Slashdot Mirror
Effort to Create Virtual Brain Begins
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.'"
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?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
"We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth- to A.I."
"without your space helmet Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult"
2001
shooting is not too good for my enemies
When started they'll have to keep the simulation going or else they'll kill him/her/ver! :(
For those who don't feel up to actually reading an article, the Blue Brain project does not intend to create artificial intelligence, but rather a replication of the physical side of the human mind - the brain. The 22.8 teraflops mentioned in the summary are going to be used to manage a database of "neural architecture." The whole project has little, if anything, to do with concsiousness.
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.
-- arstchnca
--
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.
whoooosh! (joke flies over head)
I expect that until such a being can enforce it's wishes not to be terminated in some way we will be free to turn it off whenever we like.
Zero evidence, yes. But we're looking to define the difference between a system that is alive (as we define ourselves to be) and one that is merely responsive. If you create a replica that works, at some point you cross the boundary that people define as unlife to life; and as logical and scientific we want to be about it, there will be those who consider it an aberration and will rise against it. The question will come of whether a soul is being made, whether it's founded or unfounded, evidence or not.
;P ) would be blasphemous, arrogant against God, etc etc. This is the kind of thing that gets ranted about in churches. Whether or not there is "evidence" for it, to enough people it matters.
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
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
Well, considering we won't let humans do that...
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
My guess is that the Business Week article linked in the parent comment is better than the New Scientist article at explaining the researcher's intentions. Here's a quote from the Business Week article: "The Blue Brain Project will search for novel insights into how humans think and remember."
If you've been around scientific research, it is not difficult to understand that this research has little chance of producing anything valuable.
There are several reasons:
1) The research is equivalent to trying to understand how a computer operates without understanding the programming of the computer.
2) The quote from the Business Week article above is probably unintentionally accurate. Probably the Business Week writer interviewed someone from the lab, and that person, not being as skilled as the New Scientist writer at hiding the truth, revealed what they actually are doing. Probably the Business Week writer did not understand the significance of what he wrote, but just thought it was an interesting quote.
The significance of "search for novel insights" is that they do not intend to do theory-driven science. In theory-driven science, you have novel insights before you do an experiment. Otherwise, as thousands of years of human history have proven, investigation is mostly a waste of time.
Instead, the researchers will just do the "scientific" equivalent of playing.
3) Researchers found in the early 70's that research proposals that promised a better understanding of the brain or intelligence would get funded. The research that is actually done is research that is funded, not necessarily research that is useful.
They found that brain and intelligence research would be funded, but there was a problem. It was, and is, extremely difficult to do useful research, or even to think of a direction for research that would be useful in finding new understanding.
To be more certain of funding, researchers began wildly over-estimating the value of their proposed research, and thereby taking advantage of any ignorance on the part of grant-givers. Partly this was because the researchers deliberately lied. Partly it was because the researchers would discuss their research in a way that would encourage others to over-estimate. The researchers take advantage of a social weakness; people want to believe there is progress in understanding ourselves.
Thomas J. Watson, Jr., former CEO of IBM came to the conclusion that the talk of artificial intelligence was not to be believed, and said so publically. I was not able to find the quote. Mr. Watson was expressing a low opinion of the research in intelligence at the time.
4) Research about the brain and intelligence is far more difficult than other research. That's partly because the architecture of the brain is far more complicated than that of a computer.
Digital computers use binary. Biological computers use many more levels than two, and we are far from fully understanding the architecture.
This (poorly edited) PDF file from UCSD has some basic facts about the brain: Levels of neurophysiological description. From page 2: "100 billion neurons in the brain; 1/20th [of] 1 hair width in diameter; Speed transmission 2-120 metres/sec; each neuron has about 10,000 contacts with other neurons.
From page 17: "Each neuron [of the 30 billion neurons] has about 10,000 connections with other neurons. These connections use many different neurotransmitters. These neurotransmitters differ in their strength, timing, and whether they excite or inhibit the postsynaptic neuron. If excitatory + inhibitory = threshold the postsynaptic neuron fires!" [slight editing for clarity]
For more details, see