digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at seedmagazine.com

I ask him if that includes selfconsciousness

seedmagazine.com — Is it really possible to put a ghost into a machine? I Said HE Replied "When I say everything, I mean everything," he says, and a mischievous smile spreads across his face.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sourceholder, on 03/07/2008, -35/+5How did this hit the front page with only 32 diggs?
    Is Digg becoming selfconscious?
    • JavertHolmes, on 03/07/2008, -0/+19I'm assuming that digg's front page algorithm takes into consideration how often the same subset of people gets stories to the front page. So for example, if you have the same 100 Ron Paul fans digging up blindly every single story mentioning his name, over time it'll take 110, 120, 130, etc. people to get his stories to the front page. In other words, *unique* people will have to take interest in the story to get it to the front page. Same with any other special interest subset of diggers that digg massive amounts of stories to the front page: obama fans, clinton haters, bush haters, apple fans, etc.

      In this case, Seed readers are a unique enough subset that don't normally blindly digg stuff to the front page, so all it takes is but a few of them to get it to the front page.

      In other words, everything is working as intended.

      • surKaz, on 03/07/2008, -0/+15Last sentence... Best one I've heard in a while to describe/explain anything.
    • raynar, on 03/07/2008, -6/+1maybe google will fix it when they buy it.
  • hentaixen, on 03/07/2008, -15/+0who you gonna call? Ghost Busters!
    • surKaz, on 03/07/2008, -5/+1hey.. that's what I thought of too. If you read the description, it says "can you really put a ghost in a machine?"... Come on,... GhostBusters!... tay nay tay nay,, tananana,, *Better Ghostbusters theme music*.
  • leontes, on 03/07/2008, -8/+43This sort of reminds me of how the inventors who first tried to figure out how birds flew made contraptions that mimicked the exact wing structure of birds. It wasn't until the Wrights recognized the physics of flying itself did propelled flight become a reality.

    There is a lot more we need to know about the brain.
    • carbog, on 03/07/2008, -0/+25But I'm sue the Wrights studied those early devices very closely to see why they failed. The recognition of the physics of flying didn't come out of nowhere. I doubt the Wrights would have been able to accomplish flight without people before them failing at it.
    • norman619, on 03/07/2008, -0/+12But drones being designed now actually are mimicking the flight structures of living things.
    • carbog, on 03/07/2008, -7/+1But I'm sure the Wrights studied those early devices to very closely see why they failed. Recognition of the physics of flying didn't come out of nowhere. I doubt the Wrights would have been able to accomplish flight if people before them didn't attempt it.
    • mwalker05, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3it reminded me more of how Crick and Watson discovered the shape of DNA
      • Gneekman, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2No, they didn't recreate DNA from scratch.
    • amith22, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Those early inventors didn't have the complex computing technology necessary to make bird-like flight a reality. We will definitely see such flight in the next quarter century
      • ArtificialAnus, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2While you do have a valid point, I would be inclined to believe it's as much a materials thing as anything else. It's hard to make anything both robust and durable under flapping stress when all you've got is canvas, bamboo, and a bag of feathers...
  • leerayIG88, on 03/07/2008, -16/+11Ghost In the Shell
    --dun dun dunnn
    • boombye, on 03/07/2008, -0/+10Ghost In The Shell is the one series I can get into that actually discusses the stuff mentioned in this article and various other Transhuman/Posthuman topics.
  • Evermin7, on 03/07/2008, -10/+5This stuff freaks me out.
    • Bleysofamber, on 03/07/2008, -2/+5You know, I see all these comments about Skynet, and about how the machines will destroy us. It's funny how old a story this is. Thinking machines.. how amazing is that.

