A Worm's Mind In a Lego Body

mikejuk writes The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) is tiny and only has 302 neurons. These have been completely mapped, and one of the founders of the OpenWorm project, Timothy Busbice, has taken the connectome and implemented an object oriented neuron program. The neurons communicate by sending UDP packets across the network. The software works with sensors and effectors provided by a simple LEGO robot. The sensors are sampled every 100ms. For example, the sonar sensor on the robot is wired as the worm's nose. If anything comes within 20cm of the 'nose' then UDP packets are sent to the sensory neurons in the network. The motor neurons are wired up to the left and right motors of the robot. It is claimed that the robot behaved in ways that are similar to observed C. elegans. Stimulation of the nose stopped forward motion. Touching the anterior and posterior touch sensors made the robot move forward and back accordingly. Stimulating the food sensor made the robot move forward. The key point is that there was no programming or learning involved to create the behaviors. The connectome of the worm was mapped and implemented as a software system and the behaviors emerge. Is the robot a C. elegans in a different body or is it something quite new? Is it alive? These are questions for philosophers, but it does suggest that the ghost in the machine is just the machine. The important question is does it scale?

Comments

Memory mapping?

[Kevin Fishburne]

Emulating the connectivity and functionality of neurons is pretty awesome, but it would seem the next logical step would be to map and interpret how memories are stored and processed, as well as organ feedback (skin, smell, glands). What's really interesting about this is that it shows, at least to some degree, that a simple brain can be reproduced using mathematical relationships (programming) and "run" with a I/O feedback loop. As far as the philosophical stuff, I think eventually we'll be forced to accept that life is a type of machine and that the "ghost" is an illusion emerging from its complexity. Other than better neuroscience, the main thing holding us back is pride.

Re:Memory mapping?

[Anonymous Coward]

The position that life is a type of machine is not new at all. Philosophers call it "physicalism." Its roots go way back to the golden age of Greek philosophy (and arguably wasn't new then). There are plenty of modern-day philosophers who assert this position.

It is very unfortunate that philosophy is such a dirty word among scientists who haven't actually studied it, as there is quite a lot of it built into science and plenty of benefit a practicing scientist can gain from studying it.

Anyway, among actual philosophers (not religious nuts who claim the label), there is an important distinction to be drawn between "soul" and "consciousness." A soul is the hypothetical non-material aspect of a person that acts as the medium of his consciousness. Soul is a distinctly religious concept and is generally defined only so that it can be explicitly excluded from any serious philosophical dialogue.

Consciousness is that simple yet mysterious phenomenon whereby sensory data is transformed into the experience we have when we are bombarded with it. In short, consciousness means "feeling." It is a small matter to say that the physical brain is the medium of consciousness (with no need for the unsubstantial concept of a soul). But, the common presumption is that this phenomenon is unique to biological neural networks (brains do it and rocks don't), with no means of determining why. Computer intelligence has generally been lumped on the "rock" side of this divide, since the mechanisms of automation of intelligence remain so simple.

However, with the ability to directly map a neural network on to a non-biological medium (not just fake it with a script, but make the silicone behave in a way that is both structurally and functionally isomorphic to the neural net), and get identical behavior, makes the question ever bit as interesting as philosophers have long hoped it would become.

Whether or not the machine is alive is just a question of stipulation. But does the machine feel? We no longer have any reason to say "no."

Re:Memory mapping?

[Kjella]

Emulating the connectivity and functionality of neurons is pretty awesome, but it would seem the next logical step would be to map and interpret how memories are stored and processed,

We actually have a fairly good clue on how the brain stores information chemically, but that's all but useless without understanding the neurons because they're the ones that disperse a memory during storage and gather all the sensory clues to trigger semantic meaning like recognizing a person's voice as well as all the associations related to that person during retrieval. It's not like computers with a storage unit, all neurons can store information and it also modifies their behavior so the memory and path to the memory is integrated and extremely multi-path, you can read a person's name or see their photo or smell their perfume and it all triggers the same memory.

In particular it seems we have two very different kinds of associations, one that tries to join same with same like how one person looks similar to somebody else, the other hooking up disjoint information that this name belongs to this face and the former seems to go by brain centers so we get these nice macro maps of what happens where. I guess that's great for those trying to create machine vision or something like that, but for AI it's the links between the sights, sound, smells, tactile and semantic information that matter and you don't understand those without understanding the micro scale, what hooks those two particular pieces of information together.

