views:

242

answers:

8

Our brain consists of billions of neurons which basically work with all the incoming data from our senses, handle our consciousness, emotions and creativity as well as our hormone system, etc.

So I'm completely new to this topic but doesn't each neuron have a fixed function? E.g.: If a signal of strength x enters, if the last signal was x ms ago, redirect it.

From what I've learned in biology about our nerves system which includes our brain because both consist of simple neurons, it seems to me as our brain is one big, complicated computer.

Maybe so complicated that things such as intelligence and cognition become possible?

As the most complicated things about a neuron pretty much are the chemical aspects on generating an electric singal, keeping itself alive, and eventually segmenting itself, it should be pretty easy emulating some on a computer, or? You won't have to worry about keeping your virtual neuron alive, or?

  • If you can emulate a single neuron on a computer, which shouldn't be too hard, could you theoretically emulate more than 1000 billions of them, recreating intelligence, cognition and maybe even creativity?

In my question I'm leaving out the following aspects:

  • Speed of our current (super) computers
  • Actually writing a program for emulating neurons

I don't know much about this topic, please tell me if I got anything wrong :)

(My secret goal: Make a copy of my brain and store it on some 10 million TB HDD and make someone start it up in the future)

+1  A: 

Researchers far smarter than most recon so, see Blue Brain from IBM and others.

The Blue Brain Project is the first comprehensive attempt to reverse-engineer the mammalian brain, in order to understand brain function and dysfunction through detailed simulations.

Theoretically the brain can be modeled using a computer (as software and hard/wetware are compatible or mutually expressible). The question isn't a theoretical one as far as computer science goes, but a philosophical one:

Can we model the (chaotic) way in which a brain develops. Is a brains power it's hardware or the environment that shapes the development and emergent properties of that hardware as it learns

Even more mental:

If I, with 100% accuracy modeled my own brain, then started the simulation. And that brain had my memories (as it has my brain's physical form) ... is it me? If not, what do I have that it doesn't?

I think that if we are ever in a position to emulate the brain, we should have been working on logical system based on biological principles with better applications than the brain itself.

We all have a brain, and we all have access to it's amazing power already ;)

Aiden Bell
404 on that link
JL
Fixed. That site is down too.
Aiden Bell
+1  A: 

I don't think they are remotely close enough to understanding the human brain to even begin thinking about replicating it.

Scientists would have you think we are nearly there, but with regards to the brain we're not much further along than Dr. Frankenstein.

Galwegian
Do you have any evidence to backup those spurious claims?
Aiden Bell
@Aiden, even the most cutting edge (publicly available) research into human brain function goes very little to describing how the human brain remembers, learns, imagines or produces varying states of consciousness. We are still a long way from understanding this.
Galwegian
@Galwegian - a) He is talking about virtual reproduction of the physical (the what) not understanding the how or why. b) Still a lack of quantitative evidence - just subjectivity.
Aiden Bell
Dr Frankenstein managed to produce a conscious being! If we're "not much further along" than him then HOLY S**T!
Robin Day
@Robin, I suppose you're right ;-) @Aiden, I understood what the OP was proposing... I still believe we're a long way off. I am backed up by the fact that there is no current literature suggesting we are remotely close.
Galwegian
@Robin - ah, you *do* know Frankenstein was a ficticious character, right? ;)
Jonners
@Jonners - "Frankenstein's monster" was fictitious, I think Frankenstein was loosely based on a dude.
Aiden Bell
@Aiden - you may be thinking of Erasmus Darwin, who was said to have animated dead matter through the use of galvanism. Dr. Frankenstein was a purely ficticious character created by Mary Shelley as the protagonist of a horror story about that general theme.
Jonners
@Jonners - Cool.
Aiden Bell
+2  A: 

The key problem with simulating neural networks (and human brain is a neural network) is that they function continuously, while digital computers function in cycles. So in a neural network different neurons function independently in parallel while in a computer you only simulate discrete system states.

That's why adequately simulating real neural networks is very problematic at the moment and we're very far from it.

sharptooth
Some research suggests we *do* have an internal clock: http://thefutureofthings.com/news/8443/internal-brain-wave-clock.html I could cite better if I weren't lazy.
Aiden Bell
@sharptooth, programs can also run in parallel and cores can run at different clocks. The problem is having enough of them on chip and yet have it be cost and computationally efficient.
Michael Aaron Safyan
As long as your "cycle" is small enough then anything can be deemed to function "continuously". It could, for example, be considered that the entire universe is tied to the "pulse" of a quark.
Robin Day
a plank cycle maybe
Aiden Bell
A: 

A word of caution. Current projects on brain simulation work on a model of a human brain. Your idea about storing your mind on a hard-disk is crazy: if you want a replica of your mind you'll need two things. First, another "blank" brain. Second, devise a method to perfectly transfer all the information contained in your brain: down to the quantum states of every atom in it.