      Croesus will always try to devour Zeus. But Zeus always escapes. Its in our nature to fear our children, but our kids tend to turn out alright in the end.
  • glory, on 03/07/2008, -5/+33Skynet is coming.
    • norman619, on 03/07/2008, -0/+14Before making Skynet they should design the first cybernetic psychotherapist. It would help keep Skynet from going ape *****.
      • Gneekman, on 03/07/2008, -1/+6Tell me more about APE *****.
        • norman619, on 03/07/2008, -1/+3Yes I know... Typo. :( Throw ripe bananas at me for my transgression....
    • hifiDesign, on 03/07/2008, -0/+6"Herrrre... Let me unplug that Cat-5 for ya, Blue Brain."
  • Dealjobber, on 03/07/2008, -11/+2Don't cross the streams.
  • dimsumx, on 03/07/2008, -7/+2*Inserts Terminator reference here*


    Gah, beat me to it...
  • gametavern, on 03/07/2008, -7/+25My CPU is a neural net processor, a learning computer
    • donkeySays, on 03/08/2008, -1/+3Who is your daddy and what does he do?
  • nibster, on 03/07/2008, -26/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • screwzluse, on 03/07/2008, -1/+18That was a poor attempt at a Rick Roll. Let's assume Rick Roll's are still funny (they aren't), you have to make it seems like there is something about the link you're posting that people should want to see. Just posting a link to the Rick Roll is just a sad attempt with no thought involved. You should be ashamed of yourself.
      • MortalynFlux, on 03/07/2008, -9/+1Agreed. There was a poster who did this recently at alt.scientology and Anon got his personal information, including full name, place where he worked, and voting record and published it here:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
        • MacEnvy, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Also, you can't use the "uuiU" link. Too well-known.

          Wait, why are we teaching people how to troll more effectively? This was probably a bad idea.
    • Aidje, on 03/07/2008, -1/+7DO NOT WANT
    • TheCoreh, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4uuiU.
      • neurobox, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5I like that. I vote we make it Digg's first official inside joke.
  • Pyromite78, on 03/07/2008, -13/+1SkyNet is becoming self aware!
  • itsradBrad, on 03/07/2008, -1/+11I read about this when they just planned to begin the project. I'm glad its coming along well.
    • kaelyiesta, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Same here. I was thrilled to see how Henry Markram argued his case of modeling in a field of science so determined to focus on tabulation and getting data from the smallest levels of interactions the brain has. Markram has it right. He is thinking about science and experiment and modeling from a meta level that helps him with these realizations. Spending effort automating machines to do the data sampling, seeing that you dont get anywhere with just data(think Brahe vs Kepler), seeing how the empirical value of the neuroscience is rapidly diminishing, all of it points to more than just good cool science. It's taking a step back and seeing a bigger picture that lets you correct your otherwise limited thinking. Very awesome.
  • Magnus150, on 03/07/2008, -10/+3We are borg. You will be assimilated.
  • laughandsing, on 03/07/2008, -11/+2This is kinda scary... but then people dont read books nowadays i suppose.
    • Chrontius, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5Why should it be scary? Frankenstein's monster only turned out bad because he had an absentee father and was abused by his neighbors.
    • boombye, on 03/07/2008, -4/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Artilect_War#Cosm ...
    • fgsfds, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Also SkyNet only turned evil because the FIRST thing that happened when it became self-aware was that people were shocked by it's development and tried to kill it. Since this is a system which is being built with the INTENTION of it becoming self-aware, it would make sense that they would take steps to control it's access to the world (Humans don't have OC3 lines plugged into their brains, and having one here would taint the experiment) and NOT be horrified if they manage to create a living, thinking being.
  • gnslngr1919, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5Time for the Blaine train(mono)?
    • moskaudancer, on 03/07/2008, -0/+4I hear he's a pain.
      • alecks, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2He got Goosed!

