Mouse Brain Simulated Via Computer

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo writes "Researchers from the IBM Almaden research lab and the University of Nevada have created a simulation of half a mouse brain on the BlueGene L supercomputer. 'Half a real mouse brain is thought to have about eight million neurons each one of which can have up to 8,000 synapses, or connections, with other nerve fibres. Modelling such a system, the trio wrote, puts "tremendous constraints on computation, communication and memory capacity of any computing platform."' Although there's more to creating a mind than setting up the infrastructure, does this mean that we may see a system for human mental storage within our lifetimes?"

Yes, in our life time

[Atmchicago]

With the continual, exponential increases in computing power that we are getting, in about 25-30 years we should have the capacity to simulate human brains. And yes, this does have a lot of consequences for how a lot of people view themselves... but already we know that we don't have free will (we make decisions before we are aware of them, for example), and we already have lots of support for reductionist viewpoints. Simulations are just an extension of that.

If you want more solid arguments for this, read The Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil. He makes a convincing argument.

Re:Umm

[Tx]

Just to follow up, according to this article [businessweek.com], Blue Brain*, utilizing a 22.8 teraflop supercomputer, manages to simulate around 10,000 human neurons. I have no idea whether human neurons are significantly more complex than mouse neurons, or whether we just have more of them, but if the latter then maybe the 8000 isn't a typo after all?

* Previously mentioned [slashdot.org] on slashdot.

The essentials

[Dr. Eggman]

If you like the fancy terms, here's the (only 1 page and a cover sheet) pdf the Research report [modha.org] or, better yet here's Modha's blog [hostingprod.com] with about the same info.

For more information on the Blue Brain Project [bluebrain.epfl.ch] which appears to be the same, or atleast a strikingly similar project but from switzerland, click...err, that link I just placed! Here also [spiegel.de] is a good article to learn more about blue brain. It seems much more detailed than the BBC's snippit.

Groups of neurons started becoming attuned to one another until they were firing in rhythm. "It happened entirely on its own," says Markram. "Spontaneously."

Insights like these are absolutly amazing. It's all such facinating research, but I can help feel a twinge of sorrow for the poor thing.

the main purpose of the artificial brain, say its creators, is to make new types of experiments possible. For example, what happens when damage is inflicted on certain types of cells whose function still isn't determined? How many cells can be switched off until the behavior of the surviving cells around them becomes erratic, or the entire circuit breaks down?

The poor thing is just circuits and reactions, I know, but I feel sorry that it's literally being torn apart and rebuilt all the time. It's odd, I don't feel this way in similar experiments with real mice; I guess I have a soft spot for computers...

Re:The essentials

[Animats]

I just found and read the actual paper, too; now I don't have to post the link. (It ought to be a Slashdot requirement that when you post a story about something, you have to link to the real source, not just some news site or blog link.)

This isn't really about simulating a mouse brain. This is more like running a synthetic benchmark to demonstrate that if they had the wiring diagram for a mouse brain, IBM Almaden has enough CPU power on hand to simulate it. But they don't have a mouse brain wiring diagram; they're just exercising the simulator with some random set of connections.

Not even close

[quizzicus]

The subject on this story is a bit misleading. According to the article, the simulation:

• Simulated only half a mouse brain
• Ran at about 1/10 the speed of a real mouse brain
• Only ran for 10 seconds
• Only simulated generic tissue (didn't contain brain structures found in real mice)

From the article:

Imposing such structures and getting the simulation to do useful work might be a much more difficult task than simply setting up the plumbing.

For future tests the team aims to speed up the simulation, make it more neurobiologically faithful, add structures seen in real mouse brains and make the responses of neurons and synapses more detailed.

It's not that this isn't noteworthy, it's that mammalian brains are incredibly complex. I would be curious to see if they could faithfully reproduce a fish or reptile brain at this point.

Re:Human Brain Simulation in our life time?

[ortholattice]

This is completely wrong. Gödel's theorem does not state that "any sufficiently complex system is unable to describe itself." Very roughly, it (specifically the first incompleteness theorem) states that any consistent mathematical system that is able to describe itself is necessarily incomplete. And, there is no chance that "Goedel's theorem might be proven wrong in the future." It is a theorem, a mathematical truth. Not a "theory", if that's what you are confusing it with. For more info see Gödel's incompleteness theorems [wikipedia.org].

crackpot

[nanosquid]

Penrose is an excellent mathematician, but he's a crackpot when it comes to biology and the brain.

As for brain simulations, they almost always use randomness in the form of pseudo-random number generators. Physical random number generators are actually available and could be used, but nobody bothers because there is no conceivable way in which that could make a difference.

Unproven assumptions

[mangu]

IBM is making a big assumption: the brain operates only in the domain of Newtonian (a.k.a. classical) physics ... there is an alternate theory of consciousness, based on quantum physics. It is inherently non-deterministic and cannot be modeled in a computer.

Well, talk about big assumptions... I did two semesters in quantum physics as part of my electronics engineering degree. There I learned a bit about this "quantum" stuff that so many people throw around so easily.

The first thing that must be understood is that quantum effects appear in *very* small dimensions only. Quantum computing experiments must be performed under extreme conditions, a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero, just to get a quantum entanglement of a few bits for a perceptible amount of time. There's no way one could obtain quantum effects beyond normal chemical reactions in a human cell.

Roger Penrose, who started this "quantum consciousness" theory is a mathematician, not a physicist. He did it probably as a response to the evolving research on neural networks, such as the one mentioned in this article, based on a philosophycal uneasiness about the idea of us having a deterministic brain. He has been debunked by quantum physicists many times since he published his book.

Yet, he needs not worry. We can have a brain that's fully deterministic at a microscopic level without doing away with free will, if we assume that our brains operate in non-linear conditions [wikipedia.org].

Besides, it's not as if we had to reproduce exactly the working of living beings to emulate them. Airplanes are able to fly higher and faster than any bird without flapping their wings. At this time, we are like aircraft engineers were in the 1890s. Perhaps we will be able to find better mechanisms than used in natural brains for processing thoughts.

Re:Unproven assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing that must be understood is that quantum effects appear in *very* small dimensions only. Quantum computing experiments must be performed under extreme conditions, a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero, just to get a quantum entanglement of a few bits for a perceptible amount of time. There's no way one could obtain quantum effects beyond normal chemical reactions in a human cell.

I'm not sure why you are limiting the discussion to quantum computing experiments. A regular Zener diode displays quantum mechanical effects at room temperature.

Re:Umm

[julesh]

How can it be half a mouse brain if it has 1/1000 the number of a real half mouse brain? Their simulated neurons also had less synapses than the real thing. So is the 8000 a typo, or am I missing something?

It's a typo. See original research note here [modha.org].