<shameless_plug>
"Jülich Katrin Amunts has begun work on a detailed atlas of the brain which involved slicing one into 8,000 parts which were then digitalized with a scanner."
The lab I work for is working with them on this project. Basically those slices are taken at 10 microns and we are working on fixing some of the problems (when you cut a brain that thin you end up with a lot of tears and deformations) Then our lab is reassembling the slices (with algorithms) realigning the slices so you can cut through the slices in any directions and get the cross section of those slices and look at them.
Realignment of the 8000 slices can take weeks or more (depending on how many cores you can run the stuff on) and is a rather complex process.
Scroll to the bottom (well look at the whole page, brainbrowser is what I've been working on). You can see a image of the interface and some of the slices. I'll try to find a video of the project.
There are several orders of magnitude fewer neurons in the fly vs humans. For the fly, we are reconstructing neural processes using EM slices that range from 50 nm to 7 nm in thickness. At that scale, we can reconstruct neural processes and actually see synapses -- just because neurons are in proximity doesn't mean they are actually connected in the biological sense. Since I'm not as familiar with human neurons, could you tell me at 10 microns, can you resolve the axons, dendrites, and more importantly the synapses?
> Basically those slices are taken at 10 microns and we are
> working on fixing some of the problems (when you cut a
> brain that thin you end up with a lot of tears and
> deformations)
Can you talk about how you deal with the inherent deformations? I've spent hundreds of hours on cryostats preparing rodent brain slices for autoradiography, and getting usable ones at 15-20 microns is a painful process. Should be even worse if you need to retain morphological information...
One thing I always think about brain emulation/mind uploading/strong AI research is we need an legal/ethical framework in place before we get there.
I still think it's far off, but not everyone does.
If you believe consciousness is a property of running a brain or sufficiently advanced brain model, at what point are you allowed to stop running your model and it's not murder of a sentient? At one point can a model claim rights?
Especially as their goal is to use it for drug tests.
Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable?
Of more concern to me would be control of my own consciousness uploads.
I don't believe that hell exists now, but it would certainly be possible to create a technological hell if brain uploading and simulation is possible.
Torture is already horrific, but at least you can only be tortured to death once. With brain simulation, it would be possible to torture someone again and again and again.
This is a great question. I was put under for a surgery at one point. I was effectively "dead" from my perspective during the duration of the surgery in that no time seemed to have passed between when I was put under and when I came t. My consciousness was "off" in a way that is not when merely sleeping. It seems like this is a parallel for unplugging an AI, but then you have the problem of the AI losing whatever is in RAM.
The non-humanness of an AI might slow the realization that creating an AI should probably embody the same responsibilities as having a child.
IMHO, relevant reading would include The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil and Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan.
I bet everyone here knows the former book. Kurzweil's exploration of the ramifications of thinking machines is fascinating, but his response to the question of ethics can best be summed up as between "meh" and "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."
The other book takes place in a future where consciousness can be digitized, and mankind has already surpassed the threshold of computing power represented by the ability to simulate/host consciousness. The fictional treatment of this technology and its impact on society -- especially on crime and law enforcement -- is fascinating.
Thomas Metzinger addresses this exact question in his book _The Ego Tunnel_ ([1] a great non-technical overview of his work in Philosophy-o-Mind/Neuroscience), and he comes down strongly on the side that any artificial generation of "consciousness" would be reckless and could likely increasing the amount of suffering in the world.
This is great science, and I'm sure we will learn a lot about brains, but there is no way a simulated brain will have any kind of consciousness without a simulated body as well. Without a body and an environment to interact with, the brain is like a computer program with no data to run on.
Experiments have shown that if you yoke a paralyzed cat to another cat and let it experience a complete array of visual inputs, the yoked cat will still be completely blind. Interactive embodied experience is the foundation of cognition and consciousness. A brain in a vat is as empty as a computer without i/o.