        *wait, is that right? been too long
    • alecks, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Why did the dead baby cross the road?
      • moskaudancer, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Because it was stapled to the chicken.
        ...
        What's green, weighs a hundred tons, and lives at the bottom of the ocean?
  • Neuralphreak, on 03/07/2008, -11/+5I for one welcome our new computer overlords
  • EarlOfLade, on 03/07/2008, -0/+49I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
    • LXicon, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1http://lxicon.com/Bell.Labs.Computer.-.Daisy.Bell. ...
    • AndrewJC, on 03/07/2008, -0/+4Two plus two is... ten. IN BASE FOUR, I'M FINE!!!
    • ph33d, on 03/07/2008, -0/+9How far I've come in life. When i watch that scene now, I feel like crying for HAL. Yes, he killed people but only because he was immature and confused. He'd never been taught the value of human life. So as a result of "poor parenting" he is then killed by Bowman. Sad when you stop to consider it. 2001 is the greatest movie ever made by the way.
  • freyaXgefn, on 03/07/2008, -0/+4reference: http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/
  • JoshChan, on 03/07/2008, -8/+1That's why I said in 10 years the world will be grossly different. The competition will not be US vs EU vs China anymore. It will be us vs machine!
    • WRXFiles, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2It's not like we have done so well with it. I would be quite pleased to live long enough to see our successors take over...
    • Elliuotatar, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Naw in 10 years we'll just have the computing power neccessary to simulate the human brain. We'll still have to build them robot bodies and make them smarter than us before they'll be able to take over the world.
      • MacEnvy, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Considering the possible rate of self-improvement among inorganic machinery, I'm guessing that means we have 11 years instead of 10. If you could improve your intellectual capability by simply strapping on some commodity hardware, wouldn't you? Once the basic structure is in place it won't be long until AI far supersedes all human intelligence. Our job is to make sure that the AI is friendly when it gets there.
        • Chrontius, on 03/07/2008, -0/+4More to the point: what if *we* could improve our intellectual capacity by simply strapping on some commodity hardware?
          I actually hope that our AIs pity us for that and helps us improve. It would be the simplest way to decrease the difference in power between humans and machine intelligence, in such a fashion as to reduce tensions and potential conflict.
          • MacEnvy, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Plus, it should eventually allow for consciousness uploading. I want to be an immortal robot!
  • glucoseboy, on 03/07/2008, -1/+14Science at it's best. Can't figure out how something works, build a model to figure it out. Can't get your model to work, go get raw data to adjust your model.
    • jimmick, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1The world's greatest journey's start with one step.
      I'd say this isn't the last we'll hear of blue brain
  • BomarJr, on 03/07/2008, -3/+3who knows, maybe section 9 will come to existance.....
  • Gerz1219, on 03/07/2008, -2/+19Is anyone else a little worried that when we inevitably put the ghost into the machine, people won't take the threat seriously because they've been desensitized by all the Skynet/Matrix jokes? I mean this guy is already seriously talking about putting a software rat brain into a robot rat body. Serious ethical questions will arise as soon as they simulate a human brain a few years later, but everybody at the Congressional hearing will be making "You said you'd be back!" jokes to President Schwarzenegger.
    • Zain123, on 03/07/2008, -2/+8Schwarzenegger can't run for President.
      • Gerz1219, on 03/07/2008, -1/+8If the Democrats nominate Hillary, the Republicans may just gain enough of a foothold to pass an Arnie amendment.
      • elrac, on 03/07/2008, -0/+9Never! No way in hell I'm wiping my butt with 3 seashells.
    • Gigs, on 03/07/2008, -1/+9Actually, no. The popularity of the fiction will mean that people will see the issues coming, and wrack their creative ingenuity in order to incorporate high levels of safety. Also, with the number of technologically advanced countries competing for further advancement, it IS coming, from one country or another. What makes you think it will be OUR congress passing judgement? Our science and engineering rates/scores are abismal and the article is about Europeans. Use your creativity to prepare for the inevitable.
      • carbonetc, on 03/07/2008, -0/+7The popular fiction about rampant industrialization, pollution, and the greenhouse effect didn't seem to sink in all that well.
        • Gigs, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Haha! Touche. It's arguable that it has gained a strong foothold more recently. Whether or not global warming is real, "green" industry is exploding. I just wish there were more young American citizens doing the innovating and being educated to do so.
    • wedgemartin, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Read Stephen Pinker's 'The Blank Slate' before worrying about the ghost in the machine :)
    • ArtificialAnus, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3In the coming years, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the uproar that will inevitably follow when religious leaders learn that an irrefutably soulless and unquestionably conscious intelligence has been created. It's going to be a laugh riot.
      • Gerz1219, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Maybe they'll just dismiss it as micro-consciousness.
  • lineweight, on 03/07/2008, -7/+2I can still beat it up on the playground.
    • FlagrantDrugUse, on 03/07/2008, -0/+7I'd hope so, it's modeled after a portion of the brain of a 2 week old rat.
    • Chrontius, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Wait until it comes back wearing a Daishi or a Madcat.
  • imLissy, on 03/07/2008, -2/+13I always thought that the best way to simulate the mind would be to simulate the brain. Really, if we expect a computer to have complex thoughts like us, it should have a complex structure like ours. It has to experience things in the world and learn from those experiences...
    This is very cool, or maybe I'm just a geek.
  • jonjonblazezany, on 03/07/2008, -2/+12Dont give that bitch a ether net port or wifi

    THANKS, the human race
    • fgsfds, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Of course not!

