A brain in a supercomputer | Henry Markram

4 076
Exthree - 8 years ago
@Kaeralho It'll happen. Computer power grows exponentially.
matt - 8 years ago
@corkkyle XD
Cork Kyle
Cork Kyle - 8 years ago
I can produce a super-computer that will smoke any supercomputer in production today... it takes me about 9 months to build it, and then about 18 years to train it.
Victorino Silvestre Jr
Victorino Silvestre Jr - 8 years ago
Supercomputer can perform perfectly at Antarctica, Alaska, Greenland, Arctic, North Canada and North Russia.
chaoshallnotfall - 8 years ago
Damn science you're scary !
Awesomenizzleness - 8 years ago
I actually looked this up by using my brain
Kevin Rothi
Kevin Rothi - 8 years ago
This is very similar to Hierarchical Temporal Memory, and both of them are different implementations of Adaptive Resonance Theory.
Ontologistics - 8 years ago
Neurological biophotons are not even mentioned here. But, most importantly, the 'Problem of Emergence' is not even touched!
Subgenius - 8 years ago
that's 100 billion laptops
braydenbeautiful - 8 years ago
ahahaha. No; not even close.
Researches tend to earn very little money, at best. Say, $75,000? He likely earns more considering his position, but that would make him the exception, not the rule
einbischen - 8 years ago
Jeez I wonder how much he gets paid to study such things. A lot or a little? does he make more money than kobe bryant or george clooney?
Boehoehuahoei - 8 years ago
i haven't seen this video for a while now! BUT THIS IS AWESOME!!!! 8 years to go! lol
tilemacro - 8 years ago
Yea maybe on the way we understand the God virus.
xweather - 8 years ago
And, as we can see, Raymond Kurzweil was right: the Singularity is near !
iambehindthemirror - 8 years ago
@hoowoo3 We are not so far away. It's about 40-50 years away. The thing is, the scientists don't have to create an artifical intelligence, but merely emulate the existing intelligence, the human brain. And to do that, we don't need that many generations.
iambehindthemirror - 8 years ago
@neymoura But we don't. There is only a tiny, very short period in the evolution period of a conscious being during which the being is occupied with emulation of living creatures. Our road towards pecfection is very long, and we are almost in the beginning. In a matter of few centuries or millenia humanity will evolve to a certain level, when that happens we won't be occupying our lifes with such things.
ashley liddiard
ashley liddiard - 8 years ago
@jsymons1985 Yip - thats what they have been able to demonstrate with the rat brain simulations - the thing that bugs me is this sounds so much like Jeff Hawkins in his book "On Intelligence" and white papers that follow - question is - which came first? Even though they seam to be competition I belive they are talking the same language - which is a good thing - gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that the answers are just around the corner - exciting times
Subgenius - 8 years ago
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?
Udinbak - 8 years ago
@Udinbak cont3. the study of creating new regions in order to process information in new ways (like a region that analyses visual input and computes precise distances, velocities, mass, angles, weight, etc. or one that can interpret hmtl and has access to the internet) will be invaluable when you (the future) get round to addnig functionality to the human brain.virtualising a new region and integrating it into an unaltered human brain will be the key to transhuman consciousness.
Udinbak - 8 years ago
@Udinbak cont2. The region would have to be passive at first in order to train the new brain to understand the sensory experience, then active control gradually increased while the mind becomes accustomed to making self adjustments. safety protocols in place of course. active and passive control at the early phases would be counter productive, since the young mind would exploratorially make potentially damaging alterations which could render the mind insane. or the equivalent.. just a thought..
Udinbak - 8 years ago
@Udinbak cont. It could see which connections are active during a particular thought, it could refine it's thoguht processes, edvice on improvements, or refinements. It could ask to sever a synapse in order to reduce an unwanted response, strengthen it to increase a desireable response, even request a new synaptic pathway to connect and explore disparate functions/memories/senses/etc (synesthesia). If the new region could make these adjustments, then it would be able to do it automatically.
Udinbak - 8 years ago
just a few tips to consider when you've got the brain mapped and symulated..
basically consider giving it extra regions. by which I mean, for example, create a region which is given information on the brain ie the information the reasearchers are lookng at. not all of it, but at least the map of neural activity. then connect that region with the visual cortex. The point being to allow the simulated consciousness to "see" how it's brain functions. That way, it can give direct feedback.
TheLoserKingdom - 8 years ago
@Flem1337 I'm a 17 year old (a dumb one at that) and I could understand most of what he said. Of course, I did need to search up a bit to have a more thorough understanding of what he was talking about, but hey, we never stop learning.
In face, this video, along with Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk enabled me to get a 96% on my English essay about truth, reality and perception!
I love learning about the brain, and this project excites me!
Kaeralho - 8 years ago
well he has a couple amazing computers that emulate 10000 neurons... that's amazing! just 85.5 billion to go!
ArinOngunTV - 8 years ago
@neymoura We could be living in a box where the stars are just light bulbs. We could be controlled by something bigger.
Udinbak - 8 years ago
@neymoura I'm counting on it
disturbthedead - 8 years ago
@davidfordapple I feel sorry for the fool that gives up without even trying. It's not a matter of "can it be done" but "how soon". There is no logical reason whatsoever that a brain cannot be reproduced by other means.
davidf183 - 8 years ago
It's not gonna work. A machine will not match the human brain
Scott Douglas
Scott Douglas - 8 years ago
Brilliant talk by a brilliant man.
Semblant - 8 years ago
@NerdInHisShoe Haha. Realizing that something is bullshit does not imply that I know what is correct.
SonOfTerra92 - 8 years ago
Science is awesome !!!
RadiantPlasma - 8 years ago
life creates life.
131kimber - 8 years ago
Ethics and free will will be the questions.
There are many good things that can come from this, but the seduction of illegally controlling another that someone else has decided needs "fix" will be a big issue that will need to addressed.
ChimneyBen - 8 years ago
"Not all religious people are reactionary idiots"
Yeah, that's just all the others.. But all religious people are making assumptions based on superstition so how you manage to balance the obviously ridiculous with the ridiculously obvious is beyond me. But I'm not a graduate so what do I know?
Flem1337 - 9 years ago
@AndrewKH85 Its jibberish for people that are not in neuroscience (he's talking to an audience that is IN that field).