It would be interesting to have a full-scale simulation to learn about how activation propagates, how different systems interact, yada yada yada. But until you give it a body there won't be any ethical issues.
`Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable?`
From my basic understanding of the nervous system, to simulate anything approximating normal function, it would be necessary to emulate the body to some degree. There's just too much interdependence with chemical reactions taking place outside the brain for a model to be of much use in isolation.
That is important, but extremely challenging to execute for two reasons.
1. Historically, technology has outpaced the legal framework. Look at copyright law, software patents, and internet commerce for some examples.
2. It is next to impossible to predict the impact that "Strong AI" or a "Singularity" would have on society. Science fiction literature is filled with thousands of different scenarios. Do we expect Congress or another legislative body to create a framework based on each potential manifestation of strong AI, on the 0.01% chance of it occurring in the next 10 years?
Food for thought - there's a chance that the first implementations of Strong AI occur as a result of a public and government-sponsored research program. There's also a chance that they will come about by a small team of dedicated researchers who will use the technology to their (or its) own ends, legalities and ethics be damned.
Before starting to evaluate claims that this model will replicate any human behavior, I think it's important to consider the case of C. Elegans. It always has exactly 302 neurons, and we know exactly how they connect to one another (we know its connectome), yet the furthest models have gotten with replicating its behavior is simplified, feedforward models of locomotion.
In light of this, it is very hard to believe that we will be able to reproduce the behavior of 100 billion neurons which are constantly changing.
This is not to say that Blue Brain is not an immensely useful tool to develop knowledge about the brain: it will be an excellent way to study what the implications of the vast amounts of data we have collected about the brain. However, to claim that the model will behave like a human brain seems like a stretch.
There are dozens of ethical concerns involved with created an artificial human conscious. A completely selfish concern of mine is this: Once the hard work of emulating a human brain is done, what's to stop the emulation from running at 10 or 100 (or many, many more) times as fast? If this is a human brain, replete with arrogance, in what way wouldn't it be right to feel superior to me? If you had the option of hiring normal speed brains vs ultra high speed brains, which would you hire? How long would it take ultra high speed brains to completely take over?
If you were running at 100x clock speed, how much interest would you have in working for someone running in real-time? You'd receive project requirements, comment on them and ask clarifying questions, and send them off... and receive a response in four months, subjective time.
Then again, I suppose that was the state of the world until sometime in the 1800's, and people managed to get things done.
We already do things 10x to 100x as fast, but in a parallel way. Look at reddit's "new" page after a popular post reaches the top. You'll have dozens of similar submissions riffing on the popular one within an hour (breadth of 100 people submitting in parallel, not depth of one person submitting serially).
Will this project "emulate" a human brain down to the subatomic level? Down to even the atomic level?
Both are probably far too ambitious for this project. I'd even be quite surprised if they managed to accurately simulate a brain down to a molecular level.
What this sounds like is yet another attempt at a grossly simplified simulation of a subset of what is actually going on in the brain.
It remains to be seen how useful this is, nevermind whether this will bring us any closer to AI (how would you even measure the "intelligence" of a simulated brain without any sensory organs or an ability to communicate?)
Will this project "emulate" a human brain down to the subatomic level? Down to even the atomic level?
The short answer is that each part of the simulation, from ion channels and synapses to cell bodies to network topologies and cell distributions, is done at the lowest level that people in the laboratories can effectively isolate and study. From that they can derive mathematical models of each part, and integrate those models to simulate them interacting over time and space.
Is it a simplified model of the brain? Yes, but its the most detailed model that science can produce (or at least it aims to be).
how would you even measure the "intelligence" of a simulated brain without any sensory organs or an ability to communicate?
What makes you think that's difficult to simulate? It's been shown that primate brains are capable of learning to interpret novel inputs, such as a grid of electrodes 'painting' an image onto cortex. There was also a study where they implanted electrodes in a monkey's brain where the rate of activation of the cells surrounding the electrodes moved a cursor on a computer screen. The monkey learned to move the cursor.