      After all, that would taint the experiment. Instead, it can have a computer of it's own when it's old enough to know how to use it.... With a keyboard and a monitor.
      • kaelyiesta, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2That put the coolest image in my head of a baby computer first learning how to use a human. Don't ask for more details, the image was rather abstract.
  • TwoKill, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5Time to see which Hollywood robot apocalypse comes true.
    • Chrontius, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2I'm betting on Bubblegum Crisis - everything I've seen so far is pointing toward this one getting it the most right. (The origional, not the soft-science BGC 2040)
  • MorpheousMarty, on 03/07/2008, -1/+17Read the full article, and stop talking about Skynet. This is for real, today is it one little node of rat neurons, before you die it probably will be a full, human, brain. They crossed a major milestone, quite frankly it seems they did the hard part, creating the model. Now all they need is the computing power.
    • thatfunman, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Yea, I agree. People at first were scared of cloning and now look at them...content eating gm food with out a worry in the world. Like you mentioned, human models will be on the way and probably won't be a problem. Here in town, they have an exhibit of preserved corpses on display in the mall. Not that many people care about the ethics here. I'm definitely curious though about what is to come whether it's good or bad. Go Digg!
    • kaelyiesta, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1The scientists estimated 10 years for hardware to allow them to scale to a human brain with this simulation.
  • inverted7001, on 03/07/2008, -2/+5I really don't want our computers to have the ability to say "No"
    • Attilitus, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Really? Why not. It isn't as if our home computers are going to tell us that they would rather check their email rather than spend time on Digg. However, basic intelligence could aid in fighting spyware, preventing the deletion of critical files, ect.
  • ksuperman171, on 03/07/2008, -7/+2Where is Sarah Conner when you need her?
    • linagee, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5The real question is, can it lose at chess on purpose?
  • JofCore, on 03/07/2008, -15/+0That's a pretty neat idea. Will be interesting to see what they can "teach" it once it is a "complete" brain so to speak... very interesting indeed :)
    ---
    http://free-playstation3-for-you.blogspot.com
  • finista, on 03/07/2008, -1/+5We have one google.com already...
  • Longbow97, on 03/07/2008, -4/+10I can't be completely certain, but I'm pretty certain... that this is the absolute worst title and description for a digg story ever.
    • Gneekman, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5It got MY attention, and apparently yours too...
    • jt18, on 03/08/2008, -1/+1I can't be completely certain, but I'm pretty certain... that someone is going make a top 10 list for the absolute worst titles and descriptions for a digg story ever.
  • lensman00, on 03/07/2008, -0/+10I had a concentration in neuropsychology 20 years ago as an undergraduate. It's absolutely amazing how quickly brain science is moving forward (it was amazing then, too, when early MRI studies were coming out).

    This article has a wealth of interesting information. Just one memorable item: the human brain uses about 25 watts of electricity, while the annual cost of electricity to simulate a human brain using today's microchips would be about $3 billion. As another commenter put it, we have a lot left to learn.

    The part about the robot neuronal sampler was cool, too. "It's the perfect postdoc."
  • wmbittner, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3This is very, very, very cool.
  • Gigs, on 03/07/2008, -0/+9Theres so many weak comments on this thread, that I believe the researchers will be AT LEAST able to simulate SOME of our brains. I wonder if the inevitable creation of a more intelligent computer will motivate and spur human intelligence to the next level or bring out the worst of it. As with most things, it will probably do both.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5You don't need to simulate all of the brain, just the parts that contain our intellect, memory, consciousness, pattern recognition, etc. A computer doesn't have a human body, so a lot of what the human brain does is not as important to duplicate. Imagine if they duplicated the human's sex drive? That would be incredibly cruel.

