8 ms·
We can, must, and will simulate nematode brains
- James_K 2y ago[flagged]
- bondarchuk 2y agoIf only..
- James_K 2y ago[flagged]
- brap 2y agoI sometimes wonder about being able to fully simulate a human brain. Maybe even scan/copy a real person’s brain. So many philosophical, ethical and legal questions. And unsettling possibilities. We will probably have to deal with this someday.
- jasiu85 2y agoAlso mmacevedo https://qntm.org/mmacevedo https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
- the__alchemist 2y agoThere's a good deal of sci-fi on the topic. My favorite of them is Neal Stephenson's Fall; or, Dodge in Hell.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- marcellus23 2y agoFor me it's Greg Egan's Permutation City.
- the__alchemist 2y agoThat one's on my to-read list...
- foobarian 2y agoThe Bobiverse series
- tialaramex 2y agoA human mind simulating another human mind is a computational system which is powerful enough to do arithmetic acting on itself, so Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply.
- LPisGood 2y agoI’m not sure where you’re going with this. To wit, no one expects human brains to be capable of arbitrarily complex computation.
- tialaramex 2y agoWhat I'm getting at is that you won't achieve anything by simulating a human brain. Which doesn't mean nobody will try, the World's Richest Man seems determined to send humans to Mars, which is equally futile, but just that it is definitely futile and here's why we know that.
- LPisGood 2y ago> you won't achieve anything by simulating a human brain This does not follow from any theorem of Gödel.
- RotationPedant 2y ago[dead]
- wongarsu 2y agoIt appears inevitable that we can fully map a dead person's neurons and synapses. [1] is doing essentially that for a tiny sliver, with some amazing images to show. From there, it's "just" scaling up. That alone wouldn't be enough to fully clone a person's consciousness. There is information stored in the actively firing synapses. For example short-term memory seems to be stored by sending signals in a loop, and there might be more such mechanisms. Those signals are obviously lost once the brain is dead. Another issue are hormones. The same brain regulated by a different (simulated) body might behave completely different. And then there are probably a lot of unknown unknowns. Despite decades of research there are still a lot of open questions, and more questions will become apparent once we actually start simulating complex brains. But that doesn't mean that those early methods wouldn't be useful, both for science and for more questionable efforts. For example accessing the long-term memory of a recently deceased might be comparatively viable if given enough funding 1: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/15/world/human-brain-map-harvard-google-scn/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/15/world/human-brain-map-har...
- short_sells_poo 2y ago> From there, it's "just" scaling up. I suspect this wasn't your intention, but I feel this heavily undersells how much work is involved in "scaling up" to simulating a human brain. I wouldn't even say that it is inevitable, because there are so many unsolved questions and unknown-unknowns. There are decades of research and we are still an unknown and large number of years away from doing this. Fusion power is more tractable that this. It's not even clear whether our current approach to computation will ever be able to do this. We might need completely novel types of computers, maybe organic-machine hybrids. I'm not even touching on the very real and serious ethical questions of simulating human level consciousnesses.
- wongarsu 2y agoHence the scare quotes around just. Also note how my "just" only applies to scaling from mapping a grain-of-rice-sized piece of human brain to mapping a full human brain. Going from there to simulating it would be another big leap, never mind the challenges to simulate it in a way that actually produces results comparable to the actual brain of that person.
- fmbb 2y ago> We will probably have to deal with this someday. This is quite an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence. As said elsewhere in this thread we can at this moment not even simulate single atoms. I see no reason to believe at all that we will ever be able to simulate a human brain. Unless you want my simulation here: if ishungry: Eat(FindFood()) else: PracticeFingersnowboarding()
- echoangle 2y agoWhy do you assume that we need to exactly simulate single atoms to simulate the brain? We can also do CFD to simulate fluid flows without simulating every atom in the fluid. Maybe that's possible with the brain, too.
- short_sells_poo 2y agoYes, and CFD simulations notoriously break down the moment you scale them up. Look at weather forecasting! Extremely complex models that push the boundaries of modern computational capabilities, and yet we are barely able to forecast weather a day or two out. Sure, we can make vague forecasts over large areas, but errors compound and we lose both granularity and accuracy. And that's with us having a pretty solid understanding of how fluid dynamics works. We have an extremely poor understanding of how a brain works, doubly something of the complexity of the human brain. We are fundamentally unable to study it during operation, because we don't have a non-invasive high resolution access to it's internals. We are basically butchers sticking electrodes into living tissue. The article itself proposes that we may - barely - be able to study the workings of the brain of an extremely simple organism. A rocketry analogy would be Archimedes dreaming about people traveling to the stars.
- echoangle 2y agoI would say the issue with predicting weather by simulating flows isn’t mainly that we can’t simulate single atoms, it’s that we just don’t have enough input data. If I would magically give meteorologists a method to instantly simulate every atom of the atmosphere, they still couldn’t exactly tell me what the weather would be like in a week. It’s too dependent on small input changes for that. > A rocketry analogy would be Archimedes dreaming about people traveling to the stars. What’s wrong with that? The claim was „some day“, not in 5 years. It could take a few centuries or longer.
- goatlover 2y agoThere's a genuine question of whether fully simulating a brain will be enough. We have several hundred million neurons in our digestive system. What we eat, and the kind of bacteria that lives there influences our mood. Same with the rest of our body. Brains are part of a larger organism. What would it mean to just simulate the brain independent of a body? Our sensory organs play a role in processing the incoming sensory stimulus and then send that off to the brain.
- quantum_state 2y agoWhat does it exactly mean by “simulating” a brain?
- tekla 2y agoIts literally like a third of the article
- interroboink 2y agoThe author makes a good point that it's important to define what "a good simulation" means. On one extreme, we cannot even solve the underlying physics equations for single atoms beyond hydrogen, let alone molecules, let alone complex proteins, etc. etc. all the way up to cells and neuron clusters. So that level of "good" seems enormously far off. On the other hand, there are lots of useful approximations to be made. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? If it squidges like a nematode and squirms like a nematode, is it a [simulation of a] nematode? (if it talks like a human and makes up answers like a human, is it a human? ;)
- goatlover 2y ago> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? No, if it doesn't do everything else a duck does. You can have a robot dog, but you won't need to take it to the vet, feed it, sweep up it's hair, let it go outside to go potty, put up a warning sign for the mailman, or take it for a walk. You can have a simulated dog do all those things, but then how accurate will the biological functions be in trying to model it's physiology over time? Will it give us insights into real dog psychology so we can better interact with our pets? Or does that need to happen with real dogs and real human researchers? Wildlife biologists aren't going to refer to simulated ducks to research their behavior in more depth. They'll go out and observe them, or bring them into the lab.
- interroboink 2y agoI suppose that's where a nematode is interesting — it's maybe juuuust simple enough that a real nematode on a plate of agar (as described in the article) might be able to be simulated well enough that we could actually make useful, and even long-term predictions about it based on a mere model. Not to say I'm fully convinced, but I can see the appeal.
- goatlover 2y agoThat would be interesting if so. Certainly worth trying.
- RotationPedant 2y ago[dead]
- warpech 2y agoSuch a beautiful magazine design. Does anyone have recommendations for more skillfully designed online magazines, blogs, etc?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dreamworld 2y agoQuanta magazine, Nautilus
- afh1 2y ago>In 2013, neuroscientist Henry Markram secured about 1 billion euros from the European Union to "simulate the human brain" — a proposal widely deemed unrealistic even at the time. The project faced significant challenges and ultimately did not meet its ambitious yet vague goals Ah, so this is where 45% of my salary goes.
- sva_ 2y agoIt gets worse when they celebrate the success of the project while completely failing to deliver on the initial goal: https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/2023/09/12/human-brain-project-celebrates-successful-conclusion/ https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/2023/09/...
- lm28469 2y ago~60% of these 45% are for pension and health/unemployment insurances. Research isn't even 3% of tax spending in Europe.
- palata 2y ago> This represents the next phase in human evolution, freeing our cognition and memory from the limits of our organic structure. Unfortunately, it’s also a long way off. I'm actually happy it's a long way off. Feels like the richer humans would live with cheat codes, and the others wouldn't.
- sherburt3 2y agoI'd be worried during the brain scan of losing the coin flip and waking up in digital Neura-hell being tortured for eternity for Elon Musk's enjoyment.
- echelon 2y agoI hate that it's a long way off. Ego death is a brutal suboptimum. It's tragic that any entity brought into and knowing of its own existence has to die and be forever annihilated. If humanity has only one goal, and that goal was to achieve immortality for all humans henceforth [1], that would be a noble cause for our species. I hate that those I care about will cease to exist. Fuck death. [1] Maybe we get lucky and they master physics, reverse the lightcone, and they pull each of us out of the ether of time with perfect memories to join them. Sign me up. I consent.
- short_sells_poo 2y agoI sympathise with you, but I'd take a much more optimistic view on this. If death is oblivion, then you won't be able to feel sad that you don't exist since there won't be a consciousness to interpret these feelings. If there's consciousness after death (in whatever form), then it is clearly not the end, just a part of a much longer - possibly infinite - journey. Even better! In either case: it's better to stop worrying about what may come after and enjoy the journey to the fullest!
- lennxa 2y agoHi short_sells_poo, in Hinduism, afaict you - your soul (Ātman [1]) is stuck in a loop of birth-death-rebirth (Saṃsāra [2]). and this is not good, and you live your life in the best way (Dharma [3], Karma [4]) to attain liberation (Moksha [5]), to be one with the God (Brahman [6]), to end the cycle of rebirths. Thought you might find it interesting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Hinduism [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
- Isamu 2y agoIt’s all fun and games until the Nematodes achieve singularity and it’s Skynet
- tomxor 2y agoI'm ok with Skynet having the cognitive capacity of a nematode.
- lawlessone 2y agoWould probably have far greater than human intelligence though. But with the paperclip maximizer reproductive instincts of a nematode.
- tomxor 2y agoYes, it would be a supernematode, but that ultimately is limited by it's base directive to repetitively spasm and lay it's eggs in you... wait.
- cabirum 2y agoI'm afraid a neuron may not be a logic gate with synapses serving as inputs/outputs and behaving exactly the same on every activation.
- dreamworld 2y agoIt's well known it in fact isn't, otherwise learning would be impossible. Learning still isn't perfectly understood but one key characteristic is likely modulating synaptic strength (the weights mentioned). Also, yes, every cell and in particular neurons are very complex systems, although synapses themselves have various simplifying properties (specially along the axon, electrical communication really is the main method of communication).
- dj_axl 2y agoJust wire neurons (human or otherwise) to computers, and see what happens. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-03-05/cortical-labs-neuron-brain-chip/104996484 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-03-05/cortical-labs...
- protonfish 2y agoUnfortunately, it's not that easy. Axon terminals of neurons release neurotransmitters. We know of dozens of different types, but are not certain that we know about all of them yet. The same synapse can release multiple different neurotransmitters too, with one or more released depending on the axonic signals. And what to these chemicals do? It depends! There are receptors on the post-synaptic cell that respond to neurotransmitters, but there can be multiple different receptors that respond differently to the same neurotransmitter. Again, we aren't sure we know about all of them. The post-synaptic neuron is probably also listening to neurons of other types that signal using different neurotransmitters that it uses to determine if it should transmit an action potential or not. Oh, and invertebrates (like nematodes) send graded potentials (not action potentials like us vertebrates usually do) where the signal strength can vary. In short - we are a long way from being able to simulate a nervous system. Our knowledge of neuronal biochemistry is not there yet.
- lennxa 2y agocreate a brain... and make it play doom? https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw
- jl6 2y agocf. the philosophical zombie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie We really have no idea whether consciousness is something that can arise from computation, or whether it is somehow dependent on the physical substrate of the universe. Maybe we can create a virtual brain that, from the outside, is indistinguishable from a physical brain, and which will argue vociferously that it is a real person, and yet experiences no more conscious qualia than an equation written on a piece of paper.
- rpastuszak 2y agoSo a Chinese Room?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slowmovintarget 2y agoTell me you've read Blindsight... and if you haven't, go read it, I'll wait.
- shagie 2y ago... and then read The Freeze-Frame Revolution.
- rpastuszak 2y agoThanks, I've been looking for some recommendations actually. (It's been a few months since the last time I rambled aimlessly through my house muttering consciousness is a parasite under my breath.)
- shagie 2y agoThere's a sequence of stories by different authors that allude to one another that I find to be an interesting read in that order. First, there's the BLIT stories by David Langford. Several of these are online. https://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm https://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm https://www.nature.com/articles/44964 https://www.nature.com/articles/44964 (did you know that Nature did science fiction short stories? https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=futures https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=futures ) https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/different-kinds-of-darkness/ https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/different-kinds-o... Then, you go to Accelerando https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/acceler... > Luckily, infowar turns out to be more survivable than nuclear war – especially once it is discovered that a simple anti-aliasing filter stops nine out of ten neural-wetware-crashing Langford fractals from causing anything worse than a mild headache. This is followed by its sequel-ish Glasshouse https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17866.Glasshouse https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17866.Glasshouse It's not technically a sequel, but one can see the universe of Glasshouse following from the ending of Accelerando. A quick diversion to Vernor Vinge with Peace War and Marooned in Realtime https://www.goodreads.com/series/57273-across-realtime https://www.goodreads.com/series/57273-across-realtime (there's a short story in there titled The Ungoverned) Implied spaces Walter Jon Williams https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2059573.Implied_Spaces https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2059573.Implied_Spaces which takes another approach to the unexplored events leading into Glasshouse and a possible path of escalation. The reference passage in this book is: > “I and my confederates,” Aristide said, “did our best to prevent that degree of autonomy among artificial intelligences. We made the decision to turn away from the Vingean Singularity before most people even knew what it was. But—” He made a gesture with his hands as if dropping a ball. “—I claim no more than the average share of wisdom. We could have made mistakes.” This then ends with... {spoilers}.
- nycticorax 2y agoHN discussion of a related recent story in Wired magazine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43490290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43490290
- dang 2y agoThanks! Macroexpanded: C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43490290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43490290 - March 2025 (130 comments)
- ljouhet 2y agoIsn't it the goal of https://openworm.org/ https://openworm.org/ ?
- lennxa 2y agoplease skim the article. or paste it into an llm and ask the same question.
- koerding2 2y agoMaybe the longer writeup we put out with Michael as co-author helps add some useful extra details: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06578 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06578
- GcryptUser 2y ago[dead]
- nipah 2y agoI love how it is just assumed that "we can" and "we will", a good way to confidently tell you will burn human resources until you get to the point you want. Meanwhile, the most advanced simulations are still rough approximations with little to no realism rather than "in this specific conditions and with this specific neural arrangements I made artificially, it behaves similarly to a real nematode", a good way to make a self-fulfilled prophecy.