Neuroscience

Articles and news from the latest research reports.

202 notes

Will we ever… simulate the human brain?
A billion dollar project claims it will recreate the most complex organ in the human body in just 10 years. But detractors say it is impossible. Who is right?
For years, Henry Markram has claimed that he can simulate the human brain in a computer within a decade. On 23 January 2013, the European Commission told him to prove it. His ambitious Human Brain Project (HBP) won one of two ceiling-shattering grants from the EC to the tune of a billion euros, ending a two-year contest against several other grandiose projects. Can he now deliver? Is it even possible to build a computer simulation of the most powerful computer in the world – the 1.4-kg (3 lb) cluster of 86 billion neurons that sits inside our skulls?
The very idea has many neuroscientists in an uproar, and the HBP’s substantial budget, awarded at a tumultuous time for research funding, is not helping. The common refrain is that the brain is just too complicated to simulate, and our understanding of it is at too primordial a stage.
Then, there’s Markram’s strategy. Neuroscientists have built computer simulations of neurons since the 1950s, but the vast majority treat these cells as single abstract points. Markram says he wants to build the cells as they are – gloriously detailed branching networks, full of active genes and electrical activity. He wants to simulate them down to their ion channels – the molecular gates that allow neurons to build up a voltage by shuttling charged particles in and out of their membrane borders. He wants to represent the genes that switch on and off inside them. He wants to simulate the 3,000 or so synapses that allow neurons to communicate with their neighbours.
Erin McKiernan, who builds computer models of single neurons, is a fan of this bottom-up approach. “Really understanding what’s happening at a fundamental level and building up – I generally agree with that,” she says. “But I tend to disagree with the time frame. [Markram] said that in 10 years, we could have a fully simulated brain, but I don’t think that’ll happen.”
Even building McKiernan’s single-neuron models is a fiendishly complicated task. “For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury,” she says. “At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength.” It’s ignorance all the way down.
“For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,” says Markram. Worse still, experimentally mapping out every molecule, cell and connection is completely unfeasible in terms of cost, technical requirements and motivation. But he argues that building a unified model is the only way to unite our knowledge, and to start filling in the gaps in a focused way. By putting it all together, we can use what we know to predict what we don’t, and to refine everything on the fly as new insights come in.
Continue reading

Will we ever… simulate the human brain?

A billion dollar project claims it will recreate the most complex organ in the human body in just 10 years. But detractors say it is impossible. Who is right?

For years, Henry Markram has claimed that he can simulate the human brain in a computer within a decade. On 23 January 2013, the European Commission told him to prove it. His ambitious Human Brain Project (HBP) won one of two ceiling-shattering grants from the EC to the tune of a billion euros, ending a two-year contest against several other grandiose projects. Can he now deliver? Is it even possible to build a computer simulation of the most powerful computer in the world – the 1.4-kg (3 lb) cluster of 86 billion neurons that sits inside our skulls?

The very idea has many neuroscientists in an uproar, and the HBP’s substantial budget, awarded at a tumultuous time for research funding, is not helping. The common refrain is that the brain is just too complicated to simulate, and our understanding of it is at too primordial a stage.

Then, there’s Markram’s strategy. Neuroscientists have built computer simulations of neurons since the 1950s, but the vast majority treat these cells as single abstract points. Markram says he wants to build the cells as they are – gloriously detailed branching networks, full of active genes and electrical activity. He wants to simulate them down to their ion channels – the molecular gates that allow neurons to build up a voltage by shuttling charged particles in and out of their membrane borders. He wants to represent the genes that switch on and off inside them. He wants to simulate the 3,000 or so synapses that allow neurons to communicate with their neighbours.

Erin McKiernan, who builds computer models of single neurons, is a fan of this bottom-up approach. “Really understanding what’s happening at a fundamental level and building up – I generally agree with that,” she says. “But I tend to disagree with the time frame. [Markram] said that in 10 years, we could have a fully simulated brain, but I don’t think that’ll happen.”

Even building McKiernan’s single-neuron models is a fiendishly complicated task. “For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury,” she says. “At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength.” It’s ignorance all the way down.

“For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,” says Markram. Worse still, experimentally mapping out every molecule, cell and connection is completely unfeasible in terms of cost, technical requirements and motivation. But he argues that building a unified model is the only way to unite our knowledge, and to start filling in the gaps in a focused way. By putting it all together, we can use what we know to predict what we don’t, and to refine everything on the fly as new insights come in.

Continue reading

Filed under brain brain simulation Human Brain Project neuroscience science

  1. brainangle reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  2. imdoingthebesticanok reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  3. healthsciences-stuff reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  4. dip-pen-and-ink reblogged this from somuchscience
  5. eyes-likefire reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  6. scienceinquiries reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  7. clarissasauter reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  8. oniongrass reblogged this from ashynarr
  9. ashynarr reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  10. knissomancy reblogged this from fractalvisionz
  11. mimosa-forest reblogged this from psychedildo
  12. d3adskin reblogged this from fractalvisionz
  13. psychedildo reblogged this from fractalvisionz
  14. fractalvisionz reblogged this from adrenachromedreams
  15. elfboi reblogged this from bwansen
  16. aetherclaw reblogged this from bwansen
  17. bwansen reblogged this from burningonyx
  18. createallow83 reblogged this from adrenachromedreams and added:
    (via TumbleOn)
  19. adrenachromedreams reblogged this from daft-rhapsodist
  20. praxisandcapital reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  21. dclxvii reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  22. saraahlynne reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  23. scictopi reblogged this from neurosciencestuff and added:
    Slow down, Markram… neurologists still haven’t completely mapped the human brain… It’s a noble goal, definitely. But the...
  24. yinxiang24 reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  25. paramundo reblogged this from fromtheweirdtotheinsane
  26. yannatosaurus reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
free counters