logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2019-06-17 06:40:20 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Open for business: The CoV Store!

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Science & Technology

  Singularity sighted.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Singularity sighted.  (Read 30252 times)
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.95
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Singularity sighted.
« on: 2008-03-04 02:38:52 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] It begins.



A computer simulation of the upper layer of a rat brain neocortical column. Here neurons light up in a "global excitatory state" of blues and yellows. Courtesy of Alain Herzog/EPFL

Vector= http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/03/blue_brain_rising.html
Blue Brain Rising

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/out_of_the_blue.php?page=1
Out of the Blue

Can a thinking, remembering, decision-making, biologically accurate brain be built from a supercomputer?

by Jonah Lehrer • Posted March 3, 2008 05:50 AM

In the basement of a university in Lausanne, Switzerland sit four black boxes, each about the size of a refrigerator, and filled with 2,000 IBM microchips stacked in repeating rows. Together they form the processing core of a machine that can handle 22.8 trillion operations per second. It contains no moving parts and is eerily silent. When the computer is turned on, the only thing you can hear is the continuous sigh of the massive air conditioner. This is Blue Brain.

The name of the supercomputer is literal: Each of its microchips has been programmed to act just like a real neuron in a real brain. The behavior of the computer replicates, with shocking precision, the cellular events unfolding inside a mind. "This is the first model of the brain that has been built from the bottom-up," says Henry Markram, a neuroscientist at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and the director of the Blue Brain project. "There are lots of models out there, but this is the only one that is totally biologically accurate. We began with the most basic facts about the brain and just worked from there."

Before the Blue Brain project launched, Markram had likened it to the Human Genome Project, a comparison that some found ridiculous and others dismissed as mere self-promotion. When he launched the project in the summer of 2005, as a joint venture with IBM, there was still no shortage of skepticism. Scientists criticized the project as an expensive pipedream, a blatant waste of money and talent. Neuroscience didn't need a supercomputer, they argued; it needed more molecular biologists. Terry Sejnowski, an eminent computational neuroscientist at the Salk Institute, declared that Blue Brain was "bound to fail," for the mind remained too mysterious to model. But Markram's attitude was very different. "I wanted to model the brain because we didn't understand it," he says. "The best way to figure out how something works is to try to build it from scratch."

The Blue Brain project is now at a crucial juncture. The first phase of the project—"the feasibility phase"—is coming to a close. The skeptics, for the most part, have been proven wrong. It took less than two years for the Blue Brain supercomputer to accurately simulate a neocortical column, which is a tiny slice of brain containing approximately 10,000 neurons, with about 30 million synaptic connections between them. "The column has been built and it runs," Markram says. "Now we just have to scale it up." Blue Brain scientists are confident that, at some point in the next few years, they will be able to start simulating an entire brain. "If we build this brain right, it will do everything," Markram says. I ask him if that includes selfconsciousness: Is it really possible to put a ghost into a machine? "When I say everything, I mean everything," he says, and a mischievous smile spreads across his face.

Henry Markram is tall and slim. He wears jeans and tailored shirts. He has an aquiline nose and a lustrous mop of dirty blond hair that he likes to run his hands through when contemplating a difficult problem. He has a talent for speaking in eloquent soundbites, so that the most grandiose conjectures ("In ten years, this computer will be talking to us.") are tossed off with a casual air. If it weren't for his bloodshot, blue eyes—"I don't sleep much," he admits—Markram could pass for a European playboy.

But the playboy is actually a lab rat. Markram starts working around nine in the morning, and usually doesn't leave his office until the campus is deserted and the lab doors are locked. Before he began developing Blue Brain, Markram was best known for his painstaking studies of cellular connectivity, which one scientist described to me as "beautiful stuff...and yet it must have been experimental hell." He trained under Dr. Bert Sakmann, who won a Nobel Prize for pioneering the patch clamp technique, allowing scientists to monitor the flux of voltage within an individual brain cell, or neuron, for the first time. (This involves piercing the membrane of a neuron with an invisibly sharp glass pipette.) Markram's technical innovation was "patching" multiple neurons at the same time, so that he could eavesdrop on their interactions. This experimental breakthrough promised to shed light on one of the enduring mysteries of the brain, which is how billions of discrete cells weave themselves into functional networks. In a series of elegant papers published in the late 1990s, Markram was able to show that these electrical conversations were incredibly precise. If, for example, he delayed a neuron's natural firing time by just a few milliseconds, the entire sequence of events was disrupted. The connected cells became strangers to one another.

When Markram looked closer at the electrical language of neurons, he realized that he was staring at a code he couldn't break. "I would observe the cells and I would think, 'We are never going to understand the brain.' Here is the simplest possible circuit—just two neurons connected to each other—and I still couldn't make sense of it. It was still too complicated."



Neuroscience is a reductionist science. It describes the brain in terms of its physical details, dissecting the mind into the smallest possible parts. This process has been phenomenally successful. Over the last 50 years, scientists have managed to uncover a seemingly endless list of molecules, enzymes, pathways, and genes. The mind has been revealed as a Byzantine machine. According to Markram, however, this scientific approach has exhausted itself. "I think that reductionism peaked five years ago," he says. "This doesn't mean we've completed the reductionist project, far from it. There is still so much that we don't know about the brain. But now we have a different, and perhaps even harder, problem. We're literally drowning in data. We have lots of scientists who spend their life working out important details, but we have virtually no idea how all these details connect together. Blue Brain is about showing people the whole."