This shows that simulated inputs and outputs wouldn't have to perfectly correspond with reality in order for the brain to be able to process it.
Does it matter? As far as I know, we don't know yet what level we need to simulate at to simulate consciousness. If it's at the molecular level and we achieve that, who cares about the atomic level.
Main problem appears to be construct validity. If they're building a computationally vast model based on impoverished data (i.e., a pre-selected subset of current morphological/functional knowledge), nobody will be able to determine whether its electrical behavior tells you anything at all about a real brain.
More to the point: If they want to get this thing running within ten years, they'll have to simplify at each step without knowing the potential repercussions of each simplification. I thus find it disingenuous to call their project a "model of the brain." It's an implementation of a very specific reduction of neurobiological state of the art. Sure, that can be useful, but only within strictly confined limits. You won't be able to do drug tests on this thing -- so much is certain.
From what I've read about Blue Brain it appears that validation is a central theme of their work. They are actively validating the small piece that they have already built (the neocortical column).
Not exactly the same thing, but this interested by this should check out the Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap by Nick Bostrom and Anders Sanberg. Very advanced and I didn't understand most of it, but it was still fascinating:
Also - if you're interested in background on systems biology - there's a broad overview of UCLs biological modelling research group here (http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10844/1/10844.pdf [pdf]) - they've got a project modelling the liver / blood-sugar-system.
Apparently the canonical example that has worked pretty well is a computer model of the heart but I think it's a simpler organ in that it's mostly electro-mechanical, without such a complicated chemical system (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5560/1678.abstract - behind Science paywall)
There is actually quite a ways to go before we have high fidelity macro models of the heart in action. (The numerical research I do is closely related). 3D fluid simulations are expensive. Hopefully the quasi-discreteness of the brain reduces the computational requirements for a high fidelity simulation.
Is there any reason why they'll end up with a human brain instead of a lizard's? And what about teaching it? A human brain requires a human body to learn.
This is cargo-cult science. They'll be lucky to end up with anything useful, except 20 years' government funding!8-)) This project could be almost as good a gravy train for researchers as Cyc (20 years without significant results and still funded).
It would be neat, and perhaps useful as a diagnostic tool (for troubleshooting the real thing) but I'm not sure how emulating the brain has any practical application (they are fairly common and inexpensive to acquire through natural means).
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to burn billions of OPM building one, but then again practicality is rarely a requirement for me personally.
It's still extremely difficult to observe network activity in vivo. Even the most sophisticated methods can only observe tiny fractions and only a single property of neurons at a time. A large scale in silico network makes it trivial to tinker with properties of cells and neurotransmitters and observe how the activity of the network changes
Interesting discussion here, but I just want to highlight one point: consciousness happens not because of the brain, but actually of his interaction with the external world.
So Designing a brain won't make consciousness. If constructing a brain model needs $1.61Bn, then constructing the virtual world might need a dozen and may be more. After that, uploading a brain copy to the brain computer and a world copy to the world computer will create a real person like you.
No one actually can prove his existence. We are a bunch of mixed senses. And since this can be a stimulation, we can't prove that we are real and we do exist. Certainly, you can know who is behind you (and probably there is someone); but only by committing suicide.
But an interesting question that pops in my mind: Does our world allow more than one self-awareness existence? That is, if I upload my mind to a computer which is stimulating my same world, wouldn't it be me?
Does the mythical man month principle extend to money? That is to say does throwing twice as much money at a problem make it take half as long? Not being critical. Just seems like budgeting a huge hunk of money to make something happen more quickly might not be the best decision.
If it's estimated to cost $1.61 billion to achieve emulation by 2024, we should spend $160 billion and get it done by 2016. I'm skeptical, but a technological singularity is not to be underestimated.