Your comment may have value when you get a phd in neuroscience. Until then, he gets priority over your stupidity and ignorance.
Flem1337 - 9 years ago
mental illnesses include anything affecting behaviors, emotions, etc. So depression, ADHD, alzeimer, parkingson, not only insanity. Many are caused by drugs, alcohol, and other chemicals that can destroy neuron connections.

33% of the people have a mental illness, at different degrees, but they still have a disorder.
Stallnig - 9 years ago
@Udinbak I'd rather say 22th century.
sk8teh14 - 9 years ago
I don't know, maybe that is what he meant by "affected". If that's not what he meant, it's a very ignorant statement. If it is what he meant, it's still a very ignorant statement.
Longshot32 - 9 years ago
NerdInHisShoe - 9 years ago
@silentmagesoul Do a TED talk then, since you clearly know what you're talking about.
WhiteSkull RG
WhiteSkull RG - 9 years ago
immortality Muahahahahhah Muahahahaha!!!!
Greyheaven - 9 years ago
Looking forward to his holographic presentation in 9 years!
sk8teh14 - 9 years ago
"There are 2 billion people with mental disorders"
No that's bullshit. I can't believe nobody stood up and walked out at that point. That was such a jawdropping stupid comment. That means one out of every 3 people has a mental disorder you fucking idiot. But mental disorders are arbitrarily defined and not based in science (i.e. caffeine disorder, math disorder, etc). So there's good explanation for that rather shocking/stupid statement - mental illnesses do not exist.
Semblant - 9 years ago
This guy ... has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Especially the end. Total nonsense:
"We indeed, for the first time, saw these ghostly-like structures, electrical objects appearing within the neo-cortical column ... and then when we zoomed into this it's like a veritable universe ... take these brain coordinates and project them into perceptual space"
Really? Really? I don't have enough characters to talk about everything wrong in this segment, but just think about what he's saying.
plutoend99 - 9 years ago
Has anyone seen Ghost in the shell?? Its about a futuristic world where the people's very consciousness can get hijacked, hacked, and corrupted...
TheShnag - 9 years ago
this is so fucking cool
Greight Bob
Greight Bob - 9 years ago
when they crack the code i hope they install firewall
i dont want flash adverts projected into my dreams lol
Nick Ustari
Nick Ustari - 9 years ago
2/2 What H. Markram is building, the blue brain could be the nano computer Michio was referring to that will make silicon-based computer obsolete in the future. After all, it could be the human brain Michio Kaku.
Nick Ustari
Nick Ustari - 9 years ago
1/2 He said ( H. Markram ), that 99.9% of what we " perceive" is not actually what we see. Which manifests how fast at the nano scale the brain is working, even before the eyes have seen the actual object, the mind is already infering and comong up with perceptions which can be verified by the eye. All of which happens in a split second. I remember when MIchio kaku was asked, " is the human brain a nano computer?, Michio answered no in a subtle way. What H. Markram is building, the blue brain .
Nick Ustari
Nick Ustari - 9 years ago
Fascinating. If we are confined in a bubble or territorial space known as the universe and it provides at the extreme human possible extension of his potential, then it it could be seen as a deliberate design for "milking" / nursery / isolation virtual room for potentialities. In the layman's term if we keep on zooming neurons, we would be looking at a quantum representation of ourselves. Perhaps that is how we are created.. just a hypothesis among many other possibilities,
danhi333 - 9 years ago

youre right, nano-technology is next.. there was a video of a laptop with a billion processors inside it, made by precise atom aligning, pretty amazing stuff..
Udinbak - 9 years ago
@ShaveYourBoots How do you know I'm not counting on it? ;P
IsraeliXdude - 9 years ago
Weizmann Institute
jileel - 9 years ago
this is sick (in a good way)
Leos Toltoy
Leos Toltoy - 9 years ago
@neverthat79 Fair point. I took his use of the word "evolving" in the sense of darwinian evolution, but if he simply meant "It's taken 11 billion years for brains to appear in the Universe" and "brains continued to change rapidly" then that's fair and I take back my comment!
neverthat79 - 9 years ago
If the universe is around 15 billion years old, than it took it around 11 billion years to create the first brain. Which also goes together with what he says later, that the universe has evolved a brain to see itself. Also reminds one of Carl Sagan: "We are the way the cosmos can know itself"
TheLoserKingdom - 9 years ago
@The7whoate9 They predict that by 2040 you should be able to upload your brain onto a PC.
christopher miller
christopher miller - 9 years ago
@mtolives Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.
mtolives - 9 years ago
@onedollarwill What do u mean when u say "darwinism" is a proven hoax? Do u realize that u are not qualified to participate in this forum? go away to some creationism video and post there. thank you and goodbye.
Leos Toltoy
Leos Toltoy - 9 years ago
"It took the universe 11 billion years to build a brain". But Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, and life 3.5 billion years old. "The human brain is still evolving at an enormous speed" - I think this is a nonsensical phrase in terms of evolutionary theory. Everything living is evolving at all times, but unless we can point to a very large change in the rate of either death or reproduction influenced by different kinds of brain, we can't predict whether the brain is evolving significant change
Next videos