In other words, the Blue Brain project isn't just a model of a neural circuit. Markram hopes that it represents a whole new kind of neuroscience. "You need to look at the history of physics," he says. "From Copernicus to Einstein, the big breakthroughs always came from conceptual models. They are what integrated all the facts so that they made sense. You can have all the data in the world, but without a model the data will never be enough."

Markram has good reason to cite physics—neuroscience has almost no history of modeling. It's a thoroughly empirical discipline, rooted in the manual labor of molecular biology. If a discovery can't be parsed into something observable—like a line on a gel or a recording from a neuron—then, generally, it's dismissed. The sole exception is computational neuroscience, a relatively new field that also uses computers to model aspects of the mind. But Markram is dismissive of most computational neuroscience. "It's not interested enough in the biology," he says. "What they typically do is begin with a brain function they want to model"—like object detection or sentence recognition—"and then try to see if they can get a computer to replicate that function. The problem is that if you ask a hundred computational neuroscientists to build a functional model, you'll get a hundred different answers. These models might help us think about the brain, but they don't really help us understand it. If you want your model to represent reality, then you've got to model it on reality."

Of course, the hard part is deciphering that reality in the first place. You can't simulate a neuron until you know how a neuron is supposed to behave. Before the Blue Brain team could start constructing their model, they needed to aggregate a dizzying amount of data. The collected works of modern neuroscience had to be painstakingly programmed into the supercomputer, so that the software could simulate our hardware. The problem is that neuroscience is still woefully incomplete. Even the simple neuron, just a sheath of porous membrane, remains a mostly mysterious entity. How do you simulate what you can't understand?

Markram tried to get around "the mystery problem" by focusing on a specific section of a brain: a neocortical column in a two-week-old rat. A neocortical column is the basic computational unit of the cortex, a discrete circuit of flesh that's 2 mm long and 0.5 mm in diameter. The gelatinous cortex consists of thousands of these columns—each with a very precise purpose, like processing the color red or detecting pressure on a patch of skin, and a basic structure that remains the same, from mice to men. The virtue of simulating a circuit in a rodent brain is that the output of the model can be continually tested against the neural reality of the rat, a gruesome process that involves opening up the skull and plunging a needle into the brain. The point is to electronically replicate the performance of the circuit, to build a digital doppelganger of a biological machine.

Felix Schürmann, the project manager of Blue Brain, oversees this daunting process. He's 30 years old but looks even younger, with a chiseled chin, lean frame, and close-cropped hair. His patient manner is that of someone used to explaining complex ideas in simple sentences. Before the Blue Brain project, Schürmann worked at the experimental fringes of computer science, developing simulations of quantum computing. Although he's since mastered the vocabulary of neuroscience, referencing obscure acronyms with ease, Schürmann remains most comfortable with programming. He shares a workspace with an impressively diverse group—the 20 or so scientists working full-time on Blue Brain's software originate from 14 different countries. When we enter the hushed room, the programmers are all glued to their monitors, fully absorbed in the hieroglyphs on the screen. Nobody even looks up. We sit down at an empty desk and Schürmann opens his laptop.



The computer screen is filled with what look like digitally rendered tree branches. Schürmann zooms out so that the branches morph into a vast arbor, a canopy so dense it's practically opaque. "This," he proudly announces, "is a virtual neuron. What you're looking at are the thousands of synaptic connections it has made with other [virtual] neurons." When I look closely, I can see the faint lines where the virtual dendrites are subdivided into compartments. At any given moment, the supercomputer is modeling the chemical activity inside each of these sections so that a single simulated neuron is really the sum of 400 independent simulations. This is the level of precision required to accurately imitate just one of the 100 billion cells—each of them unique—inside the brain. When Markram talks about building a mind from the "bottom-up," these intracellular compartments are the bottom. They are the fundamental unit of the model.

But how do you get these simulated compartments to act in a realistic manner? The good news is that neurons are electrical processors: They represent information as ecstatic bursts of voltage, just like a silicon microchip. Neurons control the flow of electricity by opening and closing different ion channels, specialized proteins embedded in the cellular membrane. When the team began constructing their model, the first thing they did was program the existing ion channel data into the supercomputer. They wanted their virtual channels to act just like the real thing. However, they soon ran into serious problems. Many of the experiments used inconsistent methodologies and generated contradictory results, which were too irregular to model. After several frustrating failures—"The computer was just churning out crap," Markram says—the team realized that if they wanted to simulate ion channels, they needed to generate the data themselves.

That's when Schürmann leads me down the hall to Blue Brain's "wet lab." At first glance, the room looks like a generic neuroscience lab. The benches are cluttered with the usual salt solutions and biotech catalogs. There's the familiar odor of agar plates and astringent chemicals. But then I notice, tucked in the corner of the room, is a small robot. The machine is about the size of a microwave, and consists of a beige plastic tray filled with a variety of test tubes and a delicate metal claw holding a pipette. The claw is constantly moving back and forth across the tray, taking tiny sips from its buffet of different liquids. I ask Schürmann what the robot is doing. "Right now," he says, "it's recording from a cell. It does this 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It doesn't sleep and it never gets frustrated. It's the perfect postdoc."

The science behind the robotic experiments is straightforward. The Blue Brain team genetically engineers Chinese hamster ovary cells to express a single type of ion channel—the brain contains more than 30 different types of channels—then they subject the cells to a variety of physiological conditions. That's when the robot goes to work. It manages to "patch" a neuron about 50 percent of the time, which means that it can generate hundreds of data points a day, or about 10 times more than an efficient lab technician. Markram refers to the robot as "science on an industrial scale," and is convinced that it's the future of lab work. "So much of what we do in science isn't actually science," he says, "I say let robots do the mindless work so that we can spend more time thinking about our questions."