This is good stuff. I'm surprised he didn't mention Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's work on quantum consciousness. If Penrose/Stuart are right (that a lot, if not most, of the computation in the brain takes place in the microtubules of each neuron, taking the complexity of the brain to unfathomed territory) all these models of the brain based on the network of neuron connections, will be basically irrelevant.
As far as I know they use adult brains as models. A functional brain has "meaningful synapses", i.e. neuronal assemblies that represent a given concept, shape, etc... .
Getting these out of the box is impossible AFAIK, because of the sheer number of neurons and connections to relate to one another. Especially, since the neural code is far from being decrypted.
You'd have to replicate the development process, probably starting with a model of fetal brain.
Is there anyone familiar with the research around? Are these concerns baseless? If not, how are they addressed?
Let's be clear on at least one thing: they're building a simulation of the physical brain hardware. At least according to the article, there is no goal to simulate human consciousness.
If we simulate a physical brain, and then it talks to us and says, "Consciousness? Yes, I understand what you mean, I feel that too," is there a distinction to be clear about?
Your consciousness is your brain hardware. The software exists in the neuronal connections and weights (both of which change over the course of your lifetime), and if these are taken from a real brain (presumably the brain that's been sliced and scanned) then the resulting simulation will be conscious. Specifically the consciousness of the dead person whose brain was used as the model for the simulation.
That is unless you are not a materialist, i.e., you believe that the mind is the product of some non-physical plane that somehow interacts with the physical world through the brain...
I really have no idea why I was downvoted for this: everything I said was factual in nature. It is an open question on whether or not we know how to create software that has the emergent property of consciousness.
Indeed. There is a huge distance to go before we can simulate things like actual thinking brains. The blue brain proejct and the proposed project use compartmental models, that essentially break down neurons to equivalent electrical circuits. These are plausible models of neurons, but there are many pieces of the biological puzzle that are elusive or highly hypothetical in these, like plasticity, brain rhythms etc.
It's not the first time someone attempts to replicate a "whole brain"; somebody used Izhikevich simplified models to simulate a cat brain (Markram had a very public spat with them) a few years ago. Those results were not very revealing - they did notice some brain waves but nothing like an indifferent catish thought.
That said, this project needs to go forward. It's the LHC of computational neuroscience. It can be completed much faster, though, all we need is computers, lots of them.
Everyone in the comments seems to be quickly attributing consciousness directly to a sufficiently connected deterministic system. This seems to guarantee a deterministic view of life, which I find troubling.
That author, like everyone else I've ever heard argue against the basic connectionism/neurobiology first principles model, takes a bit of biology, a bit of physics, and then throws in philosophical crap that has nothing to do with science, engineering, or any reasonable way to analytically understand the brain. This mixing of science and navel-gazing is useless.
[+] [-] nkassis|15 years ago|reply
The lab I work for is working with them on this project. Basically those slices are taken at 10 microns and we are working on fixing some of the problems (when you cut a brain that thin you end up with a lot of tears and deformations) Then our lab is reassembling the slices (with algorithms) realigning the slices so you can cut through the slices in any directions and get the cross section of those slices and look at them.
Realignment of the 8000 slices can take weeks or more (depending on how many cores you can run the stuff on) and is a rather complex process.
Here a link for those wanting more info: https://cbrain.mcgill.ca/tools/visualization
Scroll to the bottom (well look at the whole page, brainbrowser is what I've been working on). You can see a image of the interface and some of the slices. I'll try to find a video of the project.
</shameless_plug>
[+] [-] DocSavage|15 years ago|reply
Any references to papers would be great :)
[+] [-] apl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 9ec4c12949a4f3|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dodo53|15 years ago|reply
I still think it's far off, but not everyone does. If you believe consciousness is a property of running a brain or sufficiently advanced brain model, at what point are you allowed to stop running your model and it's not murder of a sentient? At one point can a model claim rights?
Especially as their goal is to use it for drug tests.
Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable?
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|15 years ago|reply
I don't believe that hell exists now, but it would certainly be possible to create a technological hell if brain uploading and simulation is possible.
Torture is already horrific, but at least you can only be tortured to death once. With brain simulation, it would be possible to torture someone again and again and again.
[+] [-] ericb|15 years ago|reply
The non-humanness of an AI might slow the realization that creating an AI should probably embody the same responsibilities as having a child.
[+] [-] jessedhillon|15 years ago|reply
I bet everyone here knows the former book. Kurzweil's exploration of the ramifications of thinking machines is fascinating, but his response to the question of ethics can best be summed up as between "meh" and "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."
The other book takes place in a future where consciousness can be digitized, and mankind has already surpassed the threshold of computing power represented by the ability to simulate/host consciousness. The fictional treatment of this technology and its impact on society -- especially on crime and law enforcement -- is fascinating.
[+] [-] eschulte|15 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/046504...
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|15 years ago|reply
Experiments have shown that if you yoke a paralyzed cat to another cat and let it experience a complete array of visual inputs, the yoked cat will still be completely blind. Interactive embodied experience is the foundation of cognition and consciousness. A brain in a vat is as empty as a computer without i/o.
It would be interesting to have a full-scale simulation to learn about how activation propagates, how different systems interact, yada yada yada. But until you give it a body there won't be any ethical issues.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|15 years ago|reply
From my basic understanding of the nervous system, to simulate anything approximating normal function, it would be necessary to emulate the body to some degree. There's just too much interdependence with chemical reactions taking place outside the brain for a model to be of much use in isolation.
[+] [-] hamner|15 years ago|reply
1. Historically, technology has outpaced the legal framework. Look at copyright law, software patents, and internet commerce for some examples.
2. It is next to impossible to predict the impact that "Strong AI" or a "Singularity" would have on society. Science fiction literature is filled with thousands of different scenarios. Do we expect Congress or another legislative body to create a framework based on each potential manifestation of strong AI, on the 0.01% chance of it occurring in the next 10 years?
Food for thought - there's a chance that the first implementations of Strong AI occur as a result of a public and government-sponsored research program. There's also a chance that they will come about by a small team of dedicated researchers who will use the technology to their (or its) own ends, legalities and ethics be damned.
[+] [-] dardila2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Devilboy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rauljara|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|15 years ago|reply
Then again, I suppose that was the state of the world until sometime in the 1800's, and people managed to get things done.
[+] [-] seiji|15 years ago|reply
http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-faq/#answer_26
We already do things 10x to 100x as fast, but in a parallel way. Look at reddit's "new" page after a popular post reaches the top. You'll have dozens of similar submissions riffing on the popular one within an hour (breadth of 100 people submitting in parallel, not depth of one person submitting serially).
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wmf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gnosis|15 years ago|reply
Both are probably far too ambitious for this project. I'd even be quite surprised if they managed to accurately simulate a brain down to a molecular level.
What this sounds like is yet another attempt at a grossly simplified simulation of a subset of what is actually going on in the brain.
It remains to be seen how useful this is, nevermind whether this will bring us any closer to AI (how would you even measure the "intelligence" of a simulated brain without any sensory organs or an ability to communicate?)
[+] [-] a-priori|15 years ago|reply
The short answer is that each part of the simulation, from ion channels and synapses to cell bodies to network topologies and cell distributions, is done at the lowest level that people in the laboratories can effectively isolate and study. From that they can derive mathematical models of each part, and integrate those models to simulate them interacting over time and space.
Is it a simplified model of the brain? Yes, but its the most detailed model that science can produce (or at least it aims to be).
how would you even measure the "intelligence" of a simulated brain without any sensory organs or an ability to communicate?
