Slashdot Log In
Effort to Create Virtual Brain Begins
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Jun 06, 2005 04:24 AM
from the please-don't-kill-us-all dept.
from the please-don't-kill-us-all dept.
bryan8m writes "An IBM supercomputer running on 22.8 teraflops of processing power will be involved in an effort to create the first computer simulation of the entire human brain. From the article: 'The hope is that the virtual brain will help shed light on some aspects of human cognition, such as perception, memory and perhaps even consciousness.' It should also help us understand brain malfunctions and 'observe the electrical code our brains use to represent the world.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, they expect it to take a decade to complete. By 2015, we could probably get processors with that kind of power from the local computer store. Then everyone could have their own virtual brain...wait, are they going to GPL this?
So what happens if this thing develops a consciousness?
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
We kill things with consciousness all the time.
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
for those of you who didn't get that joke [eeggs.com].
Parent
Had to be said... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
But if a cpu in 2015 can simulate 100 billion neurons sending signals to each other a couple hundred times a second over 100 trillion morphing connections asynchronously
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
A neuron is *very* simple. Maybe just a sigmoid function over a sum. If thing actually is doing 22.8 terraflops (unlikely, I'm guessing that's the theoretical peak for the machine) then that gives 228 instructions per neuron. That is in the right range for operation.
There are not 'morphing' connections, they tend to mostly stabilize within the first few years of life. I can't remember the figure, its maybe on the order of a 1000 connections per neuron, so 228 floating point op
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
You're pretty correct on the wiring, although not at the level you wrote. The basic connectivity and structure is known, but each and every brain is wired from experience, not just birth.
It's worth trying, and we will learn a lot regardless. We just won't learn as much about the brain as one might think.
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
Hold your horses! There is abundant evidence that single neurons can perform more complex operations than a mere 'sigmoid fuunction'. That is a working approximation that can be useful from the point of view of simulations but that is all.
Single neurons can potentially perform computations at the level of the of the passive cable equation. At the level of active membrane properties when added to those passive canle equation solutions. At the level of genetic instructions becoming activated in the nucleus and dendrites in response to activity. And finally the plasticity or learning rules that neurons use are not only computational very important but probably quite varied from brain region to region. Spike timing dependent plasticity for example allows the brain to pick out persistent correlations within highly noisy inputs. None of this is included in the impoverised neural-network viewpoint of 'sigmoids'
The real question is why are they doing this? Markram is a top researcher and knows what he is doing. But i quesiton the motivations of big blue. i wouldnt be suprised if they didnt give two hoots about the science but rather are only doing this so that they can get the kind of publicity that posts on slashdot bring. Remember 'Deep Blue'? Lets hope they dont treat Markram like they did Kasparov
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Will they use some kind of skin grafting onto a chip to let it "feel" things using the nerves in it, instead of simply simulating it with pressure/temperature sensors?
And what of other stuff like taste and smell?
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
In other words, one day they hope to simulate a whole brain, but to begin with they'll be modelling the behaviour of a particular neural unit - with physical data derived from many, many slices of mouse brains.
In terms of deciphering the behaviour of relatively large numbers of neurons, it could be incredibly useful (and once the model is tuned would mean fewer messy, difficult and unpleasant experiments involving live animals, brain electrodes and whatnot) - but it's admittedly only a small first step toward modelling a whole brain of any species. Still, it's one of the necessary building blocks - and any moral issues are left as an exercise for the reader...
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the most successful early computers were analog computers, capable of performing advanced calculus problems rather quickly. Before digital computers became the mainstay of computing, analog computers were quite common. Analog computers use varying voltages and currents to represent variables, and various types of amplifiers to represent factors in differential equations, with the result being a final voltage or current that can be read out on a meter or graph. Analog computers were heavily used in process control situations, such as calculating the correct aiming of the big guns on board a battleship. Many variables had to be considered simultaneously, including the position of the ship, the position of the target, the type of ammunition, the wind and other weather conditions, the constant motion of the ship from the action of the sea, and myriad other variables. The analog computer would simultaneously combine all of these variables to generate a real-time result that would control the large servomechanisms that aimed the guns to assure that their ordinance would be delivered accurately to the target.
They were,however, a real bitch to sort out. So the computer world focused upon digital designs, which , it turned out, were a lot easier to do.
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:4, Informative)
A key factor is that analog computers are inherently lossy; components aren't precise enough to make a large analog computation as the imprecisions tend to add up...
And then there's the whole Turing concept of code as data. Analog computers were "programmed" by adding and subtracting components; software as bits is a lot more mutable. Even so, with the appropriate switching devices, an analog circuit that's programmable is theoretically possible.
But why bother when digital is so much more precise?