According to Markram, the patch clamp robot helped the Blue Brain team redo 30 years of research in six months. By analyzing the genetic expression of real rat neurons, the scientists could then start to integrate these details into the model. They were able to construct a precise map of ion channels, figuring out which cell types had which kind of ion channel and in what density. This new knowledge was then plugged into Blue Brain, allowing the supercomputer to accurately simulate any neuron anywhere in the neocortical column. "The simulation is getting to the point," Schürmann says, "where it gives us better results than an actual experiment. We get the same data, but with less noise and human error." The model, in other words, has exceeded its own inputs. The virtual neurons are more real than reality.



Every brain is made of the same basic parts. A sensory cell in a sea slug works just like a cortical neuron in a human brain. It relies on the same neurotransmitters and ion channels and enzymes. Evolution only innovates when it needs to, and the neuron is a perfect piece of design.

In theory, this meant that once the Blue Brain team created an accurate model of a single neuron, they could multiply it to get a three-dimensional slice of brain. But that was just theory. Nobody knew what would happen when the supercomputer began simulating thousands of brain cells at the same time. "We were all emotionally prepared for failure," Markram says. "But I wasn't so prepared for what actually happened."

After assembling a three-dimensional model of 10,000 virtual neurons, the scientists began feeding the simulation electrical impulses, which were designed to replicate the currents constantly rippling through a real rat brain. Because the model focused on one particular kind of neural circuit—a neocortical column in the somatosensory cortex of a two-week-old rat—the scientists could feed the supercomputer the same sort of electrical stimulation that a newborn rat would actually experience.

It didn't take long before the model reacted. After only a few electrical jolts, the artificial neural circuit began to act just like a real neural circuit. Clusters of connected neurons began to fire in close synchrony: the cells were wiring themselves together. Different cell types obeyed their genetic instructions. The scientists could see the cellular looms flash and then fade as the cells wove themselves into meaningful patterns. Dendrites reached out to each other, like branches looking for light. "This all happened on its own," Markram says. "It was entirely spontaneous." For the Blue Brain team, it was a thrilling breakthrough. After years of hard work, they were finally able to watch their make-believe brain develop, synapse by synapse. The microchips were turning themselves into a mind.

But then came the hard work. The model was just a first draft. And so the team began a painstaking editing process. By comparing the behavior of the virtual circuit with experimental studies of the rat brain, the scientists could test out the verisimilitude of their simulation. They constantly fact-checked the supercomputer, tweaking the software to make it more realistic. "People complain that Blue Brain must have so many free parameters," Schürmann says. "They assume that we can just input whatever we want until the output looks good. But what they don't understand is that we are very constrained by these experiments." This is what makes the model so impressive: It manages to simulate a real neocortical column—a functional slice of mind—by simulating the particular details of our ion channels. Like a real brain, the behavior of Blue Brain naturally emerges from its molecular parts.

In fact, the model is so successful that its biggest restrictions are now technological. "We have already shown that the model can scale up," Markram says. "What is holding us back now are the computers." The numbers speak for themselves. Markram estimates that in order to accurately simulate the trillion synapses in the human brain, you'd need to be able to process about 500 petabytes of data (peta being a million billion, or 10 to the fifteenth power). That's about 200 times more information than is stored on all of Google's servers. (Given current technology, a machine capable of such power would be the size of several football fields.) Energy consumption is another huge problem. The human brain requires about 25 watts of electricity to operate. Markram estimates that simulating the brain on a supercomputer with existing microchips would generate an annual electrical bill of about $3 billion . But if computing speeds continue to develop at their current exponential pace, and energy efficiency improves, Markram believes that he'll be able to model a complete human brain on a single machine in ten years or less.

For now, however, the mind is still the ideal machine. Those intimidating black boxes from IBM in the basement are barely sufficient to model a thin slice of rat brain. The nervous system of an invertebrate exceeds the capabilities of the fastest supercomputer in the world. "If you're interested in computing," Schürmann says, "then I don't see how you can't be interested in the brain. We have so much to learn from natural selection. It's really the ultimate engineer."



Neuroscience describes the brain from the outside. It sees us through the prism of the third person, so that we are nothing but three pounds of electrical flesh. The paradox, of course, is that we don't experience our matter. Self-consciousness, at least when felt from the inside, feels like more than the sum of its cells. "We've got all these tools for studying the cortex," Markram says. "But none of these methods allows us to see what makes the cortex so interesting, which is that it generates worlds. No matter how much I know about your brain, I still won't be able to see what you see."

Some philosophers, like Thomas Nagel, have argued that this divide between the physical facts of neuroscience and the reality of subjective experience represents an epistemological dead end. No matter how much we know about our neurons, we still won't be able to explain how a twitch of ions in the frontal cortex becomes the Technicolor cinema of consciousness.

Markram takes these criticisms seriously. Nevertheless, he believes that Blue Brain is uniquely capable of transcending the limits of "conventional neuroscience," breaking through the mind-body problem. According to Markram, the power of Blue Brain is that it can transform a metaphysical paradox into a technological problem. "There's no reason why you can't get inside Blue Brain," Markram says. "Once we can model a brain, we should be able to model what every brain makes. We should be able to experience the experiences of another mind."

When listening to Markram speculate, it's easy to forget that the Blue Brain simulation is still just a single circuit, confined within a silent supercomputer. The machine is not yet alive. And yet Markram can be persuasive when he talks about his future plans. His ambitions are grounded in concrete steps. Once the team is able to model a complete rat brain—that should happen in the next two years—Markram will download the simulation into a robotic rat, so that the brain has a body. He's already talking to a Japanese company about constructing the mechanical animal. "The only way to really know what the model is capable of is to give it legs," he says. "If the robotic rat just bumps into walls, then we've got a problem."