What makes you think that's difficult to simulate? It's been shown that primate brains are capable of learning to interpret novel inputs, such as a grid of electrodes 'painting' an image onto cortex. There was also a study where they implanted electrodes in a monkey's brain where the rate of activation of the cells surrounding the electrodes moved a cursor on a computer screen. The monkey learned to move the cursor.
This shows that simulated inputs and outputs wouldn't have to perfectly correspond with reality in order for the brain to be able to process it.
[+] [-] roel_v|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apl|15 years ago|reply
More to the point: If they want to get this thing running within ten years, they'll have to simplify at each step without knowing the potential repercussions of each simplification. I thus find it disingenuous to call their project a "model of the brain." It's an implementation of a very specific reduction of neurobiological state of the art. Sure, that can be useful, but only within strictly confined limits. You won't be able to do drug tests on this thing -- so much is certain.
[+] [-] TheEzEzz|15 years ago|reply
From what I've read about Blue Brain it appears that validation is a central theme of their work. They are actively validating the small piece that they have already built (the neocortical column).
[+] [-] MikeCapone|15 years ago|reply
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3...
[+] [-] dodo53|15 years ago|reply
Apparently the canonical example that has worked pretty well is a computer model of the heart but I think it's a simpler organ in that it's mostly electro-mechanical, without such a complicated chemical system (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5560/1678.abstract - behind Science paywall)
[+] [-] TheEzEzz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giardini|15 years ago|reply
This is cargo-cult science. They'll be lucky to end up with anything useful, except 20 years' government funding!8-)) This project could be almost as good a gravy train for researchers as Cyc (20 years without significant results and still funded).
[+] [-] jasongullickson|15 years ago|reply
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to burn billions of OPM building one, but then again practicality is rarely a requirement for me personally.
[+] [-] ignifero|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|15 years ago|reply
So Designing a brain won't make consciousness. If constructing a brain model needs $1.61Bn, then constructing the virtual world might need a dozen and may be more. After that, uploading a brain copy to the brain computer and a world copy to the world computer will create a real person like you.
No one actually can prove his existence. We are a bunch of mixed senses. And since this can be a stimulation, we can't prove that we are real and we do exist. Certainly, you can know who is behind you (and probably there is someone); but only by committing suicide.
But an interesting question that pops in my mind: Does our world allow more than one self-awareness existence? That is, if I upload my mind to a computer which is stimulating my same world, wouldn't it be me?
[+] [-] thisisblurry|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kwamenum86|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgdiaz|15 years ago|reply
Here's Year One of the project: http://vimeo.com/8977365
[+] [-] ozziegooen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spottiness|15 years ago|reply
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Google_000.htm
[+] [-] pygy_|15 years ago|reply
Getting these out of the box is impossible AFAIK, because of the sheer number of neurons and connections to relate to one another. Especially, since the neural code is far from being decrypted.
You'd have to replicate the development process, probably starting with a model of fetal brain.
Is there anyone familiar with the research around? Are these concerns baseless? If not, how are they addressed?
[+] [-] Locke1689|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rauljara|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eschulte|15 years ago|reply
That is unless you are not a materialist, i.e., you believe that the mind is the product of some non-physical plane that somehow interacts with the physical world through the brain...
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|15 years ago|reply
edit, s/emergency/emergent
[+] [-] Locke1689|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swah|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignifero|15 years ago|reply
It's not the first time someone attempts to replicate a "whole brain"; somebody used Izhikevich simplified models to simulate a cat brain (Markram had a very public spat with them) a few years ago. Those results were not very revealing - they did notice some brain waves but nothing like an indifferent catish thought.
That said, this project needs to go forward. It's the LHC of computational neuroscience. It can be completed much faster, though, all we need is computers, lots of them.
[+] [-] sfjunk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedkimble|15 years ago|reply
Have any of you thought of the role of the nodes themselves? I find Stewart Kauffman's recent work intriguing [PDF]: http://stuartkauffman.com/index_25_1612352741.pdf
[+] [-] ak217|15 years ago|reply