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

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by D_Alex »

troymc wrote: post #56

If free will exists, how will it enter into the simulation (or emulation)?

Great question, and one which I would like to try and answer at length, but cannot spare the time...

Short answer: There are many definitions of "free will", and many arguments about the subtelties of the meanings of these definitions. AFAICT, a good argument can be made that making use of some random phenomenon in reaching decisions implements "free will" for the vast majority of these definitions (note that "random" does not need to mean "arbitrarily random"). This answer is not deeply satisfying to me, but a full elaboration of issues would need several pages of text.

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

#62

Post by kanzure »

mbq wrote: post #58

I have a feeling that this is like an attempt to simulate a SOC computer on a quantum physics level based on a blurry microscope image of it in hope to play minesweeper on that. Basic principles (neuron behaviour) are hell of a complex and we must do a lot of dangerous simplifications, we know nothing about the firmware (pre-wiring given by the evolution of our species), finally the software will be completely missin…

> we know nothing about the firmware (pre-wiring given by ...

Huh? That's what they are studying.

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

#63

Post by varjag »

neuroguy wrote: post #37
tgflynn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like they're saying 300 neurons is too hard so let's do 10^11 instead. Science usually proceeds somewhat incrementally from easier problems to harder problems and I'm not seeing the foundation here. Weren't simple genomes sequenced long before it was proposed to sequence the human genome ?

The argument is partially like that, but the more complete version is: 1) We know a lot about brain cognition through psychology, AI etc 2) We know a lot about how people process from all the years of expermentation. 3) The big things we don't know, is exactly what the role of the cell is, or how it processes. For example, is it they synchronous firing of cells that allows us to experience? What is actually going on…

On the other hand, activity patterns of C. Elegans neurons can be comprehensively studied, it's behavior is well studied in how it responds to simple stimuli. Simulating it has all the promising properties of good old scientific method.

It is debatable whether building a $1.6B catatonic brain will advance neuroscience more than a comprehensive, experimentally matched simulation of a simpler system first.

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

#64

Post by varjag »

cdcarter wrote: post #34
aheilbut wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's more information about the project here: http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/files/HBP_flagship.pdf The project is not actually as absurd as it sounds -- the funding is over 10 years, and it's funding a large number of different research programs in molecular neuroscience (8%), cognitive neuroscience (12%), theoretical neuroscience (6%), neuroinformatics (7%), medical informatics…

It's beyond exciting that over a whole percent of the money is going to an ethics line.

Well EU needs to keep humanities grads employed somehow.

But seriously, this project has all the hallmarks of becoming the next Nanotech. As in overly broad, loosely defined, overfunded and with little practical output for the money.

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

#65

Post by adrianhoward »

kanzure wrote: post #18
ComputerGuru wrote: post #13

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't matter how complex the simulation is if there is simply not enough underlying data? As far as I understand, we simply do not understand neuron activity at a low level enough to make such a thing feasible.

> As far as I understand, we simply do not understand neuron activity at > a low level enough to make such a thing feasible. Henry Markram has always been adamant that there are enough details already discovered and put into the neurophysiology journals. Of course, now you have to fish that data out and into some usable format. http://channelpedia.epfl.ch/ionchannels http://www.neuroml.org/

Henry Markram has always been adamant that there are enough details already discovered and put into the neurophysiology journals. Of course, now you have to fish that data out and into some usable format.

I would tend to disagree. For example as recently as ten years ago everybody knew that most of the computation was implicit in the neural connectivity of the synapses. We now know that there is significant computation within individual neurons - in the dendrites of all things (previously thought to be pretty much passive carriers of output from other cells - just wires basically).

(See http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.2... for example).

Go look at the neurophysiology journals - people don't seem having problems finding new things to talk about ;-)

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

#66

Post by adrianhoward »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #32

I get it, its interesting to understand our intelligence. But model a human brain? Why? Its pretty cheap to make them (and fun). They don't work all that well in the end - they're all bound up with food and sex and fear. Why not be even a little ambitious, and make something an order smarter? The human brain size is arbitrarily bound by the female pelvis size. Presumable the artifical one won't have that limit. And s…

I get it, its interesting to understand our intelligence. But model a human brain? Why? Its pretty cheap to make them (and fun). They don't work all that well in the end - they're all bound up with food and sex and fear.

Because we still don't understand the human brain in many, many, many ways. Building a model of it and comparing that model to reality is going to help us better understand the human brain. That, in turn, will likely help us understand things like dementia, mental illness, affects of drugs, etc.

That's one reason.

There are others ;-)

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

#67

Post by psteyn »

scaphandre wrote: post #47
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's an idea that a Strong AI won't be hostile to humans, due to not being mortal as we are. It has no need to be emotional, jealous or hateful. The idea as that these feelings are due to our own mortality and fragility.

Why would an advanced, technically immortal, machine want to hurt us at all? You are humanizing it by thinking so.

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

#68

Post by wookietrader »

scaphandre wrote: post #47
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not sure why this being downvoted. Provably friendly strong AI is actually sth that researcher care about, yet it is difficult to do because "friendly" has to be defined.

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

#69

Post by neuroguy »

varjag wrote: post #63
neuroguy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is partially like that, but the more complete version is: 1) We know a lot about brain cognition through psychology, AI etc 2) We know a lot about how people process from all the years of expermentation. 3) The big things we don't know, is exactly what the role of the cell is, or how it processes. For example, is it they synchronous firing of cells that allows us to experience? What is actually going on…

On the other hand, activity patterns of C. Elegans neurons can be comprehensively studied, it's behavior is well studied in how it responds to simple stimuli. Simulating it has all the promising properties of good old scientific method. It is debatable whether building a $1.6B catatonic brain will advance neuroscience more than a comprehensive, experimentally matched simulation of a simpler system first.

I don't think there is much debate about it. I think it is fairly obvious that this project will advance neuroscience quite a bit, even if it would be a smarter choice to start with the C. Elgans. A project like this, putting together what we currently know from experimentation is the necessary next step. Will it bring the massive game changing understanding of the brain that it is hoped, who knows.

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

#70

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 would be worthwhile to get some more CS guys in the field. Agreed. Please join us :)
Post reply on HN