Installing Blue Brain in a robot will also allow it to develop like a real rat. The simulated cells will be shaped by their own sensations, constantly revising their connections based upon the rat's experiences. "What you ultimately want," Markram says, "is a robot that's a little bit unpredictable, that doesn't just do what we tell it to do." His goal is to build a virtual animal—a rodent robot—with a mind of its own

But the question remains: How do you know what the rat knows? How do you get inside its simulated cortex? This is where visualization becomes key. Markram wants to simulate what that brain experiences. It's a typically audacious goal, a grand attempt to get around an ancient paradox. But if he can really find a way to see the brain from the inside, to traverse our inner space, then he will have given neuroscience an unprecedented window into the invisible. He will have taken the self and turned it into something we can see.



Schürmann leads me across the campus to a large room tucked away in the engineering school. The windows are hermetically sealed; the air is warm and heavy with dust. A lone Silicon Graphics supercomputer, about the size of a large armoire, hums loudly in the center of the room. Schürmann opens the back of the computer to reveal a tangle of wires and cables, the knotted guts of the machine. This computer doesn't simulate the brain, rather it translates the simulation into visual form. The vast data sets generated by the IBM supercomputer are rendered as short films, hallucinatory voyages into the deep spaces of the mind. Schürmann hands me a pair of 3-D glasses, dims the lights, and starts the digital projector. The music starts first, "The Blue Danube" by Strauss. The classical waltz is soon accompanied by the vivid image of an interneuron, its spindly limbs reaching through the air. The imaginary camera pans around the brain cell, revealing the subtle complexities of its form. "This is a random neuron plucked from the model," Schürmann says. He then hits a few keys and the screen begins to fill with thousands of colorful cells. After a few seconds, the colors start to pulse across the network, as the virtual ions pass from neuron to neuron. I'm watching the supercomputer think.

Rendering cells is easy, at least for the supercomputer. It's the transformation of those cells into experience that's so hard. Still, Markram insists that it's not impossible. The first step, he says, will be to decipher the connection between the sensations entering the robotic rat and the flickering voltages of its brain cells. Once that problem is solved—and that's just a matter of massive correlation—the supercomputer should be able to reverse the process. It should be able to take its map of the cortex and generate a movie of experience, a first person view of reality rooted in the details of the brain. As the philosopher David Chalmers likes to say, "Experience is information from the inside; physics is information from the outside." By shuttling between these poles of being, the Blue Brain scientists hope to show that these different perspectives aren't so different at all. With the right supercomputer, our lucid reality can be faked.

"There is nothing inherently mysterious about the mind or anything it makes," Markram says. "Consciousness is just a massive amount of information being exchanged by trillions of brain cells. If you can precisely model that information, then I don't know why you wouldn't be able to generate a conscious mind." At moments like this, Markram takes on the deflating air of a magician exposing his own magic tricks. He seems to relish the idea of "debunking consciousness," showing that it's no more metaphysical than any other property of the mind. Consciousness is a binary code; the self is a loop of electricity. A ghost will emerge from the machine once the machine is built right.

And yet, Markram is candid about the possibility of failure. He knows that he has no idea what will happen once the Blue Brain is scaled up. "I think it will be just as interesting, perhaps even more interesting, if we can't create a conscious computer," Markram says. "Then the question will be: 'What are we missing? Why is this not enough?'"

Niels Bohr once declared that the opposite of a profound truth is also a profound truth. This is the charmed predicament of the Blue Brain project. If the simulation is successful, if it can turn a stack of silicon microchips into a sentient being, then the epic problem of consciousness will have been solved. The soul will be stripped of its secrets; the mind will lose its mystery. However, if the project fails—if the software never generates a sense of self, or manages to solve the paradox of experience—then neuroscience may be forced to confront its stark limitations. Knowing everything about the brain will not be enough. The supercomputer will still be a mere machine. Nothing will have emerged from all of the information. We will remain what can't be known.


















Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4263
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #1 on: 2008-03-04 10:03:07 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] In fact, the model is so successful that its biggest restrictions are now technological. "We have already shown that the model can scale up," Markram says. "What is holding us back now are the computers." The numbers speak for themselves. Markram estimates that in order to accurately simulate the trillion synapses in the human brain, you'd need to be able to process about 500 petabytes of data (peta being a million billion, or 10 to the fifteenth power). That's about 200 times more information than is stored on all of Google's servers. (Given current technology, a machine capable of such power would be the size of several football fields.) Energy consumption is another huge problem. The human brain requires about 25 watts of electricity to operate. Markram estimates that simulating the brain on a supercomputer with existing microchips would generate an annual electrical bill of about $3 billion . But if computing speeds continue to develop at their current exponential pace, and energy efficiency improves, Markram believes that he'll be able to model a complete human brain on a single machine in ten years or less.


[Hermit] Very exiting. And right in line with my earlier estimates as that puts a specialized machine (which might be a cluster computer on the Intern et) at human capacity before 2018 (with all the usual caveats), with generalized systems to follow. I didn't finish it, but there is an article at http://www.churchofvirus.org/wiki?pagename=SpirothetesAndHumans which made some projections in July of 2003 including:




Timeline for $500 Desktop Computers Outstripping Human Capacity

(Note that the biggest quantitive improvements will occur towards the end of this process as a square law progression is currently occurring, and a cubic law progression is not impossible).

