3 ms·

>>For now all he's got is a great way to get a lot of funding. You really need to motivate that... The project has afaik finished the first phase with good res

by berntb 17y ago

>>For now all he's got is a great way to get a lot of funding. You really need to motivate that... The project has afaik finished the first phase with good results. (See the interview I referenced.) Also, you don't have to wait until 2019 to see if you are right and the researchers are dishonest and/or idiots. The Blue Brain are going to work on emulating animals with much smaller brains at first.

jacquesm 17y ago
Simulating, not emulating. Yes, the first phase has been successful, maybe even later phases will be successful. But it all depends on how you define success. Let's pretend we're living on an island and we are looking up in to the sky and we see aircraft flying over. Instead of going the 'cargo cult' route to building an aircraft we are a bit smarter and we realize it must be their forward speed that somehow holds them up. So, we build a windtunnel, aim it into the prevailing winds and we make little wooden planes to test our theories of aircraft. Sometimes the winds are strong enough to give us a meaningful result. The shapes will check out, all kinds of stuff will be learned that is useful for making airplanes. And that's where we get stuck, in spite of all our fantastic work in early 'phases' we do not have a functioning aircraft. For that we need other technology that we do not have and that we will not be able to simply acquire by looking at an airplane or even taking apart a crashed one. You need access to a functioning airplane for that, and preferably someone that can explain what technologies went in to building it and how important the various tolerances are. There is more to making an airplane than just the outside view of it. But there are many ways of making things fly, such as a balloon, a rocket or even a glider. Any one of those might be valid for our purpose of making an aircraft and by studying physics (the brain analogy breaks down here) you would learn what really goes in to making an aircraft. For me there is only one phase here that you could claim to be successful or not with respect to the project as a whole, which is to have the thing become sentient, learning a spoken language or so and then to start asking critical questions. All the other 'phases' are mechanistic and so will all be achieved for sure. The last one is the only one that matters. I'm sure we will learn a ton about how 'brains work' at a mechanical/chemical/electrochemical level. But the input data is the wiring diagram + the chemical composition of some of the ingredients. If it would be that easy then it should be possible to restore dead people as well, but it seems that something crucial is broken when a brain is without oxygen for even a very short period. What that is is a big mystery. Religious people call it 'soul', technical people call it 'state'. If you compare the brain with an Eniac style machine where the program is stored in the connections between the neurons then you have to also take into account that the brain is rewiring itself on a continuous basis. But it might be more than that. What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going. Once you unplug it the whole thing goes dead, and even when you plug it in again it stays dead. Just like a computer that only has a front panel and no bootrom. The bootstrapping is what it is all about. A simulated brain might be fully capable of sentience but remain comatose. We'd have no way of knowing, since we do not sufficiently understand the state of comatose people as it is today. We end up feeding them intravenously for years sometimes hoping that they one day will 'wake up'. To me this whole simulation business is just one small step on the way to 'building a brain', it may help you to get some of the details right but to boldly claim that in 10 years you will have a functioning human brain is not clever. It makes the same mistake as the AI people in the past have made, to assume that because the first steps are easy all the steps are going to be equally easy. As far as I am concerned this is open ended research, it may take decades, possibly centuries to achieve the last stage IF it can be done. To put your career on the line with a hard claim like that either means that you have a crystal ball or that you are overly sure about yourself. Scientists announce findings of fact, they do not predict the future in cases as complicated as this one. Anyway, I'm getting seriously out of my depth here, I hope they will succeed with as many 'phases' as possible and I'm happy they have a charismatic project leader that has been able to get the funding required to do this research but I really would have been much happier if he had not named a hard date. That was an unfortunate decision. I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem.
- berntb 17y ago
  >>For me there is only one phase here that you could claim to be successful or not with respect to the project as a whole, which is to have the thing become sentient, learning a spoken language or so and then to start asking critical questions. Uhm, you argue here that it would be without value if you don't solve the hardest problem of all in ten years. Have the Blue Brain project claimed anywhere that they aim for full human behaviour in 10 years?! It would be wonderful if they can simulate a rodent's brain with nerve inputs and get it learn to run in a maze and do similar things. >>If it would be that easy then it should be possible to restore dead people as well, but it seems that something crucial is broken when a brain is without oxygen for even a very short period. What that is is a big mystery. Religious people call it 'soul', technical people call it 'state'. I thought the technical term was "biological damage"? You really seems to argue that anyone with some biological brain damage from oxygen deprivation loses their "soul"?! Either you're drunk, trolling me or you don't know anything at all about biology and damage to the brain and loss of partial function and therapy. >>What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going. I think that argument was killed by electric shock therapy. >>I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem. Uhm, (i) WHAT have the Blue Brain project really claimed? (ii) I'm not an expert (I'll read up on brain science in a few years, when it has stabilized... the field seems to move faster than light, right now) and the little I know is mostly on cellular level, but you really don't know anything at all about biology?
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > Have the Blue Brain project claimed anywhere that they aim for full human behaviour in 10 years?! They predicted that an artificial human brain can be built within 10 years. So, yes. > It would be wonderful if they can simulate a rodent's brain with nerve inputs and get it learn to run in a maze and do similar things. Agreed, that would be amazing. But I can already do that with relatively simple electronics, that does not even require software. What would be even more amazing if this simulated creature showed initiative of its own. > I thought the technical term was "biological damage"? Not neccesarily. A computer that is running a stored program in ram is indistinguishable on an atomic level from one that has just been rebooted but is hanging at the boot prompt waiting for a key press because there is no network to boot from. The one is a useful tool, the other one a door stop. Damage did not enter in to it, the computer is fine, the bootstrap sequence is what is holding it up. > You really seems to argue that anyone with some biological brain damage from oxygen deprivation loses their "soul"?! You are trying to make me sound ridiculous because I tried to draw an analogy between how religious people (and I'm not religious) see the situation and how an electrician or a scientist would see it. State is information, the information is what can be lost, even though you still have all the physical components. > Either you're drunk, thank you for that. > trolling me Apparently not, I don't have time to waste in spite of spending a considerable amount of time on answering you. I may be mistaken, and I'm certainly open to learning. > or you don't know anything at all about biology I've worked my way through a university grade course in Genetics, but do not have any formal education in the field, in fact I have very little formal education at all. That hasn't stopped me from learning though. > and damage to the brain and loss of partial function and therapy. There seem to be a multitude of failure modes, not all of them are well understood. >>What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going. > I think that argument was killed by electric shock therapy. Could you explain that ? >> I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem. > Uhm, (i) WHAT have the Blue Brain project really claimed? To be able to simulate a full brain within 10 years. > (ii) I'm not an expert Neither am I, but I do know that if you make a bold claim like that you have a problem if you fail to deliver. That would be a pity because I think that if there ever is going to be an answer to these questions that answer is going to come from a project like this. By overselling it they are damaging their long term prospects. The same happened to 'regular AI'. > (I'll read up on brain science in a few years, when it has stabilized... I read as much as I can, several hours a day on lots of different subjects, including this one, I highly doubt that they have the trajectory planned out to the point where can state that they will have a functioning artificial brain in 10 years. > the field seems to move faster than light, right now) and the little I know is mostly on cellular level, but you really don't know anything at all about biology? That is your assumption to make, I don't think you are right. But I will not resort to calling you either a drunk or trolling me as you just did, I appreciate the time you took to write your answer. Not everybody that you find yourself disagreeing with is drunk or a troll.