On the flip side, analog computers STILL see some life in minor subsystems everywhere. With proper design they happen to be quite handy for feedback-control applications...
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. That's what has me thinking. Not that I think we should stop, but it's going to be a disturbing moment when the techs running these things get to a point where they ask a simulation brain questions, get it to perform tasks, get it to react like a human does...
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
You are.
According to the Business Week article [businessweek.com] this thing will be simulating about 10 thousand neurons. The human brain has about 100 billion neurons. This will be simulating a small section of cortex, not an entire brain. The goal seems to be to understand how cortical columns work, not to create a simulated mind. They actually will not even have enough "neurons" to match one human cortical column, but will probably still learn alot about the circuitry....
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:3, Informative)
Again from the article:
Sounds like they'll use
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Give me a shovel and a dark night and I'll get you some real brains, second-hand. And at only 1/2 the cost.
Sincerely,
Igor
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
How would you tell? Seriously. It's not like you can just stick a ruler in and measure the length of the consciousness gland.
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
Neutrons are responsible for indifferent behaviour towards females. Recent study shows that slashdotters have enough neutrons emitted from their brain, that, they could be used as substitude of Californium 252.
Electrons decide the level of excitement. Thats why you feel charged, after couple of beers:)
Parent
Re:Thoughts on virtual thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
No sensationalism here. Move along.
Parent
Obligatory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory HAL quote (Score:5, Insightful)
2001 [imdb.com]
Longer article (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/ju
Structure and Function (Score:5, Interesting)
Our brains are made of mostly water, carbon, etc.... which form neurons. This is only important in the sense that we are what we are because these neurons are able to take a set structure, where neurons interconnect, and then have a specific function, where they fire.
There's nothing magical about these neurons. Let's say that you could replace these neurons with say, ultra-small marbles, that could take the same structure and perform the same function... It is logical to think that this marble-brain would be an actual brain, the same as any other. It would be a person.
So if they're simulating a brain virtually, but this virtual construct simulates the structure and function correctly, would this virtual brain be aware? Would it be a "person"? I personally, would say that it would. But then, is it moral to ever shut such a simulation off (murder)? Or create it in a virtual world without any other virtual brains to talk to (torture)? Or create it at all for the use of an experiment?
Re:Structure and Function (Score:3, Interesting)
But in regards to this simulation, it is not being built to do the things that a human brain does. That is, as far as I can tell from the article, it does not have any perceptual, motor, or cognitive functions, it is simply an isolated circuit designed to understand how assemblies of neurons work together.
A growing movement in cognitive neuroscience stresses an understanding of the mind as an "embodied". That is, much of our cognition relies upon and draws from the p
Life.. don't talk to me about life.. (Score:5, Funny)
"I think you ought to know that I'm feeling very depressed"
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
They decided on George W. Bush.
Let's just hope....
hmmm....
I for one welcome our new artificial dumb military overlord.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
They work quite differently you know.
Some even speculate that one of those two kinds of brain might need even less than 22.8 Teraflops to simulate.
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Will come to nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
My prediction is that this project will achieve very little. I doubt they know as much as they think they do, but more importantly they won't be able to bootstrap this thing to be comparable to a real person.
Brain simulation? I doubt it (Score:3, Interesting)
While it is true that Moore's Law suggests we will soon have the processing power of the human brain, that doesn't mean we will soon have AI on our hands. If we built this computer and fed into it a "Hello World" program written in Pascal, it isn't going to suddenly become self-aware.
We only have one type of working brain, so it would make sense to replicate this in every way possible in order to create a simulated intelligence. However, this has a great deal of complexity that we neither have the bioloical knowledge to understand nor the technical knowledge to emulate. Literally millions of neurons are connected inside us, forming cortical maps and working at different levels of awareness, from the lower, barely perceptible levels (reflex actions), to the higher, seemingly conscious, levels (deciding whether to order toast or a bagel for brunch).
Anyone who's interested in AI (or indeed the operation of the human brain) should read Steve Grand's book. It is highly enlightening, and very thought-provoking.
An AI Essay (Score:3, Interesting)
From Socrates to Expert Systems [berkeley.edu].
It argues that rules based AI is a dead end. It also classified levels of expertise.
It would seem like this non-rules-based IBM brain simulation method would be one which could possibly go beyond the 'advanced beginner' stage that Professor Hubert Dreyfus proves that rules base systems are limited to.
Brain != Thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
As of this posting, there have been several "what if" posts about the project accidentally leading to the creation of artificial intelligence. Systems such as the fictitious Skynet will not rival the flexibility and depth of a single human mind until we fully understand the mind ourself. Lisa Fittipaldi, an astonishingly talented painter, is able to create beautiful scenes on what was once a blank canvas. At the same time, Ms. Fittipaldi is unable to paint an accurate portrait - she is blind.