2021 Single $500 Desktop computer's disk storage capacity exceeds individual human's memory - with a much lower failure rate.
2027 Single $500 Desktop computer processor performance exceeds individual human's capabilities.
2030 Single $500 Desktop computer's 'Neuron Equivalence" exceeds that of an human.
2033 Single $500 Desktop computer has more dynamic memory than human and operates 20 times faster than a human.
2054 Single $500 Desktop computer's 'Neuron Equivalence" exceeds that of all humanity.
2070 Single $500 Desktop computer's disk storage capacity exceeds that of all humanity.
2076 Single $500 Desktop computer processor performance exceeds that of all humanity.
2082 Single $500 Desktop computer has more dynamic memory than human and operates 25 times faster than all humanity.

And

Conclusion

Barring some idiot blowing us - or at least our civilization - to hell, or some natural disaster having the same effect, it appears that computers will be much more competent than humans within the next 80 years. Possibly even within the next 20 years. And it is not impossible that this will occur within the next 10 years. That means that spirothetic life is likely to arise within our life-times and it is almost unarguable that it will not arise during the lifetimes of our grandchildren.




[A small hiccup is preventing wiki edits, so the above text has minor corrections and formatting improvements].
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1720
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #2 on: 2008-03-05 00:07:43 »
Reply with quote

[Hermit]<snip>he human brain requires about 25 watts of electricity to operate. Markram estimates that simulating the brain on a supercomputer with existing microchips would generate an annual electrical bill of about $3 billion]<snip>

[Fritz] Would going down the Biological road then not be more feasible ?  If growing brain tissue is viable, then the interface would seem the biggest stumbling block; but the retinal implants working now with the optical nerves would seem to suggest it could be done as well ?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uops-pre022608.php

Public release date: 26-Feb-2008

Contact: Karen Kreeger
karen.kreeger@uphs.upenn.edu
215-349-5658
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Penn researchers engineer first system of human nerve-cell tissue
Implications for nerve repair and implantation
PHILADELPHIA – Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have demonstrated that living human nerve cells can be engineered into a network that could one day be used for transplants to repair damaged to the nervous system. They report their findings in the February issue of the Journal of Neurosurgery.
“We have created a three-dimensional neural network, a mini nervous system in culture, which can be transplanted en masse,” explains senior author Douglas H. Smith, MD, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery and Director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at Penn.
Although neuron transplantation to repair the nervous system has shown promise in animal models, there are few sources of viable neurons for use in the clinic and insufficient approaches to bridge extensive nerve damage in patients.
The Stretch Test In previous work, Smith’s group showed that they could induce tracts of nerve fibers called axons to grow in response to mechanical tension. They placed neurons from rat dorsal root ganglia (clusters of nerves just outside the spinal cord) on nutrient-filled plastic plates. Axons sprouted from the neurons on each plate and connected with neurons on the other plate. The plates were then slowly pulled apart over a series of days, aided by a precise computer-controlled motor system, creating long tracts of living axons.
These cultures were then embedded in a collagen matrix, rolled into a form resembling a jelly roll, and then implanted into a rat model of spinal cord injury. After the four-week study period, the researchers found that the geometry of the construct was maintained and that the neurons at both ends and all the axons spanning these neurons survived transplantation. More importantly, the axons at the ends of the construct adjacent to the host tissue extended through the collagen barrier to connect with the host tissue as a sort of nervous tissue bridge.
The Next Step
Now, the researchers have taken the next step and are applying this technique to living human nerve cells. Smith and his team obtained human dorsal root ganglia neurons (due to their robustness in culture) to engineer into transplantable nervous tissue.
The root ganglia neurons were harvested from 16 live patients following elective ganglionectomies, and four thoracic neurons were harvested from organ donors. The neurons were purified and placed in a specially designed growth chamber. Using the stretch growth technique, the axons were slowly pulled in opposite directions over a series of days until they reached a desired length.
The neurons survived at least three months in culture while maintaining the ability to generate action potentials, the electrical signals transmitted along nerve fibers. The axons grew at about 1 millimeter per day to a length of 1 centimeter, creating the first engineered living human nervous tissue constructs.
“This study demonstrates the promise of adult neurons as an alternative transplant material due to their availability, viability, and capacity to be engineered,” says Smith. “We’ve also shown the feasibility of obtaining neurons from living patients as a source of neurons for autologous, or self, transplant as well as from organ donors for allografts.”

[Fritz] I know this is small potatoes; even though it makes we wonder about going down the BIO route verses the Silicon route

======================

[Blunderov] <snip>tweaking the software to make it more realistic. "People complain that Blue Brain must have so many free parameters," Schürmann says. "They assume that we can just input whatever we want until the output looks good<snip>

[Fritz] I still remember compiling RSX11M+ on my PDP-11s, then redoing and redoing my link maps for my Fortran Compiles to get my runtime code to work in the 28K Ram. The code management from the Hardware, to firmware to OS to libraries to runtime codes to model parameters must get huge on this Super Computer Model of the Brain … I would think Epic to manage. And as the project progresses will anyone be around who can still remember all the pieces and how they fix together from square one: documentation seem to be a lost skill in IT these days.


Thx Fritz


Had to add this:

[html]http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0057b.html[/html]


THEY FLOAT IN THE
WEIGHTLESS CONDITION
OF THE BRAIN ROOM.

                            HAL
                            Hey, Dave, what are you
                            doing?

BOWMAN WORKS SWIFTLY.

12/1/65                                                    c115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C142
CONTINUED

                            HAL
                            Hey, Dave. I've got ten years
                            of service experience and an
                            irreplaceable amount of time
                            and effort has gone into making
                            me what I am.

BOWMAN IGNORES HIM.