by berntb 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Simulating, not emulating. Yes, the first phase has been successful, maybe even later phases will be successful. But it all depends on how you define success. Let's pretend we're living on an island and we are looking up in to the sky and we see aircraft flying over. Instead of going the 'cargo cult' route to building an aircraft we are a bit smarter and we realize it must be their forward speed that somehow holds them up. So, we build a windtunnel, aim it into the prevailing winds and we make little wooden planes to test our theories of aircraft. Sometimes the winds are strong enough to give us a meaningful result. The shapes will check out, all kinds of stuff will be learned that is useful for making airplanes. And that's where we get stuck, in spite of all our fantastic work in early 'phases' we do not have a functioning aircraft. For that we need other technology that we do not have and that we will not be able to simply acquire by looking at an airplane or even taking apart a crashed one. You need access to a functioning airplane for that, and preferably someone that can explain what technologies went in to building it and how important the various tolerances are. There is more to making an airplane than just the outside view of it. But there are many ways of making things fly, such as a balloon, a rocket or even a glider. Any one of those might be valid for our purpose of making an aircraft and by studying physics (the brain analogy breaks down here) you would learn what really goes in to making an aircraft. For me there is only one phase here that you could claim to be successful or not with respect to the project as a whole, which is to have the thing become sentient, learning a spoken language or so and then to start asking critical questions. All the other 'phases' are mechanistic and so will all be achieved for sure. The last one is the only one that matters. I'm sure we will learn a ton about how 'brains work' at a mechanical/chemical/electrochemical level. But the input data is the wiring diagram + the chemical composition of some of the ingredients. If it would be that easy then it should be possible to restore dead people as well, but it seems that something crucial is broken when a brain is without oxygen for even a very short period. What that is is a big mystery. Religious people call it 'soul', technical people call it 'state'. If you compare the brain with an Eniac style machine where the program is stored in the connections between the neurons then you have to also take into account that the brain is rewiring itself on a continuous basis. But it might be more than that. What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going. Once you unplug it the whole thing goes dead, and even when you plug it in again it stays dead. Just like a computer that only has a front panel and no bootrom. The bootstrapping is what it is all about. A simulated brain might be fully capable of sentience but remain comatose. We'd have no way of knowing, since we do not sufficiently understand the state of comatose people as it is today. We end up feeding them intravenously for years sometimes hoping that they one day will 'wake up'. To me this whole simulation business is just one small step on the way to 'building a brain', it may help you to get some of the details right but to boldly claim that in 10 years you will have a functioning human brain is not clever. It makes the same mistake as the AI people in the past have made, to assume that because the first steps are easy all the steps are going to be equally easy. As far as I am concerned this is open ended research, it may take decades, possibly centuries to achieve the last stage IF it can be done. To put your career on the line with a hard claim like that either means that you have a crystal ball or that you are overly sure about yourself. Scientists announce findings of fact, they do not predict the future in cases as complicated as this one. Anyway, I'm getting seriously out of my depth here, I hope they will succeed with as many 'phases' as possible and I'm happy they have a charismatic project leader that has been able to get the funding required to do this research but I really would have been much happier if he had not named a hard date. That was an unfortunate decision. I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem.