Re:Put the glasses on, stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

As the article mentions, this isn't too interesting to AI developers. We already know how neural networks work and some are turning complete so they can do anything. What we aren't good at is designing them. Add a connection here or there, set the weight to .000803 or .0040075, switching to pulsating, or whatever. We don't know. Instead we run thousands upon thousands of simulations that use other AI algorithms to make the networks for us.

We haven't scaled up to human levels because there's so much more to complex brains. There's some sort of cross talk with chemicals, other chemicals coating neurons to make them fire differently, neurons growing together or apart, cells dying, new cells emerging, etc... Now maybe all that's not needed, good enough is fine for evolution, but were not at that level yet.

There are human-level brain simulations being worked on, but I haven't been following them closely. I don't think they're implementing everything. Actually, I know they aren't because we keep discovering new things. Are they working off and standard model of the human brain or a specific person's brain?

It would be more ground breaking if someone did the reverse. Engineer a neural network then grow it into another animal. That would be new, but due to the nature of neural networks, we also already know it would work.

This isn't about technological developments,

[Shadow of Eternity]

it's about moral ones. If we make a perfectly simulated animal brain and it works just like the real thing does that mean we've made an animal? Do we consider that animal to be alive? Does it have less "worth" than a flesh and blood creature? Better that we answer these questions now than when we have robots asking us if they have a soul.

Re:This isn't about technological developments,

[radtea]

If we make a perfectly simulated animal brain and it works just like the real thing does that mean we've made an animal?

Does it taste good? If not, you haven't made a real animal.

There is nothing deep or even particularly interesting about these questions, and just how stupid their breathless idiocy is can be seen by asking, "Does the newly created entity lack almost every interesting property of the entity some philosophy-addled idiot thinks we should 'wonder' if it is absolutely identical to in every respect?" The answer is always, trivially, "No."

So only an extremely stupid person or a shill trying to market something (fake wisdom?) would ask such an idiotic question.

There are more reasonable questions that people who are neither idiots nor philosophers (but I repeat myself) are reasonably well-equipped to answer. Like this: lacking anything remotely resembling neurochemistry, is it appropriate for us to impute to this model any of the effects of neurochemistry that may or may not be lumped into the neuron behaviour? Since we're pretty sure neurochemistry is independent of network architecture, it would be incredibly stupid to identify the entirety of the robot's responses with the neuronal architecture, rather than the neurochemical environment they behave in?

For example, if you starve a worm its behaviour changes because its neurochemistry changes. Hormone levels, cortisol levels (or their worm equivalents) change, and that changes behaviour, in some cases quite dramatically. So what happens to the robot when you starve it? And if you can't starve it, why do you think it is in any way identical to a worm, rather than just an interesting simulation of part of it?

And of course, simply because we can imagine a more complete model of a worm doesn't mean we can build one that is sufficiently similar to a worm in all respects to make any of these questions interesting. It would have to eat and excrete and so on. It would have to have environmental sensitivities. And imagining those things aren't important is stupid: what we imagine is not relevant to what is real. There is no basis for saying a mechanical worm is a "real" worm (what would an "unreal" worm be?) It is a "real" mechanical worm. You still can't eat it, so it isn't a worm. Saying certain properties "don't count" is pure magical thinking, unworthy of scientists.

Re:This isn't about technological developments,

[linuxrocks123]

Instead of calling everyone around you an idiot, why don't you read the question again and consider again what is being asked.

Unless you have absolutely no ethical qualms about what Dr. Mengele did to his experimental subjects, the ethical questions raised by emulating a complete human brain are in no way trivial and in no way unimportant. Right now, we reformat computers, turn them off, turn them on, and don't and don't have to care at all about what they "want" or about treating them with any kind of respect. If we successfully simulate a human brain to the point where it can "think" and has humanlike "emotions", deleting that neural net file might be fairly considered murder. No, really. If you can talk to the thing and it can talk back, and it looks, talks, and acts like a human ... it's a duck. Sorry, human.

Now, we are nowhere near having that capability. We don't have to worry about that question now. But it's a very interesting question to think about, because thinking about it can grant insights into what it means for something to be sentient or human in the first place.