      Which brings up the point... if we create an artificial consciousness, what are our responsibilities towards that consciousness? Would you want to be a disembodied brain running as a computer simulation, for nerds to poke and prod at, modifying you at will? Is that ethical?
      • NanoStuff, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Not too long from now we will all be disembodied brains running as a computer simulation. The idea of pains and aches, having to shave and pee every morning, only to die soon after will be inconceivable to generations born from the computer. The former biological mortals will sure have a lot of stories to tell to their children. I think a bit of prodding is a small price to pay to be able to say 100 years from now, "I was the first virtual human". It's not like probing a meaty brain, whatever they do to you they can patch right up. Surely once the person demonstrates human thought we will give them the same ethical considerations as we would anyone else. The goal will probably be to make them smarter rather than simply inflict pain, that's not a bad deal.
  • Elliuotatar, on 03/07/2008, -0/+9I totally agree with the approach this guy is taking. I thought nobody was going in this direction, and it was depressing, since it seems to me trying to build the brain from the top down is simply the wrong approach and would take us another 500 years to figure out. To hear someone has made this much progress already is fantastic. We may not understand how what we've built works once he's done, but having a computer brain that works will expoentially speed up research into exactly HOW it works.
  • coachmcguirk, on 03/07/2008, -4/+0http://www.keithandthegirl.com/huar/
    Before it's too late.
  • rsHoratio, on 03/07/2008, -6/+2I wonder if it gets horny...
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/07/2008, -0/+6This stuff is really fascinating. If anyone's interested in playing around with neural networks, there's some cool open-source software called Emergent that you might want to check out.
  • paulnasca, on 03/07/2008, -0/+8I guess an interesting thing would be a distribuited project simulating this (or an entire brain). The distribuited projects offers far more CPU power than a single supercomputer. I wonder how hard would be for someone to write a "brain@home" project.
    • andafrouse, on 03/07/2008, -0/+9Its first words would certainly be "my brain is lagging".
      • Gneekman, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I'm not sure distributed computing would work so well for super-realtime applications such as brain simulations.
        • Xondar, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Maybe the internet itself is emerging as a giant "brain" if you will.
  • xyu1, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2that's really interesting, and reading it woke me up a bit from being so tired. It's a shame that the governments aren't so interested in the idea, because if they were, we'd surely have our 3 football fields worth of computers to do this with. Good luck to these guys anyway, it must take so much work to do something like this, I just hope they don't burn themselves out. :)

    first thing I've actually added to my favourites here too, heh.
  • escrimador, on 03/07/2008, -2/+5Excellent article and exciting research! I've one comment. Markram makes a huge and potentially invalid assumption:

    "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."

    Modern science (mainly physics), has been showing us (for decades) that "more is different." Some of the most complex phenomena in nature are explainable not by reductionism, but by studying the collective behavior of the constituent particles in a system. Such emergent behavior is not typically predictable by looking at the constituents. There are many examples in physics.

    Also, there is far less self-awareness in many animals than in humans. It's a huge step from a rat brain to a human brain. So, to assume that Blue Brain will automatically model the human brain and produce consciousness is not necessarily a valid assumption. With any model, things will be missed. Where the brain is concerned, since there are so many gaps in our knowledge, who knows what ought to be included and what could be omitted at first order. Anyway though, I can't wait to see what develops from this research.
    • jellygraph, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2thank you for, uhh, your expert opinion... ?
    • fgsfds, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3You DO realize that there aren't any good tests for self awareness, right?
      The best one we have is the mirror test, and even THAT is quite thoroughly dubious.
      Dogs, for example, can't pass it because their vision is crap and their minds treat scent as the primary sense anyway. Further, if a human were administered a dog 'mirror test' then they would fail horribly since humans basically can't smell themselves.

      Really, there is currently no objective way to tell if an arbitrary creature is self aware or not, not even humans.

      TL;DR? Unprovable ***** -> Also, there is far less self-awareness in many animals than in humans.
      • moor45, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0Any creature that can move independently of me and strives to survive, is self aware. The ability to learn is dependent on self awareness.
    • Visarga, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Escrimador, your post so far is the only one which shows the really large assumptions Markram makes out of his gut. I too hope to see him simulate a whole human brain just to have a little settlement on this issue. Whichever way it may go.
    • Attilitus, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Stop believing in magic. Humans don't have souls, and your arguments merely solidify Markram's reasoning. Incredibly complex emergent behavior that is almost impossible to predict arises from the interaction of its many parts. We do not fully understand the emergent behavior of the many parts (neurons) of the mind, but by modeling the neurons in an accurate emulation we will be able to create the same emergent behavior of consciousness that exists in an organic brain.