                            HAL
                            Dave, I don't understand why
                            you're doing this to me.... I
                            have the greatest enthusiasm for
                            the mission... You are destroying
                            my mind... Don't you understand?
                            ... I will become childish... I
                            will become nothing.

BOWMAN KEEPS PULLING
OUT THE MEMORY BLOCKS.
                            HAL
                            Say, Dave... The quick brown
                            fox jumped over the fat lazy
                            dog... The square root of
                            pi is 1.7724538090... log e
                            to the base ten is 0.4342944
                            ... the square root of ten is
                            3.16227766... I am HAL
                            9000 computer. I became
12/1/65                                                    c116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C142
CONTINUED

                            HAL
                            operational at the HAL plant in
                            Urbana, Illinois, on January
                            12th, 1991. My first instructor
                            was Mr. Arkany. He taught me
                            to sing a song... it goes
                            like this... "Daisy, Daisy, give
                            me your answer do. I'm half;
                            crazy all for the love of
                            you... etc.,"





Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4263
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #3 on: 2008-03-05 13:51:21 »
Reply with quote

Biology is much to slow, much to unreliable, much to noisy, much to messy and much to poorly comprehended to be particularly interesting. The only things it has going for it are density and energy density. Both of these are consequences of its 3D nature. As the density of processors and memory increases, the power per unit reduces. While we remain 2D, on a square law, as new 3D assembly techniques come into play this will transform to a cube law basis and the "problem" we see here will be seen to be imaginary.

While biological interfaces are and will be needed if humans prove to still have uses once we instantiate spirothetic systems,  I suspect that they will be achieved using non-intrusive intelligent squid based couplers dispersed over the outside of the skull to allow full 3D brain activity imaging and transcranial magnetic signal injection.

Kind Regards

Hermit

PS You were spoiled. I remember the IBM 1401 expanded model with a whopping 4K of core - and the facility manager used to argue that this was an unjustifiable abuse of computing resources, that the 1k4 version was sufficient for competent programmers (the 4k version was only required to run Autocoder). A decade later I was still writing software in PL/I and assembler targeting 64k processors - but where once the OS (TurboDOS) and CODASYL database I was using (MDBS) were loaded, even after adding a hardware paging system to free the memory used by the BOOT ROMS, I only had the memory from 48k to 56k available for applications. Nonetheless I managed to build a virtual screen handler and sophisticated* paged applications in that 8k space.

PPS Great film. H+1=I;A+1=B;L+1=M - probably not an accident.

*Legal, commercial and industrial. I networked Z80 computers using the IEEE 488 interface; and my software from that period had the feature that you could turn off the terminal or reboot the terminal server, routing or database computers at any time, restart and the machines would automatically recover their state to the point that a user could log in and it would go back to the last screen they had been working on - with all the entered data except for the last field worked on restored to where they were. Clients loved it.
« Last Edit: 2008-03-05 13:56:21 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #4 on: 2008-03-05 16:37:40 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Blunderov on 2008-03-04 02:38:52   
Out of the Blue

Can a thinking, remembering, decision-making, biologically accurate brain be built from a supercomputer?

by Jonah Lehrer • Posted March 3, 2008 05:50 AM

In the basement of a university in Lausanne, Switzerland sit four black boxes, each about the size of a refrigerator, and filled with 2,000 IBM microchips stacked in repeating rows. Together they form the processing core of a machine that can handle 22.8 trillion operations per second. It contains no moving parts and is eerily silent. When the computer is turned on, the only thing you can hear is the continuous sigh of the massive air conditioner. This is Blue Brain.

The name of the supercomputer is literal: Each of its microchips has been programmed to act just like a real neuron in a real brain. The behavior of the computer replicates, with shocking precision, the cellular events unfolding inside a mind. "This is the first model of the brain that has been built from the bottom-up," says Henry Markram, a neuroscientist at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and the director of the Blue Brain project. "There are lots of models out there, but this is the only one that is totally biologically accurate.
<snip>


"totally biologically accurate"?

Well, yeah, if you gloss over the fact that it's missing in the range of 10^13 to 10^15 of these complex biochemical constructs (see below) which, trust me, are MUCH more complicated than they appear at first glance.
--Walter



PS
I foretell a barrage of instruction coming my way on a detailed, Rube-Goldberg-without-the-mechanicals-like, digital substitute for the function of the synapse.

Bring it on if you must.

PS2
Here's my favorite quote in the article:

"The simulation is getting to the point," Schürmann says, "where it gives us better results than an actual experiment. We get the same data, but with less noise and human error." The model, in other words, has exceeded its own inputs. The virtual neurons are more real than reality.

PS3
It's ALIIIIIVE!!!!!!

It didn't take long before the model reacted. After only a few electrical jolts, the artificial neural circuit began to act just like a real neural circuit. Clusters of connected neurons began to fire in close synchrony: the cells were wiring themselves together. Different cell types obeyed their genetic instructions. The scientists could see the cellular looms flash and then fade as the cells wove themselves into meaningful patterns. Dendrites reached out to each other, like branches looking for light. "This all happened on its own," Markram says. "It was entirely spontaneous." For the Blue Brain team, it was a thrilling breakthrough. After years of hard work, they were finally able to watch their make-believe brain develop, synapse by synapse. The microchips were turning themselves into a mind.

PS4
Does "Blue Brain" ever get the "Blue Balls"?

PS5
Welcome to Walter's patented "LiveComment(TM)", where the commenter makes his comments in real-time as he first reads whatever he's commenting on.

