotten as far as simulating a single cat cortical column. In most higher mammalian brains, they are built up from hundreds to thousands of these columns. The approach that Blue Brain is taking is to start with the neurons, making sure the simulations match real-world data. Then wire the neurons into the cortical columns and make sure the simulations match real-world data. The idea is to build from the base components, test the hell out of them each time using the best medical data we can get about how neurons work, then scale to the next level. In this case, hooking together an increasing number of columns to simulate ever more functional parts of the brain.<p>This has crap-all to do with a 'body'. This is such an obvious case of someone not defining their terms that it bugs the hell out of me. In the terms of the Dictionary from Anathem, it comes across as "bullshit" in sense 2.<p>We are still at the point where we don't have a whole enough picture to completely figure out the math of what makes a thing "think". We have ideas, hypothesis, and some theories. But its all very much in flux.<p>People quite often make the wrong analogy between the discovery of flight and conscious AI.<p>Before engineers knew about how air moving over a curved surface creates pressure differentials that provide lift, they tried to build flying machines by simulating wings. For decades, these people were laughed at by the common folk who believed human flight was impossible.<p>However, once it was discovered how air movement made pressures and it was possible to mathematically describe it, the approach changed. Then the first successes happened. Then there was a huge amount of innovation in the next 40-50 years before the innovation in plane and wing design leveled off.<p>Figuring out how to organize matter so that it "thinks" is still being figured out. We have some ideas that are well-supported by data. I feel the approach IBM is taking is among the best. Since we don't know the completely mathematical theory that applies to neuron networks to allow some to be conscious and others not, our best chance is to take as much real world data as we can and to build one in simulation. On the way, we discover all kinds of things we didn't know before.<p>In a way, it sounds like I'm countering my previous argument about how people trying to build wings failed. But, I'm not. It was in the process of attempting to re-create examples of structures that obviously could fly (birds) that we figured out the principles of <i>how</i> they flew.<p>Blue Brain probably won't become THE method of building AI in the future. However, its one of the first massive attempts to do the modern equivalent of building a wing from the atom up. Along the way, we will start really figuring out exactly what needs to happen to make one network of neurons conscious, and another one not conscious. Then we'll be able to take those mathematical algorithms and start playing with them.<p>Eventually we will get to a point where we can test an entity for consciousness. Once we can scientifically describe how consciousness works, we can devise tests for neuronal networks of any complexity to say if its actually conscious or not. This opens up the prospect of seeing if other animals on earth ranging from ants to dolphins are conscious in the same way that we are (or not).<p>It also gives us an actual true test for AI consciousness. If we see the same or similar results on a human that we do for an AI, its fairly obvious that if the AI says "I think, I am" then it probably is.<p>I've always had a problem with the Turing Test. Its too subjective. Just because you can fool 8 of 10 people, or even 10 of 10 people into thinking something typing to you is conscious doesn't mean it is. You CANNOT determine that without analyzing the structure of the mind that you're communicating with. If that mind is based on biology, you examine the network of neurons. If its based on software, you analyze the structure of the programming and the flow of data. Since the biological systems and software systems would both be using similar patterns of information to describe their structure and functioning, the same tests apply to both.<p>Sorry to get off on a rant. A "body" has shit all nothing to do with "making a better AI".