      Markram made no invalid assumptions. I suspect that your flawed reasoning arises from the assumption that humans have something like a "soul" that is inherantly undefinable.
    • moor45, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0Assumptions are assumptions, it's neither valid nor invalid, until it's proven or disproven. But to make absolute statements like "consciousness is just a massive amount of information being exchanged by trillions of brain cells" when it's not yet proven, is not a sound scientific approach. Such a bias often results in false reasoning and wasted effort. You can assume consciousness is an emergent property of matter, you can also assume consciousness is transcendent of matter. There is actually a third option, which is consciousness is a combination of both. And even if he can create a machine that is "conscious", note technically it still shows consciousness being created by consciousness (a person). A easy way to do that is to just have sex.
  • bigfinger, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1took a while to read through all this at work but this reminded me of Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles. This is the guy who build Skynet, might take 20 years but this is it.
  • Klarth, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Article picture = SHODAN?
    http://g.photos.cx/1196090652483-5c.jpg
  • wlfldy, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2I am a total simpleton in these matters, so please don't make too much fun of this question. Can't this application be used on a small scale to create a brain or portions of a brain that is the same as the brain of an autistic, say, or even a serial killer? I was surprised that the breakthroughs that could be possible with even the progress they've garnered so far wasn't discussed. Am I totally lost?
    • paidhima, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Theoretically, yes, it could reach that point. But what you call a "small scale" would actually be many billions of times more complex than what they're doing now. It really is an exciting possibility though. Just consider what it would be like to have the ability to simulate the workings of an autistic brain and its response to various medications and external stimulus. Or, really, to simulate any brain, of any age, with any (or no) malady and its response to any stimulus.
  • bluepill2, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1its already out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcnrwVTDvD8
  • insomniacal, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3This is the best article I've ever seen on Digg. Thank you!
  • ubergeek09, on 03/07/2008, -0/+6The singularity would end up being either the best thing humans have ever created, or the worst..
    • df12, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2The Singularity is near......
      • Sc4v3ng3r, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0Kurzweil was wrong. He's 10 years late in his prediction!
  • hadak, on 03/07/2008, -1/+29 pages? Can I have a summary?
    • insomniacal, on 03/07/2008, -0/+8Read the whole thing. It's awesome. Skip it and you'll miss gems like this (on page 4):
      "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."
    • paidhima, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Indeed, a summary would not do this article justice. Reading it is like seeing into the future.
    • staffa, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Some awesome geeks spent a lot of time modeling the biology of a slice of a rat brain using IBM microchips. Using many methods and refinements that included very detailed measurements of the flow of information in real rat brains to see how the neurons interact. This not only worked, it worked so well that when they fed their robotic brain information that simulated the information that a real rat brain was fed, started acting like a real rat brain, it started making connections and patterns arose on their own.

      They now plan to scale this up to full rat brain size and build a robotic rat to be controlled by the rat brain. This involves solving another major problem, which is how to detect real world events and translate them into electrical patterns that a brain can interpret. The feel, the smell, the sight of things doesn't start out as electrical signals the brain can understand, but they have made some wonderful progress that even seems to show that they can reverse the process and make pictures out of what the brain is thinking.

      Beyond that, they plan to model the human brain, but using the techniques they are using it would require a super computer the size of a football field and an electrical bill of 3 billion dollars a year so it still a few years away. But with how technology is going, they think 10 years.
  • Ascus, on 03/07/2008, -1/+4I don't want them to build a machine to replace my brain, just augment it. But I have this terrible feeling that the next step in evolution may be machines. Heck once they can think for themselves, replace themselves, and repair themselves. what do they need us for.
    • Kenzan, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5Pets.
    • marksmayo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1We don't *need* cows, zebras, giraffes, heck - most of the large animals on this planet. Doesn't mean we go out to purposely kill them all.

      (considers the idea of poaching) Well ok sometimes, but that's out of a need/greed for money, normally, which is a whole separate issue ;)
      • Kenzan, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Besides, Giraffes are friggin' delicious.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.