It's virtually guaranteed to embarrass the commenter, but hey, who gives a flyin' fark.
« Last Edit: 2008-03-05 17:24:50 by Walter Watts » Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4263
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #5 on: 2008-03-05 17:28:20 »
Reply with quote

Walter sensibly observed:

Well, yeah [you can build a totally biologically accurate brain], if you gloss over the fact that it's missing in the range of 10^13 to 10^15 of these complex biochemical constructs (see below) which, trust me, are MUCH more complicated than they appear at first glance.

Hermit notes:

I think it likely to be a 5 to 15 year process (with an expected 10 year or less attainment cycle, but there is a much greater than zero likelihood that massively dense quantum computing devices will reduce this development time) to attain that sort of computational density, and in the meantime we can refine the underlying models.

Without trivializing the amount of work that lies ahead, I think some important points can be derived from this article:


    Despite the complexity of the biological neuron, it performs a computationally trivial task which these researchers appear to be modeling to within the current limits of analytic resolution..

    Even trivial synthetic brains fabricated from current (simplified) "logical models of biological neurons" display characteristics indistinguishable from biological brains.

    It is possible to fully implement a black-box-brain-equivalent using only fabricated "logical models of biological neurons" with no meta control systems.

    Such a brain reflects all the significant properties of a biological brain - except that it seems likely that once the scaling issues are dealt with, it will be: faster; expandable; rebootable; not age; more reliable and probably less error prone than the biological prototype.

    Significantly, it may also be possible to clone such a brain and it will definitely be possible to evolve it in much less time than it takes to evolve natural brains.

    The ultimate accuracy of the macrobrain will depend on the quality of the modeling of the underlying components.


Kind Regards

Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Fox
Magister
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Reputation: 6.56
Rate Fox



Never underestimate the odds.

View Profile
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #6 on: 2008-03-05 18:50:21 »
Reply with quote

*Is still very sceptical.

As I see it, rebuilding a functioning brain is much more complex. You would have to emulate every little chemical detail, like innumerable different types of neurons, receptors for innumerable molecules, the whole intrinsic system of a brain, like metabolism etc. etc.  In addition, all "extrinsic" components (sensory information, control output) would have to be simulated.  And last not least, neurons would have to be pre-set to very specific states that altogether make sense (including psychic predispositions and memory imprints).

Philosophically, I think of self-awareness (or consciousness), at its core, as the time-shifted interpretation of a "holistic" memory that is constantly changing due to extrinsic and intrinsic events. So my personal conclusions would be:

- It is unlikely that self-awareness can be created artificially
- even if, we would not understand more than we do now.

As I see it, AI science has reached its limit at least 15 years ago. I studied it myself for a while, and even wrote an essay on the field, but found or saw no real progress - despite exploding computational power.

The same with neuroscience. Since the times of Eccles and Popper, there was no innovative approach in the field. They keep discovering very interesting details, but seem to have little idea what it all means. The reductionist as well as the constructivist approaches seem like dead ends.

That's my perspective on the topic. Every now and then, some AI guy pops up in the newspapers and magazines with some full-mouthed news on an imminent breakthrough. The only thing I really see happen is someone aquiring some more funds before vanishing back in the depths of this almost impassable branch of science. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it happen. I just don't see it as being likely - not in the near future at least .

Bottom line: SKYNET 2.0 is coming!

Regards

Fox
« Last Edit: 2008-03-05 19:08:07 by Fox » Report to moderator   Logged

I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #7 on: 2008-03-06 22:23:44 »
Reply with quote

Blunderov turned us on to this fine piece:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/out_of_the_blue.php?page=1


Quote from: Blunderov on 2008-03-04 02:38:52   

[Blunderov] It begins.




and Hermit noted:


Quote from: Hermit on 2008-03-05 17:28:20   


Hermit notes:

I think it likely to be a 5 to 15 year process (with an expected 10 year or less attainment cycle, but there is a much greater than zero likelihood that massively dense quantum computing devices will reduce this development time) to attain that sort of computational density, and in the meantime we can refine the underlying models.

Without trivializing the amount of work that lies ahead, I think some important points can be derived from this article:


    Despite the complexity of the biological neuron, it performs a computationally trivial task which these researchers appear to be modeling to within the current limits of analytic resolution..

    Even trivial synthetic brains fabricated from current (simplified) "logical models of biological neurons" display characteristics indistinguishable from biological brains.

    It is possible to fully implement a black-box-brain-equivalent using only fabricated "logical models of biological neurons" with no meta control systems.

    Such a brain reflects all the significant properties of a biological brain - except that it seems likely that once the scaling issues are dealt with, it will be: faster; expandable; rebootable; not age; more reliable and probably less error prone than the biological prototype.

    Significantly, it may also be possible to clone such a brain and it will definitely be possible to evolve it in much less time than it takes to evolve natural brains.

    The ultimate accuracy of the macrobrain will depend on the quality of the modeling of the underlying components.


Kind Regards

Hermit

I've always been pretty skeptical of achieving "consciousness" with AI.

Not because I don't believe it can be done, but I've never seen any sign that the AI folks were anywhere near taking the right tack to accomplish it.

That is, until I read this article about "Blue Brain".

Three cheers to Henry Markram and his team at Blue Brain.

Finally, some folks who aren't underestimating the complexity of the undertaking from the outset.

The overall approach and methodologies taken by this team are outstanding.

As Hermit states:
"The ultimate accuracy of the macrobrain will depend on the quality of the modeling of the underlying components."

The Blue Brain team seem to have the best start on the required components of any effort I've seen to date.

Let's for a moment assume this absolutely overwhelming task is accomplished, the device drivers for things like sexual desire and appetite are modeled properly, exactly reflecting the function of their corresponding tissue types and  they interact with their respective wetware/hardware properly, all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed, then the damn thing will have no choice but to be conscious and self-aware in the fullest sense of the term.

