No, simulating the brain is not reverse engineering. Real reverse
engineering means not just duplicating behavior or function, but
actually understanding what all the little details of the original
implementation are doing.
Keiko Tietze's (zbird's) post about fMRI may be pertinent, but
any recording technique just gives us data on what the brain,
or parts of the brain, or cells in the brain are doing. It doesn't
tell us how to interpret what that activity means. It is sort of
like the human genome project. We now know an awful lot
about ACGT sequences but we still don't really know what
to make of the sequence.
All we can say for sure is that thirty years from now we will
know an awful lot more about the brain than we do now and
that there will still be an awful lot more to learn.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:15:53 GMT, "John Leonard" <jleonard2 at si.rr.com>
> It means developing a machine (which could, for all purposes, be a
>computer program) that essentially simulates the functioning of a human
>brain. It would, of course, require a highly detailed understanding of same.
>>"Robert Gurk" <bob.g at gmx.de> wrote in message
>news:a99qfn$1e5vs$1 at ID-54749.news.dfncis.de...>> zbird wrote:
>>>> > Ray Kurzweil has said that we will have reverse engineered
>> > the brain within 30 years. He said that a grand project is
>> > underway comparable to the Human Genome Project, and that
>> > it is a lot farther along than most people think. However,
>> > he did not give any references or info on how to gather
>> > more information. Anyone know more about this?
>>>>>> Mr. Kurzweil is blessed with the ability to see the future. The
>> rest of us, however, will have to wait 30 years and see. Of
>> course, instead of just waiting, we may aswell get to work and
>> try to "reverse engineer" the brain, whatever that means.