Half a mouse brain simulated on a supercomputer

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
The scientists ran a "cortical simulator" that was as big and as complex as half of a mouse brain on the BlueGene L supercomputer.

In other smaller simulations the researchers say they have seen characteristics of thought patterns observed in real mouse brains.

Now the team is tuning the simulation to make it run faster and to make it more like a real mouse brain.

Life signs

Brain tissue presents a huge problem for simulation because of its complexity and the sheer number of potential interactions between the elements involved.

The three researchers, James Frye, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan, and Dharmendra S Modha, laid out how they went about it in a very short research note entitled "Towards Real-Time, Mouse-Scale Cortical Simulations".

Half a real mouse brain is thought to have about eight million neurons each one of which can have up to 8,000 synapses, or connections, with other nerve fibres.

Modelling such a system, the trio wrote, puts "tremendous constraints on computation, communication and memory capacity of any computing platform".

The team, from the IBM Almaden Research Lab and the University of Nevada, ran the simulation on a BlueGene L supercomputer that had 4,096 processors, each one of which used 256MB of memory.

Using this machine the researchers created half a virtual mouse brain that had 8,000 neurons that had up to 6,300 synapses.

The vast complexity of the simulation meant that it was only run for ten seconds at a speed ten times slower than real life - the equivalent of one second in a real mouse brain.

On other smaller simulations the researchers said they had seen "biologically consistent dynamical properties" emerge as nerve impulses flowed through the virtual cortex.

In these other tests the team saw the groups of neurons form spontaneously into groups. They also saw nerves in the simulated synapses firing in a ways similar to the staggered, co-ordinated patterns seen in nature.

The researchers say that although the simulation shared some similarities with a mouse's mental make-up in terms of nerves and connections it lacked the structures seen in real mice brains.

Imposing such structures and getting the simulation to do useful work might be a much more difficult task than simply setting up the plumbing.

For future tests the team aims to speed up the simulation, make it more neurobiologically faithful, add structures seen in real mouse brains and make the responses of neurons and synapses more detailed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,043
614
126
LOL, I checked this out and posted it in P&N, too... :)

Staggering news... I guess at least it stands a chance of being seen by more people.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Wow.

That's some crazy sh!t.

It seems to follow along the same lines of "life" research we're doing. Basically, if you put all the necessary things together, life and evolution happens naturally. In this case, with such intricate connections, even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.

I suppose it's not surprising really, but this kind've research could lead to some amazing things. It took 4,000 processors with like what, 10Tb of ram to make half a mouse brain "think" for 1 second.. lol.

What we should do is pour research into biological computers and energy sources. I'd love to give my cell phone some water and a food pellet every couple of days instead of recharging batteries. ;)
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
It sounds neat, but they didn't accomplish anything. In no way did they represent what a brain actually does and the extremely vague descriptions of the results leave a lot to be desired. I find it very hard to believe that they will model a real brain with a computer at any point in time because of the natural limitation on what a computer can do compared to what a brain can do.

I was thinking about this the other day actually and it occurred to me that the way the brain works is so foreign to how our modern electronics work that it's no wonder we are having such a hard time figuring it out. We always try to equate our vision with the refresh on a monitor or TV, but it just doesn't work that way. There is no vertical scan in your brain - the image is just continuously processed. Someone might say, "then explain why a frame rate of less than 30fps is detectable by just about everyone?" and to that I would answer because even a continuous data transmission has propagation delays and that seems to be the lower limit of our optical/neural system. Interesting stuff to think about for sure, but I don't see how we will ever reconcile the differences between how we think the brain works and literally how the brain works. Not any time soon anyway.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,902
2
76
If they want a mouse so bad, why don't they go to the !@$%^#$ pet store and get one!?!?!?

:p
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
because of the natural limitation on what a computer can do compared to what a brain can do.
There are no natural limitations on what a computer can do compared to what a brain can do. It's easy to be deceived in thinking so, but unless the brain is doing quantum calculations, obviously not the case, then a classical computer can do the same.

 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Why buy a supercomputer when you can go to the pet store and get a mouse with a FULL mouse brain for $1.99?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.

