Henry Markram - The Blue Brain Project (2008)

[zarkoff45]

@davepamn "suggests that you must admit the universe is intelligent."

Define intelligence.

[mannyways]

To emulate the brain of a rat you use rats, to emulate the human brain you wouldnt use RATS! Hmmmm  ?

[FlowCell]

If scientists and engineers create a human sized blue brain, how do we know it isn't concious?

[bighands69]

@FlowCell

reverse engineering architecture of the brain is different from creating a working intelligent structure.

but if a brain is created from scratch then the next stage of science will be to establish a working model of consciousnesses it does open up a whole new chapter.

It may also come down to our own perception and what we are willing to accept.

[jsymons1985]

Once you build the circuit, how do you then model the dynamics of the morphology of the "circuitry" itself, that is, how the neurons re-wire themselves based on learning. If the circuitry is static, and the only dynamics are those of the circuit, namely, the cumulative firings between neurons, the brain is never really learning. Am I right? In other words, the brain architecture changes over time. How do you account for this?

[mattbroderick]

@jsymons1985 You raise a good point here; however, learning mechanisms are fairly well-understood. What I mean by this is that there are several good models that describe how neuron connections change as a result of learning (for reference, see Hebbian models, LTP, and just google "neurobiology of memory"). What we don't know is how all of the innumerable connections give rise to complex processing in the brain. Plus, once all of the connections are mapped, then we can use sims for learning!

[bighands69]

@davepamn

Intelligence may not be random at all.

The universe may not produce true randomness. As the universe may be a finite system and as such would have a limit of energy. even though particle may appear random they may have fixed value sets. Even though particle may have a complex situation that would just be our perception.

500 years ago diseases appeared to be random but today we can see that is not the case as we have ability to model such large data sets.

[JamesTR4]

@bighands69 you are wrong not because your argument isn't correct but because of fact. Quantum mechanics finds processes that are truly random and this randomness happens despite removing all the variables from the system. Of course that's the first part. The second part is that whenever the experiment is conducted, the probabilities are always the expected ones! so there's never any bias that could be because of external variables. The result is always predictible in great numbers. Statistical.

[bighands69]

@JamesTR4

1/1

In a finite universe all particles can only be present in a field.

A finite universe is not infinite and does present unlimited particle reactions and position.

All the computation of particles that take place within the universe has a limit and is not limitless. This limit would be represented by a very large value and not infinity. This limit allows for a maximum amount of particle interaction and reaction.

[bighands69]

@JamesTR4

2/2

With in the universe statistical variance is not random nor chaotic due to the mechanisms of universal limits.

Truly chaotic behavior does not actually exist and it only exists from our limited perception that is confined by our technology.

To have a truly chaotic system would require an infinite universe of infinite particle reactions.

The universe has limits unless you believe that it is infinite.

[JamesTR4]

@bighands69 Bitch puh-lease! there's no such thing as a universal limit in science. You , sir, are deluded and have no idea what you are talking about. The particles are finite, but their interactions are sumed over all the possible paths, as per feynman, the father of quantum electrodynamics. All the fundamental interactions in feynman diagrams are random, like the emission of a photon. What you are suggesting, a maximum amount of interaction, has not been verified by anyone.

[bighands69]

@JamesTR4

Universal computation is limited by energy that is fact.

The amount of mass in the universe is limited by energy.

The universe has limits and is not infinite.

Even S-matrix is limited by energy and universal size. It is only random due to our limitations of our models at present.

[JamesTR4]

@bighands69 Proof for that? How do you explain that each time u run the experiment, you get the same probability for it? If our model was flawed, then certainly some variables we didn't account for would change the probabilities in each researcher's experiment. That doesn't happen! Also, your statements about energy cannot be joined together because they are illogical and hasty generalizations. Totally pseudoscientific claims. True randomness exists, whether u know it or not...

[bighands69]

@JamesTR4

It would be truly impossible for me to provide you with mathematical proof on Youtube due to the limitations of the text format.

And it is not my model either.

What you are doing is taking purely mathematical probability and trying to apply it to the universe. The problems you have with this is the mathematical forms are infinite but the universe is not.

What you are referring to is S-matrix theory and that is purely conceptual but when applied it has limits.

[JamesTR4]

@bighands69 the universe is mathematical. And the universe does infinite calculations because it measures all the possible paths as in the path integration by Feynman. So the universe provides framework for infinite calculation...

[bighands69]

@JamesTR4

Computation cannot exceed the amount of energy that is contained within the universe.

Do you think that there is not limit to energy.

The expansion of the universe will lead to a period of particle decay and then to black hole saturation.

Thermal decay will lead to heat death of the universe and this is the point were by computation will no longer exist.

The reason for this is the fact that computational is proportional to the amount of energy present.

[JamesTR4]

@bighands69 wrong, computation and energy have different measures, so computation cannot be said to not exceed the amount of energy.

Also, the heat death of the universe isn't confirmed, because of the great collapse. Get ur facts str8

[bighands69]

@jsymons1985

You can account for this by creating a functional set that is dynamic within a given field.

If there is enough data collected then it could be possible to create a statistical architecture that is fluid enough to mimic real world distribution.

In other word find the maximum and minimum variance and then generate linear regression by random distribution.

I know that this is an over simplification and that generating such a physical mechanism will be complex.

[jsymons1985]

The glitch ends at 44:15 let people know by thumbing up!

[jeffreydcatl]

@davepamn

Penicillin.

[bighands69]

@davepamn

Maybe there is no such thing as creation only order and sequence.

What I mean is that all particles may just be the resultant of an actionable energy presence.

Obscured is just our perceptional experience and not necessarily a true present. 

[Lior98B]

Great lecture!

For another Remarkable Lecture of Henry Markram please go to the "Blue Brain Project" page on Wikipedia, and look for the link:

"Reconstructing the Heart of Mammalian Intelligence"

under the 'References' section at the bottom. There is more very interesting stuff under this section, check it out.

Also search in YouTube for the videos:

"Rat Brain Robot"

and:

"Monkey Moves Robot Using Mind Control"

(videos: 1QPiF4-iu6g, and IoRVZgLaXus) * *  * * *