Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

io9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#41

Post by neuroguy »

kanzure wrote: post #40
neuroguy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it does. If you want to see open source models of the brain check out: http://senselab.med.yale.edu/modeldb/ListByModelName.asp?c=1...

Being outside of academia, I am not privy to the historical reasons that modeldb is the way it is. Something about it has always bothered me.. why on earth are all of these models in different languages? I mean, these aren't exactly CPAN modules or metasploit modules. How are these supposed to be combined reliably? And what about unit tests? what is going on here? Edit: oh, man :( http://rudylab.wustl.edu/research/ce…

It is for exactly this reason that the people of http://www.neuroml.org/ are doing their work. Good catch! To combine and place everything in one overarching language that can be used in any of the many Brain Simulators. There are many each with their own advantages, which is why there are so many different languages.

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#42

Post by defrost »

kanzure wrote: post #40
neuroguy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it does. If you want to see open source models of the brain check out: http://senselab.med.yale.edu/modeldb/ListByModelName.asp?c=1...

Being outside of academia, I am not privy to the historical reasons that modeldb is the way it is. Something about it has always bothered me.. why on earth are all of these models in different languages? I mean, these aren't exactly CPAN modules or metasploit modules. How are these supposed to be combined reliably? And what about unit tests? what is going on here? Edit: oh, man :( http://rudylab.wustl.edu/research/ce…

Expanding on neuroguy's comment, there's many different people working on making models and pretty much () the only things that matter here are the collections of transfer functions; given inputs, how do outputs propagate. You can see that in the C++ (well, C from the looks of it) example you gave, there's a time value, a timestep, a bunch of physical attributes, and a series of functions - no matter what the language or system used all the other models there have similar features.

When people look at the work of others they are less interested in the modelling system used and more interested in the model, which most are happy to translate to whatever system they are using as the very act of crawling through and translating from one form to another forces a certain kind of deeper look at the details.

It's on par with Watson & Crick using plasticine and paddlepop sticks for their model while others use ping pong balls and wire coat hangers ... further down the track everything gets unified but at the early stages one form of modelling is more or less as good as another.

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#43

Post by Glayden »

tgflynn wrote: post #12

I would feel less skeptical about the prospects for simulating the human brain if I had heard that someone had succeeded in simulating an infinitely simpler nervous system, say that of a spider, for instance, and obtained spider-like behavior from it.

Precisely. Can we even see a complete simulation of E. Coli?

It's disheartening how much of science news and research today is all about hype, smoke, and mirrors. It's becoming more about catching fleeting fame and money grabbing than actually producing interesting advances and results.

Exactly how would they scale this when you have something like a hundred trillion synapses between the neurons in a brain? Mind you this is falsely assuming that there is nothing of worth to simulate within individual neurons/synapses. Our current technological infrastructure isn't even in the ballpark of being good enough to deal with actually LARGE graph data structures, and people are getting excited about this nonsense. They talk up these simulations, but we don't even know the basic details about these things yet.

Let's see a complete simulation of a spider's brain from the bottom up before talking about simulating the human brain. Let's figure out precisely what is going on in the brain of a spider. I will be surprised if we accomplish that in the next 50 years.

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#44

Post by Retric »

tgflynn wrote: post #19
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 years ago people simulated a nematode, a type of worm, and got nematode like behavior from it.

Do you have a reference ? Do these worms exhibit non-trivial behavior or is it at the level of say reflex attraction to light sources ?

Sort of. There are only 302 neurons in a nematode, but knowing what weights to put on each of them is an issue.

PS: Not mine but this looks like a good summery. http://www.jefftk.com/news/2011-11-02

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#46

Post by duaneb »

askimto wrote: post #45

Never trust a neuroscientist. I doubt we will see an adequate simulation of a single human cell in our lifetimes much less a brain.

Well, what do you mean by adequate? I doubt we'll see anything close to a physically accurate (i.e. quantum lattice simulation) representation of a cell, but we already have models that are good enough to guide research before investing on (often costly) trials with actual cells. Furthermore, with things like these, I'm much less interested in creating a human brain than I am in creating something conscious on a human level, if that is even possible. Consciousness does not imply anything to do with accuracy to the human brain.

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#47

Post by scaphandre »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #36
DigitalSea wrote: post #30

A Terminator Skynet scenario is currently playing out in my head. I wonder how long after this human brain simulation runs it takes for it to become self aware and starts attacking us? In all seriousness, if this works this could potentially unlock so many mysteries and help solve & understand a plethora of medical issues like mental illness. We are living in extraordinary times.

I wish this meme would die. It really just taints everything we are trying to do with Strong AI.

Do you have any proof that Strong AI would be safe for humans?

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#48

Post by askimto »

duaneb wrote: post #46
askimto wrote: post #45

Never trust a neuroscientist. I doubt we will see an adequate simulation of a single human cell in our lifetimes much less a brain.

Well, what do you mean by adequate? I doubt we'll see anything close to a physically accurate (i.e. quantum lattice simulation) representation of a cell, but we already have models that are good enough to guide research before investing on (often costly) trials with actual cells. Furthermore, with things like these, I'm much less interested in creating a human brain than I am in creating something conscious on a huma…

I'd be thrilled if we had a simulation that we trusted so much that we could consider skipping trials on actual cells.

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#49

Post by [deleted] »

askimto wrote: post #48
duaneb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what do you mean by adequate? I doubt we'll see anything close to a physically accurate (i.e. quantum lattice simulation) representation of a cell, but we already have models that are good enough to guide research before investing on (often costly) trials with actual cells. Furthermore, with things like these, I'm much less interested in creating a human brain than I am in creating something conscious on a huma…

I'd be thrilled if we had a simulation that we trusted so much that we could consider skipping trials on actual cells.

[deleted]

Re: New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain

#50

Post by askimto »

[deleted] wrote: post #49
askimto wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be thrilled if we had a simulation that we trusted so much that we could consider skipping trials on actual cells.

[deleted]

Sorry for not being more clear. I know that's not what you said. I was actually answering your question of what I'd consider adequate.
Post reply on HN