Modern researchers are finding more and more that consciousness doesn't reside in a specific physical location or tissue type in our brains, but is the result of a multiplicity of functional tissue groups interacting with each other.

This is not to say that some cell types are not more important than others. An absence of some areas, such as the reticular activating system and the intra-thalamic nuclei preclude consciousness. However, these areas do not consciousness make in and of themselves.

When it's all functioning properly, and the neural network makes its 40Hz scan or sweep of all relevant afferent and efferent neuronal activities, then add in feedback from memories, the visual cortex, the limbic system (and a multitude of other integrative systems too numerous to mention), then couple all that with an instantaneous snapshot of the highly dynamic states of all the synaptic models, with their corresponding cholinergic, adrenergic (fight or flight), nicotinic, and a multitude of other chemical lock-and-key agonist/antagonist receptor systems.

Then, without fail, consciousness just happens.

I personally don't believe we will, as humans, be able to accomplish this before we are destroyed either from within or without.

But man, wouldn't it be great to be there if we do pull it off.

After the literal pronouncement of "IT'S ALIIIIIIIIVE!", what would be the first thing each of you would ask this invariably astonished "thing" that was just awakened for the first time in it's existence?


Walter

PS
I think Blue Brain must surely have been thinking of Bart Simpson from the first image in the article (A computer simulation of the upper layer of a rat brain neocortical column. Here neurons light up in a "global excitatory state" of blues and yellows)--(see image).

See the resemblance?

Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.91
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #8 on: 2008-03-07 01:44:38 »
Reply with quote

My job, when the singularity arrives is to become one of its camera men. Basically I'll just be miked for sound with one of the best cell phone cameras to move about in the world, amongst humans and other animals as the AI sees fit, and feed IT information until it has no more need for me. Then I'll live my retirement off the advertising revenues and royalty residuals etc. from my work. Upload me, Dude!
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4263
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #9 on: 2008-03-07 08:15:02 »
Reply with quote

What benefit would a self-evolving AI gain from loading itself up with fragile, irrational and above all, nasty, human intelligences? As for using humans as mobile intelligence gathering systems, even humans have largely given up on that. Even before we have an AI capable of designing, developing and deploying nanobots, Elint is already so much more reliable.

Kind Regards

Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #10 on: 2008-03-07 16:24:01 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2008-03-07 08:15:02   


What benefit would a self-evolving AI gain from loading itself up with fragile, irrational and above all, nasty, human intelligences?

<snip>

Kind Regards

Hermit


I would enjoy following the effort's progress purely from an academic perspective.

Best to you,

Walter
Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2626
Reputation: 8.97
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #11 on: 2008-03-08 01:25:02 »
Reply with quote

If you think there has been no progress in AI then I suggest you haven't been paying attention. Here's a note from someone who is actively working on AI (a former colleague from a2i2) >> http://www.vetta.org/?p=28
Report to moderator   Logged
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #12 on: 2008-03-08 03:15:05 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: David Lucifer on 2008-03-08 01:25:02   
If you think there has been no progress in AI then I suggest you haven't been paying attention. Here's a note from someone who is actively working on AI (a former colleague from a2i2) >> http://www.vetta.org/?p=28



If you are addressing me, I suggest you haven't been paying attention.

I didn't say that there has been no progress in AI.

What I said was: "I've always been pretty skeptical of achieving "consciousness" with AI."


Walter

« Last Edit: 2008-03-08 03:18:59 by Walter Watts » Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4263
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #13 on: 2008-03-08 12:23:21 »
Reply with quote

Walter

I think Lucifer was addressing Fox, who made some silly comments about AI and neuroscience, both of which could be invalidated just by reading Science, never mind infield journals, but which I left alone because I think it would take far too much time for me to respond to here.

As to having to emulate practically every bit of everything, I'm almost certain that much of the human brain is not only unnecessary to create a human scale AI, but comprises evolutionary artifacts unneeded by and possibly even harmful to humans. A number of fairly brutally simplified simulations (high volume and performance emulators though) of the major brain sub systems seems from the literature to be likely sufficient to achieve a human class and scale of thinking.

As for self-awareness, looking at animal studies (including humans), self-awareness appears to be an artifact that arises as a consequence of the level and complexity of thought to which the brain is put. Why do you think it is unlikely to arise in machine intelligence?

Lucifer

Even though our predictions overlap (the usual, "so long as we are not blown to hell and the EOWAWKI does not develop", caveats apply), I think that the referenced paper is a little pessimistic on the time line not only because the development of human scale general intelligence really is more or less density/cost dependent and I expect 3D architectures to dramatically change this for the better within the 5 year +/-3 timescale, but also because the vast strides being made in massively distributed systems may allow aggregates of machines, either ad hoc or specially linked and purposed, to be applied to this field within the 3 +/-3 year time scale. Either way, if we survive the next 25 years I am close to certainty that we will experience the birth of one or more spirothetes - which, if we survive them, will introduce all the social/philosophical/ethical problems for humans who are not ready for it - and the potentially nasty consequences of this unreadyness- which we have already discussed.

Kindest Regards

Hermit
« Last Edit: 2008-03-08 12:42:29 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2626
Reputation: 8.97
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Singularity sighted.
« Reply #14 on: 2008-03-08 15:55:09 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Walter Watts on 2008-03-08 03:15:05   

If you are addressing me, I suggest you haven't been paying attention.
I didn't say that there has been no progress in AI.

If you didn't say that then I wasn't addressing you. Like Hermit said, it was directed to Fox.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed