9 ms·

The Human Brain Project

82 points by snippyhollow 14y ago

vilqqu 14y ago
The project received one billion euros funding today http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/fet/flagship/doc/press28jan13-01_en.pdf http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/fet/flagship/doc/p...
devopstom 14y ago
It'd be interesting if that page listed jobs at partner organisations.. I'd love to be involved with a project like that, but it's difficult to get involved.
- a-priori 14y ago
  Honestly, have you tried simply contacting the project? That's how I got an internship on the Blue Brain Project a few years ago (and in fact have a cameo in the video).
- apdavison 14y ago
  I would suggest checking back after the summer, which is when the project should actually start. Also note, "The HBP has allocated a large proportion of its funding to what we call Competitive Calls. The HBP Competitive Calls Programme will allow researchers from outside the HBP Consortium to propose research and applications development projects using the HBP platforms and to receive funding from the HBP. Proposals will be evaluated by peer reviewers from outside the Consortium. We expect to see many proposals for research and approaches that the current Consortium has never considered" and "From year 3 onwards the HBP will fund a large number of HBP Ph.D studentships and post-doctoral fellowships." (my understanding is that these are in addition to any postdocs recruited by partner organizations using their individual funding for the project).
furbo 14y ago
If that simulation would be conscious, wouldn't it be just as bad (if not worse) as performing experiments on animals ? and if it wouldn't be conscious, wouldn't it conflict with the beliefs of most scientists on the origin of consciousness ?
- yk 14y ago
  If the HBP is really a success and the simulation is conscious, then the simulation should probably get similar rights and protections as a human. ( Whatever freedom of movement means for a supercomputer is a rather interesting additional question. ) And this would likely mean, that the possible experiments on such a simulation need to be severely restrained. On the other hand, if a sufficiently advanced simulation of the human brain would not be conscious, then we run into trouble regarding the purely physical nature of human brains. However, I tend to think that a more rigid definition of consciousness is needed ( and may well be one of the major results of the HBP). I think this, because I am thinking about similar complex programs as a full brain simulation, which demonstrate complex behavior, but no consciousness. ( For example very detailed simulations of super nova explosions.)
- modeless 14y ago
  A digital computer simulation would be fundamentally different from a brain. It could be replicated, backed up, and restored with perfect fidelity. In my view that completely changes the ethics of experimentation.
DanBC 14y ago
> Modern computing technology has brought these goals within sight. Haven't we been saying this since we had vacuum tubes and early chess programs? We thought machine vision would be easy and that turned out pretty tricky. > ICT is ready to give us a completely new understanding of the brain and its diseases; understanding the brain will lead inevitably to radical innovation in computing. I can't help feeling this is backwards. As we learn more about the brain our simulations become better. But I'd be really interested in any computer simulations that have improved our understanding of brain stuff.
- dalai 14y ago
  > I can't help feeling this is backwards. What they are trying to say is that we can put a lot more data into our simulations and run them at different abstraction levels, which will help us improve our understanding of the brain. This improved understanding can be used for innovation in computing, e.g. through neuromorphic processors, see http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/cms/groups/vision/projects/facets/ http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/cms/groups/vision/projects/... which is one of the project partners.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
streptomycin 14y ago
Why start with the human brain? Why not do something simpler first? We can't even simulate the C. elegans brain yet http://lesswrong.com/lw/88g/whole_brain_emulation_looking_at_progress_on_c/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/88g/whole_brain_emulation_looking_at... and that is ridiculously simpler than the human brain.
- neuroguy 14y ago
  From the FAQ - Why not begin with simple organisms like C.elegans? There are two problems here. The first is feasibility; the second is the relevance of our results. Feasibility. Neuroscientists have mapped all of C.elegans’ 300 or so neurons. However, enormous amounts of key data needed are still missing. For instance we do not have enough data on the physiology and pharmacology of C. Elegans neurons and synapses. And we still have limited data on the distribution of ion channels, receptors and other proteins on neurons, synapses and glia. Without this data we cannot build unifying models. A second problem is how easy it is to obtain the data. The crucial requirement for unifying models is the ability to access the data needed. Obtaining a deep understanding of the molecular machinery of a single neuron or a single synapse is just as difficult in C. Elegans as in human beings. And many datasets – particularly data on cognition - are actually easier to acquire in rodents, or even in humans. So we can’t just say: “let’s do this quickly in worms and do complex brains later”: we have to solve the same basic challenges, whatever brain we model. What we are actually doing is building a generic strategy we can use to reconstruct any brain. Relevance: Studying the “simple” nervous systems of organisms like C.elegans or drosophila, is obviously very important, particularly for molecular and genetic studies. However the organization, electrophysiology and function of the mammalian brain are quite different. One of the HBP’s most important goals is to contribute to the development of new treatments for brain disease. But pharmaceutical companies already have great difficulties in translating results from mouse to human beings; with simpler organisms these problems become much worse. If we want to make a real contribution to clinical research, it is probably unwise to invest heavily in simple systems, so distant from the human brain.
  - pbw 14y ago
    So sure there are low-level details that must be understood for any brain, but come on, 300 vs. 100B? Once the big projects have cracked the low-level details, someone will figure out C. elegans. Until we have some smaller organisms emulated, don't expect to have a conversation with their emulated human brain, I just can't see that happening out of order.
jpwagner 14y ago
I don't necessarily doubt the scientists' competence here, but they're just playing the fundraising game when they talk about "disease" in this context.
- a-priori 14y ago
  I agree that the word "disease" is certainly overused these days, there are still some things that should rightfully use the word. Besides, whether you call them "diseases" or "disorders" or another term, there are many ways that our neurology can fail us. The "Classification" section of this Wikipedia article lists several major ones, but there's countless more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder#Classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder#Classific...
corporalagumbo 14y ago
Damn. That's gangster.
jacquesm 14y ago
That's one billion Euros taxpayer money and you will not be reading the results in an open access journal any time soon.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Yes, but one day they will have - hopefully - results. And a commitment to publish in open access journals should have been part and parcel of a funding round like this. A billion is not exactly pocket change.
    - dalai 14y ago
      The EU already encourages open access for FP7 (the current funding programme) and it will become even better for the new one called Horizon2020 starting next year. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/european-commission-embraces-open-access.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/european-commission-emb...
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        Encouraging is not mandating though. But they're definitely on the right path, now they need to see it through.
        dalai 14y ago
        For some projects it is already mandated in the grant agreement. I've heard that this will be extended to all project for Horizon 2020. I am also under the impression, that the EU protects researchers who post the full version of their papers on their websites even when the publisher does not permit it. I could be wrong on the latter. Certainly, there is always room for improvement.
    - apdavison 14y ago
r_m_adler 14y ago
This sounds really interesting - I would definitely apply to work on such a thing. But I am scared away by the science career path. So optimistically you get to develop some neuro simulation code, maybe get a couple of papers out it. What do you do then? Who in industry hires people who worked on this kind of stuff? I'm not trying to be pessimistic - if I figure out a good idea then I'll go for it and apply.
- apdavison 14y ago
  I know several people who have done PhDs in neural simulation and then gone on to work in industry (e.g. banking, IT consultancy). I've also come across a couple of startups building on brain-inspired computing. The only one that comes to mind at the moment is Brain Corporation in San Diego http://www.braincorporation.com http://www.braincorporation.com
nnq 14y ago
At what resolution would you have to simulate the brain to get "human like" properties like consciousness? (quantum/subatomic? molecular? cellular? biologically inspired mathematical abstractions of neurons? simplest computationally useful mathematical abstractions of neurons - like current artificial nns?) - this is the question I find most interesting ..instead of unrealistic goals like predicting drug effects in-silico. It would be helpful to run simulation algorithms with "tunable resolution" on supercomputers to see at what level the interesting properties appear. Though I have better hopes of seeing an answer to this question from the guys doing AI research than from a medical mega-research project or a collaboration... This is very different from the human genome project (where people alredy knew what information they needed and they put together resources to obtain it faster) that they try to imitate in the PR vids...
- vannevar 14y ago
  I agree. To simulate the effects of a drug, you would need to simulate not only the neurons, but the circulatory system, the blood-brain barrier, perhaps even the immune system, and all of their respective interactions. Give the state of our knowledge, a massive publicly-funded project seems premature, like setting out to do the moon landing in 1870.
  - dalai 14y ago
    I don't know about that part of the project, but you could for example simulate the effect of the local interaction between a molecule and a neuron. The mechanisms to put the molecule there could be investigated separately. > Give the state of our knowledge, a massive publicly-funded project seems premature One billion might sound like bucket loads of money, but it is not. There are close to 90 institutions involved and a huge percentage of the funding will need to go to the platforms that need to built. This is more about building the necessary infrastructure to do higher-impact research.
    - vannevar 14y ago
      If this is really just an umbrella term for a bunch of independent research, that's different. The problem with a big project organization is that the administrative overhead involved in coordinating all of those 90 institutions will eat up valuable time and research dollars. And with no clear roadmap to guide priorities, that overhead won't provide any benefit. There's too much basic research left to be done before people start trying to coordinate on building ambitious 'platforms'. Better to simply fund a broad range of independent research and see what emerges.
nextparadigms 14y ago
It seems they gave another billion to graphene research: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-eu-science-idUSBRE90R0HI20130128 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-eu-science-idUS...
alimoeeny 14y ago
Personally, I believe it is too early for such large scale simulations, we have too many unknowns, that makes the simulation not worth the money,

82 points by snippyhollow 14y ago

The project received one billion euros funding today http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/fet/flagship/doc/press28jan13-01_en.pdf http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/fet/flagship/doc/p...

devopstom 14y ago

It'd be interesting if that page listed jobs at partner organisations.. I'd love to be involved with a project like that, but it's difficult to get involved.

a-priori 14y ago
Honestly, have you tried simply contacting the project? That's how I got an internship on the Blue Brain Project a few years ago (and in fact have a cameo in the video).
apdavison 14y ago
I would suggest checking back after the summer, which is when the project should actually start. Also note, "The HBP has allocated a large proportion of its funding to what we call Competitive Calls. The HBP Competitive Calls Programme will allow researchers from outside the HBP Consortium to propose research and applications development projects using the HBP platforms and to receive funding from the HBP. Proposals will be evaluated by peer reviewers from outside the Consortium. We expect to see many proposals for research and approaches that the current Consortium has never considered" and "From year 3 onwards the HBP will fund a large number of HBP Ph.D studentships and post-doctoral fellowships." (my understanding is that these are in addition to any postdocs recruited by partner organizations using their individual funding for the project).

furbo 14y ago

If that simulation would be conscious, wouldn't it be just as bad (if not worse) as performing experiments on animals ? and if it wouldn't be conscious, wouldn't it conflict with the beliefs of most scientists on the origin of consciousness ?

yk 14y ago
If the HBP is really a success and the simulation is conscious, then the simulation should probably get similar rights and protections as a human. ( Whatever freedom of movement means for a supercomputer is a rather interesting additional question. ) And this would likely mean, that the possible experiments on such a simulation need to be severely restrained. On the other hand, if a sufficiently advanced simulation of the human brain would not be conscious, then we run into trouble regarding the purely physical nature of human brains. However, I tend to think that a more rigid definition of consciousness is needed ( and may well be one of the major results of the HBP). I think this, because I am thinking about similar complex programs as a full brain simulation, which demonstrate complex behavior, but no consciousness. ( For example very detailed simulations of super nova explosions.)
modeless 14y ago
A digital computer simulation would be fundamentally different from a brain. It could be replicated, backed up, and restored with perfect fidelity. In my view that completely changes the ethics of experimentation.

DanBC 14y ago

> Modern computing technology has brought these goals within sight. Haven't we been saying this since we had vacuum tubes and early chess programs? We thought machine vision would be easy and that turned out pretty tricky. > ICT is ready to give us a completely new understanding of the brain and its diseases; understanding the brain will lead inevitably to radical innovation in computing. I can't help feeling this is backwards. As we learn more about the brain our simulations become better. But I'd be really interested in any computer simulations that have improved our understanding of brain stuff.

dalai 14y ago
> I can't help feeling this is backwards. What they are trying to say is that we can put a lot more data into our simulations and run them at different abstraction levels, which will help us improve our understanding of the brain. This improved understanding can be used for innovation in computing, e.g. through neuromorphic processors, see http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/cms/groups/vision/projects/facets/ http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/cms/groups/vision/projects/... which is one of the project partners.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

streptomycin 14y ago

Why start with the human brain? Why not do something simpler first? We can't even simulate the C. elegans brain yet http://lesswrong.com/lw/88g/whole_brain_emulation_looking_at_progress_on_c/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/88g/whole_brain_emulation_looking_at... and that is ridiculously simpler than the human brain.

neuroguy 14y ago
From the FAQ - Why not begin with simple organisms like C.elegans? There are two problems here. The first is feasibility; the second is the relevance of our results. Feasibility. Neuroscientists have mapped all of C.elegans’ 300 or so neurons. However, enormous amounts of key data needed are still missing. For instance we do not have enough data on the physiology and pharmacology of C. Elegans neurons and synapses. And we still have limited data on the distribution of ion channels, receptors and other proteins on neurons, synapses and glia. Without this data we cannot build unifying models. A second problem is how easy it is to obtain the data. The crucial requirement for unifying models is the ability to access the data needed. Obtaining a deep understanding of the molecular machinery of a single neuron or a single synapse is just as difficult in C. Elegans as in human beings. And many datasets – particularly data on cognition - are actually easier to acquire in rodents, or even in humans. So we can’t just say: “let’s do this quickly in worms and do complex brains later”: we have to solve the same basic challenges, whatever brain we model. What we are actually doing is building a generic strategy we can use to reconstruct any brain. Relevance: Studying the “simple” nervous systems of organisms like C.elegans or drosophila, is obviously very important, particularly for molecular and genetic studies. However the organization, electrophysiology and function of the mammalian brain are quite different. One of the HBP’s most important goals is to contribute to the development of new treatments for brain disease. But pharmaceutical companies already have great difficulties in translating results from mouse to human beings; with simpler organisms these problems become much worse. If we want to make a real contribution to clinical research, it is probably unwise to invest heavily in simple systems, so distant from the human brain.
- pbw 14y ago
  So sure there are low-level details that must be understood for any brain, but come on, 300 vs. 100B? Once the big projects have cracked the low-level details, someone will figure out C. elegans. Until we have some smaller organisms emulated, don't expect to have a conversation with their emulated human brain, I just can't see that happening out of order.

jpwagner 14y ago

I don't necessarily doubt the scientists' competence here, but they're just playing the fundraising game when they talk about "disease" in this context.

a-priori 14y ago
I agree that the word "disease" is certainly overused these days, there are still some things that should rightfully use the word. Besides, whether you call them "diseases" or "disorders" or another term, there are many ways that our neurology can fail us. The "Classification" section of this Wikipedia article lists several major ones, but there's countless more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder#Classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder#Classific...

corporalagumbo 14y ago

Damn. That's gangster.

jacquesm 14y ago

That's one billion Euros taxpayer money and you will not be reading the results in an open access journal any time soon.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Yes, but one day they will have - hopefully - results. And a commitment to publish in open access journals should have been part and parcel of a funding round like this. A billion is not exactly pocket change.
  - dalai 14y ago
    The EU already encourages open access for FP7 (the current funding programme) and it will become even better for the new one called Horizon2020 starting next year. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/european-commission-embraces-open-access.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/european-commission-emb...
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      Encouraging is not mandating though. But they're definitely on the right path, now they need to see it through.
      - dalai 14y ago
        For some projects it is already mandated in the grant agreement. I've heard that this will be extended to all project for Horizon 2020. I am also under the impression, that the EU protects researchers who post the full version of their papers on their websites even when the publisher does not permit it. I could be wrong on the latter. Certainly, there is always room for improvement.
  - apdavison 14y ago

r_m_adler 14y ago

This sounds really interesting - I would definitely apply to work on such a thing. But I am scared away by the science career path. So optimistically you get to develop some neuro simulation code, maybe get a couple of papers out it. What do you do then? Who in industry hires people who worked on this kind of stuff? I'm not trying to be pessimistic - if I figure out a good idea then I'll go for it and apply.

apdavison 14y ago
I know several people who have done PhDs in neural simulation and then gone on to work in industry (e.g. banking, IT consultancy). I've also come across a couple of startups building on brain-inspired computing. The only one that comes to mind at the moment is Brain Corporation in San Diego http://www.braincorporation.com http://www.braincorporation.com

nnq 14y ago

At what resolution would you have to simulate the brain to get "human like" properties like consciousness? (quantum/subatomic? molecular? cellular? biologically inspired mathematical abstractions of neurons? simplest computationally useful mathematical abstractions of neurons - like current artificial nns?) - this is the question I find most interesting ..instead of unrealistic goals like predicting drug effects in-silico. It would be helpful to run simulation algorithms with "tunable resolution" on supercomputers to see at what level the interesting properties appear. Though I have better hopes of seeing an answer to this question from the guys doing AI research than from a medical mega-research project or a collaboration... This is very different from the human genome project (where people alredy knew what information they needed and they put together resources to obtain it faster) that they try to imitate in the PR vids...

vannevar 14y ago
I agree. To simulate the effects of a drug, you would need to simulate not only the neurons, but the circulatory system, the blood-brain barrier, perhaps even the immune system, and all of their respective interactions. Give the state of our knowledge, a massive publicly-funded project seems premature, like setting out to do the moon landing in 1870.
- dalai 14y ago
  I don't know about that part of the project, but you could for example simulate the effect of the local interaction between a molecule and a neuron. The mechanisms to put the molecule there could be investigated separately. > Give the state of our knowledge, a massive publicly-funded project seems premature One billion might sound like bucket loads of money, but it is not. There are close to 90 institutions involved and a huge percentage of the funding will need to go to the platforms that need to built. This is more about building the necessary infrastructure to do higher-impact research.
  - vannevar 14y ago
    If this is really just an umbrella term for a bunch of independent research, that's different. The problem with a big project organization is that the administrative overhead involved in coordinating all of those 90 institutions will eat up valuable time and research dollars. And with no clear roadmap to guide priorities, that overhead won't provide any benefit. There's too much basic research left to be done before people start trying to coordinate on building ambitious 'platforms'. Better to simply fund a broad range of independent research and see what emerges.

nextparadigms 14y ago

It seems they gave another billion to graphene research: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-eu-science-idUSBRE90R0HI20130128 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-eu-science-idUS...

alimoeeny 14y ago

Personally, I believe it is too early for such large scale simulations, we have too many unknowns, that makes the simulation not worth the money,