We can only recreate what we understand.
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who's spent many years as a neurophysiology researcher before becoming a programmer I feel I may have a bit more insight than the average person. What this project boils down to is a simplistic model of the simplist unit of operation of one area of the brain (neocortical column). Anyone who has followed research into areas such as epilepsy and memory will know of the massive gaps in our understanding of the realtionship of the brain and the mind. So this "first computer simulation of the entire human brain" is neither accurate in the sense that they are not simulating the human brain, nor are they the first to try what they are attempting. They only difference here is that they have the very public backing of a major corporation who understand the benefit of good publicity.
This sort of research is fascinating and despetately needs to be done, but it does no one any favours when people associate tabloid style headlines to it. The days when we wear Richard Morgan style "stacks" are still as far away as ever unfortunately.
Not the first (Score:4, Informative)
30 years too early, according to Moore's Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on this (incredibly rough and inaccurate) analysis, I would predict that this type of project will be successful around the year 2040.
Re:30 years too early, according to Moore's Law (Score:4, Interesting)
But, once you determine that information-processing behavior, one should in theory be able to simulate that without a detailed model of the underlying structure. I mean, if I know that impulses from X input synapses cause the voltage at the soma to raise/lower according to a certain time function, and that a certain voltage at the soma causes an action potential to be fired, which will trigger the neuron's own output synapses to fire Y milliseconds later, I should be able to simulate these properties without going to the pain of modelling the ion channels, capacitance, and resistance of every patch of membrane on the whole neuron's surface.
That should buy a few years' worth of Moore's law for your prediction. Consider yours an upper bound, and assume we can make shortcuts to bring it sooner than 2040.
I actually think the top supercomputers are within spitting distance of modelling a human brain - or at least smaller mammalian brains now. The trouble is that despite what TFA leads you to believe, far too little is known yet about the interconnections of those neurons. Even less is known about their learning functions. The state of the art in much of the brain is to stick a few electrodes in, hope you find a couple of neurons that are connected in some way, record for a while and then do statistics on their firing patterns to estimate the strength an type of their pairwise connection. Then by using that they hope to work backwards to deducing the connection patterns of whole clusters of neurons. It's slow, messy work.
The group in TFA uses thin slices of brain where they can more accurately observe which neurons are connected to which, and which neurons they are recording from. It's a useful technique, but since the connections in the brain are three-dimensional, taking thin slices fundamentally alters the structure. It can't tell us anything.
Much of the brain is still a black box, effectively. It will still be a while before we can model an entire brain, regardless of CPU power available. My personal gut feeling is that the understanding of the neuronal network is far more the limiting factor at this point.
Parent
Re:brains for those who have none ... (Score:5, Funny)
Dual boot!
Parent
Re:brains for those who have none ... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:brains for those who have none ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here it comes... (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, supercomputers welcome you!
I'll get me coat...
Re:What if the simulated brain is a person? (Score:4, Insightful)
Luckily the situation is more convenient. Call something like "suspend to disk", backup the whole state and you have the equivalent of hibernation. Can be "defrozen" and brought back to life anytime.
Parent
Mentifex (Score:5, Informative)
There's a fairly extensive FAQ on him here:
http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html [nothingisreal.com]
Parent
Re:Mentifex (Score:5, Funny)
Noone seem to have real contact with murray, and his adress was not really known. He also seem to have a little to much time on is hands, posting huge amounts of usenet posts etc. What if Murray did succeed a long time agoo, and is now letting his virtual brain (that somehow thinks it is murray) do all his spamming for him.
Of course, this theory lacks in many points...
Parent
Re:Consciousness (Score:4, Insightful)
I've tried to keep the following part objective. It is not intended as a troll. Please read it objectively, and consider as part of a discussion over brain simulation and its repercussions rather than about religion. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe.
I consider there to be no evidence - as such - for religion. Christians point to the bible, others to their own spiritual texts, but I'm quite cynical about the whole thing because there's no manifest evidence. But I don't go out and try to convince them that it's untrue, because I also don't have evidence to the contrary, and I'm also not fussed enough to feel an urge to bring people round to my way of thinking on that. However, as seen over and over (crusades, holy wars, jihads... the list goes on) the percieved insults against a religion are, often enough, responded to with force. US currency and (I think) the White House sigil bears the words "In God We Trust", even though the state is nominally unaffiliated with a religion; can you think of what would happen if it was motioned to be changed? Enough of the US population *believes* it enough that there would be outrage.
These same people believe that the creation of life, of soul, is for their God alone, and creation of new life by humans (other than the conventional way
Parent