It's Thinking
"Way" back in '05, we wrote with enthusiasm about the then up-and-coming Blue Brain project:
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?
If so, Blue Brain will be the first step towards electronic immortality via mind uploading. And even if the "playback" piece doesn't work yet, the "backup" piece will be very encouraging to those who are looking to upload eventually. After all, if IBM can create a working electronic replica of a brain, they should, before long, be able to make a working replica of any brain, including yours or mine. And if the whole brain is backed up, it's just a matter of time before we have computers sophisticated enough to tease out that elusive "mind" thing. (Unless it turns out that there really is something more to a mind than brain function, but I doubt it.)
So, what has become of Blue Brain? Well, an update reveals that the project has made tremendous strides towards creating a virtual rat brain in a computer. This passage in particular caught my attention:
Though the first artificial brain may seem simple, it will be a useful model. Brain researchers can use it to reproduce functions from the real organ and test their theories. As they build in new processes, the model grows ever more detailed -- a sort of wiki project of the mind. It also offers an important advantage over a natural brain, since it lets researchers monitor each and every (simulated) mental activity in the machine.
But -- has there been mental activity?
The newborn "Blue Brain" surprised the designers with its willfulness from the very first day. It had hardly been fed electrical impulses before strange patterns began to appear on the screen with the lightning-like flashes produced by cells that scientists recognize from actual thought processes. Groups of neurons started becoming attuned to one another until they were firing in rhythm. "It happened entirely on its own," says Markram. "Spontaneously."

Perhaps my title for this entry is a little overstated. This isn't quite "thinking" yet. But it's something: self-organizing virtual "mental" activity. What's the brain trying to do? Probably just find the rest of the brain, not to mention the spinal chord and nervous system. I doubt that it's thinking any ratty thoughts so far. On the other hand, that this level of response occurred raises interesting -- and somewhat disturbing -- questions about what will happen a few generations later when we're simulating complete animal and eventually human brains.
What will a virtual mouse brain experience? By then, will we have a virtual body and virtual environment for it, or will a fully functioning brain come on line in a complete perceptual void? That's a pretty troubling question when we're talking about a human brain rather than a mouse brain. Years ago, Harlan Ellison wrote a short story whose title sums it up: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.
Yikes. On the other hand, it might not be horrifying at all. Maybe just a little boring. Or maybe like being asleep.
All the same, I don't think I'll be offering up a copy of my brain for the initial experiments.
Comments
"Spontaneously."
What exactly started happening spontaneously? If I get the article- they netoworked a bucket of cpu's- where each microprocessor stood in for a neuron and then put power into the net. And something happened which was characterized as spontaneous. What happened?
Not speech or word formation, I know. But did the chips do something they weren't programmed to do? And if so- was it something that couldn't be characterized as emergent (as defined by Kevin Kelley in "Wired") ? It's not necessarily that interesting or revealing how "surprised" some observer was- that may may (usually will) say more about the observer than the observed. Unless, of course, the result is shocking in general.
I don't know what a virtual mouse would experience- but then I don't know what an actual mouse experiences.
If accurate, I would theorize a virtual human brain would experience what the human brain experiences. Which I suspect isn't much without eyes, ears, and the rest of the nerve cells that sense and feed the brain. Certainly not self awareness or distinction.
Posted by: MDarling
|
April 9, 2007 01:14 PM