Live data from Hacker News

Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

gigaom.com

121–124 of 124 posts

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#121
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, i would assert that a cell is 70% water. some tiny fraction of water that's actually used in a reaction would just be special cased, and modeled independently. My understanding of "solution" is stuff floating in water. If there's some value in breaking out each atom, i'm all for it, but i kind of suspect the spherical cow is good enough in that case. Even if i'm wrong there, each atom would introduce at least…

The interior of a cell does not follow solution dynamics at all in the way that you would like for it to, and this is why: http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/illustration/mycoplas...

That is a beautiful picture.

I don't understand why it's easier to simulate each individual atom than it is to simulate things with structure. I would assume a simulation would regard the long yellow strands of dna as dna rather than the component parts.

I'm used to a world where having structure implies constraints. With constraints, simulation can avoid a bunch of special cases and is therefore faster. I find foobarbazqux's approach of simulating each atom upsetting. But that's ok. You guys seem to think it's the way to go, and you all get results. shrug

-edit-

I don't think simulating water is easy, but i believe it's likely easier to simulate water than it is to simulate all possible states of the constituant atoms.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#122
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interior of a cell does not follow solution dynamics at all in the way that you would like for it to, and this is why: http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/illustration/mycoplas...

That is a beautiful picture. I don't understand why it's easier to simulate each individual atom than it is to simulate things with structure. I would assume a simulation would regard the long yellow strands of dna as dna rather than the component parts. I'm used to a world where having structure implies constraints . With constraints, simulation can avoid a bunch of special cases and is therefore faster. I find foob…

yeah, i don't think simulating each atom will work either. I'm not sure physics-based constraints at all is correct, and that maybe we need to try to generate heuristic constraints and then try to justify those heuristics using physics later.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#123
post #91
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were a simulation, you might not have free will. To even propose that you'd have a decision beyond state-machine-dynamics is a world away.

I've yet to see a convincing definition of "free will" that makes any sense as anything other than an abstraction on top of determinism or randomness. To propose that we have any ability to make decisions beyond state-machine-dynamics possibly with some randomness sprinkled on top, is totally nonsensical to me.

Precisely. It's almost certain that we don't have free will. I would define free will as the mere appearance that thought processes are governed by self in a non-local time frame. I would gander that a simulated brain might have less of this illusory 'free will.'

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#124
post #56

The title statement is almost meaningless. It would be better just to say "simulating reality takes a LONG time". My research is in molecular dynamics. I simulate systems up to 1 billion atoms on Kraken & Titan. HUGE approximations are made in simulating these systems, but depending on what exactly it is you're studying, these simulations still provide useful results. That is the key to all these studies: how well do…

Generally, the people doing brain simulations like to claim that they can use a massively reduced representation (little more than a graph model that pushes signals around with some constants) and yet, somehow, the simulation is inherently capable of reproducing something complex about thought. I'm not sure how they get to this conclusion, but it's a massive reductionism. It would be nice if it were true- it would me…

Some parts of the mind are emergent, but I'm sure some parts or features of the mind are a consequence of the particular organization of the neurons itself, and they won't 'emerge' without careful tuning.

Otherwise Sperm Whales would simply be much smarter than us.

About conscience itself, my guess is as good as yours.

Post reply on HN