So an infertile person is not alive?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
It sounds neat, but they didn't accomplish anything. In no way did they represent what a brain actually does and the extremely vague descriptions of the results leave a lot to be desired. I find it very hard to believe that they will model a real brain with a computer at any point in time because of the natural limitation on what a computer can do compared to what a brain can do.

I was thinking about this the other day actually and it occurred to me that the way the brain works is so foreign to how our modern electronics work that it's no wonder we are having such a hard time figuring it out. We always try to equate our vision with the refresh on a monitor or TV, but it just doesn't work that way. There is no vertical scan in your brain - the image is just continuously processed. Someone might say, "then explain why a frame rate of less than 30fps is detectable by just about everyone?" and to that I would answer because even a continuous data transmission has propagation delays and that seems to be the lower limit of our optical/neural system. Interesting stuff to think about for sure, but I don't see how we will ever reconcile the differences between how we think the brain works and literally how the brain works. Not any time soon anyway.

Maybe they can do it with analog computers?
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.

So an infertile person is not alive?

No, they as a species are able to reproduce. They have the capability, it just isn't working right in that particular individual.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
The half-brained mouse simulation isn't running properly until it says:

Gee, Brain what do you want to do tonight?

Point! Narf!
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.

Yes of course, infertile people are dead. Your grandmother is a zombie, creepy isn't it?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.

So an infertile person is not alive?

No, they as a species are able to reproduce. They have the capability, it just isn't working right in that particular individual.

What if you had a factory that made industrial robots? You make the industrial robots with the same kind of robot you're producing. Are those robots alive?
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.

So an infertile person is not alive?

No, they as a species are able to reproduce. They have the capability, it just isn't working right in that particular individual.

What if you had a factory that made industrial robots? You make the industrial robots with the same kind of robot you're producing. Are those robots alive?

Johnny 5 IS alive. ;)
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Eli
even though it isn't "alive".. it functions the same way.
If it functions the same way, what makes you presume it isn't alive in the same way?

You're right though, it's probably not alive to any distinguishable degree, it doesn't have the necessary structure. If it did however, it would be.

You have to be able to reproduce yourself to be considered alive, hence a thinking computer would not be.

So an infertile person is not alive?

No, they as a species are able to reproduce. They have the capability, it just isn't working right in that particular individual.

What if you had a factory that made industrial robots? You make the industrial robots with the same kind of robot you're producing. Are those robots alive?

That's not the only condition... bleeshers, bio was back in high school - don't strain my memory! :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
That's not the only condition... bleeshers, bio was back in high school - don't strain my memory! :p
If you want to uphold the 'biological' definition of life, fine. Then by this definition you don't have to be alive to be conscious and think.
 
S

SlitheryDee

What signals are they putting into the simulation in order to verify that it's actually working like a mouse brain? I mean, if you don't give it something to do or react to then it won't do anything right?



"Digital cheese odor invokes hunger response in virtual mouse brain"
 

GoSharks

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 1999
3,053
0
76
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
I find it very hard to believe that they will model a real brain with a computer at any point in time because of the natural limitation on what a computer can do compared to what a brain can do.

What natural limitations are you speaking of? We already can model simple systems with networks such as the Hopfield net.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
I find it very hard to believe that they will model a real brain with a computer at any point in time because of the natural limitation on what a computer can do compared to what a brain can do.

What natural limitations are you speaking of? We already can model simple systems with networks such as the Hopfield net.

Maybe the ability to think and make rational or emotional decisions? Call me a skeptic, but as a computer engineer I find it to be extremely far fetched to think a computer will be emotional, dream, lust, or do any other human (living thing) activity. We can't create life, we can only model it, and since every response has to be modeled, we would have to model every situation basically an infinite number of ways to represent how a human would respond. When someone can explain what consciousness is, then I will jump on the bandwagon.

Edit: I know the OP is only talking about mice brains, but obviously this is leading down a pathway to "copy" human behavior.
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
as a computer engineer I find it to be extremely far fetched to think a computer will be emotional, dream, lust, or do any other human (living thing) activity.
For a computer engineer you're extremely short sighted. The few computer engineers I've talked to understood that the brain is a physical system like any other well within the bounds of a classical touring machine. As miraculous as your 'consciousness' may seem, it's just that.