Blue Brain

By | June 14, 2005

One of the favorite tropes of both science fiction and extropian speculations about the future is the idea of uploading human consciousness into a computer. Uploading will require two things:

1. An appropriate storage medium for holding not only the data that a brain contains, but the metadata that defines relationships between the data, as well as the “application logic” that knows what to do with this data and the “operating system” on which the whole thing runs.

2. Sufficiently robust processing power to emulate the hardware functions of the brain.

Of the two requirements, the second seems the more daunting. Surely we have enough storage that we could back a brain up (should we figure out a way of doing that.) But reading a brain and playing it back…? That’s going to take some doing.

Of course, these requirements overlay the “computer” paradigm onto brain function, which defines relationships between hardware, software, operating system, and database that are very different from what you would find somewhere behind the screen you’re now looking at. But ultimately, that’s what we have to do, unless we’re prepared to create a machine that operates less like a computer and more like a brain…

…which leads to this highly interesting development:

Yorktown Heights, NY and Lausanne, Switzerland, June 6, 2005 – IBM and The Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) are today announcing a major joint research initiative – nicknamed the Blue Brain Project – to take brain research to a new level.

Over the next two years scientists from both organizations will work together using the huge computational capacity of IBM’s eServer Blue Gene supercomputer to create a detailed model of the circuitry in the neocortex – the largest and most complex part of the human brain. By expanding the project to model other areas of the brain, scientists hope to eventually build an accurate, computer-based model of the entire brain.

By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, the neocortex is that special core brain part that only mammals have. That’s how you can tell a mammal brain from a reptile brain. Look for the neocortex. From this site, I learned that the neocortical column (NCC) is a handy building block for higher brain function, and that a human brain is really nothing more than a robust collection of specilaized NCCs working together in harmony.

So in other words, once IBM gets a single NCC emulation running, they are well on their way to emulating an entire neocortex and, eventually, an entire brain. The question, then, is this: will a computer emulation of a brain produce a computer emulated mind? (For an interesting discussion on that point, go here, via Kurzweil AI.)

  • Toby928

    “I am some kind of process, some sense of continuity.”

    At the risk of getting excessively trekkie, isn’t that the ‘transporter’ problem. That creature produced at the remote location isn’t you however much he may think he is. He’s just a point-in-time copy. Existence or the semblence thereof seem to rely exclusively on the perception of continuity. For all I know, every time I go to sleep ‘I’ cease to exist. When ‘I’ wake, the semblence is restored. Sort of like a computer program paged out. How would I know the difference.

    Tobias

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    “Ash and the crystal” – didn’t they have a top-ten hit a couple of years back? ;-)

    You would want the chrystal to contain a digital copy of your complete genome – just in case there was nothing left of your physical body to clone. A homing beacon would be a good idea too.

    “how different is it from just loading the contents of the crystal onto a computer and running an emulation of me?”

    Continuity. Well…only if the chrystal was doing more than data storage. If, after installation, the chrystal became actively involved in your thought processes or slowly compensated for those areas of your brain that wear out, this would become a part of the mind rather than just a backup. That continuity could allow you to make the trip to a new body or to virtual reality.

    Any other backup scheme, including a destructive scan backup, leaves me wondering whether its live or Memorex.

  • Toby928

    “If, after installation, the chrystal became actively involved in your thought processes … this would become a part of the mind rather than just a backup. That continuity could allow you to make the trip to a new body or to virtual reality.”

    Excellent point. If memory implants were available now, I would get them immediately. When eventually, all my memory is mecha, would I still be me? Will souls stick to crystal?

    Tob

  • http://www.livejournal.com/users/jackwilliambell/ Jack William Bell

    I’m for the full-uploading option. My thoughts here.

  • http://www.feoamante.com visvivalaw

    The application software may well be available, and it’s open source too! Have you read “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins (the guy who founded Palm Computing and Handspring)? He’s a life long brain science geek and believes he’s come up with a working theory of how the neocortex functions. He used his substantial fortune to create the Redwood Neuroscience Institute to further the research and just recently announced the formation of a new company called Numenta, to market software based on Hawkins’ “Common Cortical Algorithm”. There’s a developer sign up to get access to the software as soon as it becomes available (later this year). If Hawkins is right, AI research has been going in the wrong direction and intelligent machines based on his theory may be a reality this decade.

  • Nicole Tedesco

    You are right: the big problem will be recreating the “I” experience.

    While Francis Crick & Company have been doing a great job with delving into specific brain function models and showing how much of an automaton each of us is when it comes to “free will” (how much of our “free will” is biophysical reaction), I think they are quite wrong in asserting that the observed phenomena are all there is to the problem of consciousness. Crick & Co. fail to account for “experience.” I may not have free will, but “I” certainly experience the effects of my will, whether or not my “will” is simply a complex biophysical response to changes in environmental states.

    A playback mechanism may be created for our high-fidelity brain backup system, and it may certainly appear that the playback mechanism is faithfully doing its job to the point where any observer cannot tell the difference between the “will” of the mechanism and the “will” of the original biological entity associated with that backup, but there is currently no way for us to know whether or not the doppleganger is actually “experiencing” anything at all.

  • Brian H

    Yep; the other insuperable objection to uploading is the duplicates problem. Any construct of hard- and soft-ware and data can be duplicated, as can, therefore, any “upload”. Since both can’t be the the original, neither is the original. Q.E.D.

    The ‘wake-up as a rebooted self’ problem is also insuperable, IMO. Short of staying awake forever, there is no way to be certain that “my” existence didn’t begin this morning and won’t end when I next fall asleep. Maybe an explanation for my frequent insomnia? :D

  • Anonymous

    Why is assumed that if there’s a lack of continuity, it begins and ends at sleep? Did it ever occur to you that the ‘I’ or ‘you’ of every second and every thought isn’t the same ‘I’ or ‘you’ that is thinking this thought now?