berntb 17y ago
>>For me there is only one phase here that you could claim to be successful or not with respect to the project as a whole, which is to have the thing become sentient, learning a spoken language or so and then to start asking critical questions. Uhm, you argue here that it would be without value if you don't solve the hardest problem of all in ten years. Have the Blue Brain project claimed anywhere that they aim for full human behaviour in 10 years?! It would be wonderful if they can simulate a rodent's brain with nerve inputs and get it learn to run in a maze and do similar things. >>If it would be that easy then it should be possible to restore dead people as well, but it seems that something crucial is broken when a brain is without oxygen for even a very short period. What that is is a big mystery. Religious people call it 'soul', technical people call it 'state'. I thought the technical term was "biological damage"? You really seems to argue that anyone with some biological brain damage from oxygen deprivation loses their "soul"?! Either you're drunk, trolling me or you don't know anything at all about biology and damage to the brain and loss of partial function and therapy. >>What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going. I think that argument was killed by electric shock therapy. >>I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem. Uhm, (i) WHAT have the Blue Brain project really claimed? (ii) I'm not an expert (I'll read up on brain science in a few years, when it has stabilized... the field seems to move faster than light, right now) and the little I know is mostly on cellular level, but you really don't know anything at all about biology?
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > Have the Blue Brain project claimed anywhere that they aim for full human behaviour in 10 years?! They predicted that an artificial human brain can be built within 10 years. So, yes. > It would be wonderful if they can simulate a rodent's brain with nerve inputs and get it learn to run in a maze and do similar things. Agreed, that would be amazing. But I can already do that with relatively simple electronics, that does not even require software. What would be even more amazing if this simulated creature showed initiative of its own. > I thought the technical term was "biological damage"? Not neccesarily. A computer that is running a stored program in ram is indistinguishable on an atomic level from one that has just been rebooted but is hanging at the boot prompt waiting for a key press because there is no network to boot from. The one is a useful tool, the other one a door stop. Damage did not enter in to it, the computer is fine, the bootstrap sequence is what is holding it up. > You really seems to argue that anyone with some biological brain damage from oxygen deprivation loses their "soul"?! You are trying to make me sound ridiculous because I tried to draw an analogy between how religious people (and I'm not religious) see the situation and how an electrician or a scientist would see it. State is information, the information is what can be lost, even though you still have all the physical components. > Either you're drunk, thank you for that. > trolling me Apparently not, I don't have time to waste in spite of spending a considerable amount of time on answering you. I may be mistaken, and I'm certainly open to learning. > or you don't know anything at all about biology I've worked my way through a university grade course in Genetics, but do not have any formal education in the field, in fact I have very little formal education at all. That hasn't stopped me from learning though. > and damage to the brain and loss of partial function and therapy. There seem to be a multitude of failure modes, not all of them are well understood. >>What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going. > I think that argument was killed by electric shock therapy. Could you explain that ? >> I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem. > Uhm, (i) WHAT have the Blue Brain project really claimed? To be able to simulate a full brain within 10 years. > (ii) I'm not an expert Neither am I, but I do know that if you make a bold claim like that you have a problem if you fail to deliver. That would be a pity because I think that if there ever is going to be an answer to these questions that answer is going to come from a project like this. By overselling it they are damaging their long term prospects. The same happened to 'regular AI'. > (I'll read up on brain science in a few years, when it has stabilized... I read as much as I can, several hours a day on lots of different subjects, including this one, I highly doubt that they have the trajectory planned out to the point where can state that they will have a functioning artificial brain in 10 years. > the field seems to move faster than light, right now) and the little I know is mostly on cellular level, but you really don't know anything at all about biology? That is your assumption to make, I don't think you are right. But I will not resort to calling you either a drunk or trolling me as you just did, I appreciate the time you took to write your answer. Not everybody that you find yourself disagreeing with is drunk or a troll.