Good luck with that :)

EDIT: The dog ate part of my text.

miquelramirez
The secret goal part was ment to be a joke :)
JoelK
If I could, I would ;)
Aiden Bell
if we could emulate the brain, your first condition is met -- we have that "blank" brain. That's what's being asked: is it possible to create such a thing.
Bryan Oakley
I see a stark difference between the processes happening on the human brain and a computer-based simulation of such processes based on some mathematical model which is abstracting a lot of detail. What is useful to predict patterns in the activation of neurons given certain stimuli is not necessarily useful to predict - let alone, replicate - human-like decision making.
miquelramirez
+2  A: 

Simulating a neuron is possible and therefore theoretically simulating a brain is possible.

The two things that always stump me as an issue is input and output though.

We have a very large number of nerve endings that all provide input to the brain. Without them the brain is useless. How can we simulate something as complicated as the human brain without also simulating the entire human body!?!

Output, once the brain has "dealt" with all of the inputs that it gets, what is then the output from it? How could you say that the "copy" of your brain was actually you without again hooking it up to a real human body that could speak and tell you?

All in all, a fascinating subject!!!!

Robin Day
Plus the non--neural things that appear to influence behavior -- the whole endocrine system may be part of what we experience as "consciousness". How much of that is influenced by the biota living in our gut? Does "gut feeling" have an actual biological basis? If so, then brain is only one small part of what we are.
S.Lott
Exactly, its all "input" and "output". It goes so far beyond just nerve endings its impossible to comprehend.
Robin Day
A: 

What is your goal? Do you want a program that can make intelligent decisions or a program that provides a realistic model of how the human brain actually works? Artificial intelligence can be approached from the perspective of psychology, where the goal is to simulate the brain and thereby get a better understanding of how humans think, or from the perspective of mathematics, optimization theory, decision theory, information theory, and computer science, in which case the goal is to create a program that is capable of making intelligent decisions in a computationally efficient manner. The latter, I would say is pretty much solved, although advances are definitely still being made. When it comes to a realistic simulation of the brain, I think we were only recently able to simulate a brain of cat semi-realistically; when it comes to humans, it would not be very computationally feasible at present.

Michael Aaron Safyan
+2  A: 

A neuron-like circuit can be built with a handful of transistors. Let's say it takes about a dozen transistors on average. (See http://diwww.epfl.ch/lami/team/vschaik/eap/neurons.html for an example.)

A brain-sized circuit would require 100 billion such neurons (more or less).

That's 1.2 trillion transistors.

A quad-core Itanium has 2 billion transistors.

You'd need a server rack with 600 quad-core processors to be brain-sized. Think $15M US to purchase the servers. You'll need power management and cooling plus real-estate to support this mess.

One significant issue in simulating the brain is scale. The actual brain only dissipates a few watts. Power consumption is 3 square meals per day. A pint of gin. Maintenance is 8 hours of downtime. Real estate is a 42-foot sailboat (22 Net Tons of volume as ships are measured) and a place to drop the hook.

A server cage with 600 quad-core processors uses a lot more energy, cooling and maintenance. It would require two full-time people to keep this "brain-sized" server farm running.

It seems simpler to just teach the two people what you know and skip the hardware investment.

S.Lott
+1 for "It seems simpler to just teach the two people what you know and skip the hardware investment", though teaching someone who you are takes a lifetime.
Aiden Bell
@Aiden Bell: "teaching someone who you are takes a lifetime" Not necessarily. Skip the mistakes, wastes of time, boring parts, failures, etc. What's left? Not a whole life time, certainly.
S.Lott
Whilst this answer is obviously true, he specifically left out hardware limitations and was talking theoretically. Plus we all know that yesterdays building sized computers can now fit in the palm of your hand...
Robin Day
@S.Lott - Where's your romantic side :P and aren't the mistakes and failures as important as the successes
Aiden Bell
You are forgetting that the transistors in digital processors are configured for switching and more than one transistor is used per gate. The closest you could do to a real neural network with transistors would be to build operation amplifiers that would be ganged together. This would probably multiple your number of required transistors by at least 20.
Matthew Whited
@Robin Day: While true, one issue is scale. The brain is compact, fast, and highly optimized.
S.Lott
+3  A: 

Roger Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. If it's like that you can forget about building a brain with a computer...

Alin
+1 for the only answer here that addresses whether it's physically possible with electronic hardware (ignoring size and speed limitations). AIUI Penrose believes that animal brains are capable of a higher order of computation than is achievable with a Turing machine -- well it may not be an order of computability but it is something similar. The reasoning is quantum mechanical. I'm sceptical about the idea but he is pretty highly regarded in math *and* physics so I don't dismiss it out of hand.
Edmund
any link? (15chars)
hasen j