We Can, Must, and Will Simulate Nematode Brains
Importance: 7 | # | ai, biology
A near-perfect simulation of the human brain would have profound implications for humanity. It could offer a pathway for us to transcend the biological limitations that have constrained human potential, and enable unimaginable new forms of intelligence, creativity, and exploration. This represents the next phase in human evolution, freeing our cognition and memory from the limits of our organic structure. Unfortunately, it’s also a long way off. The human brain contains on the order of one hundred billion neurons — interconnected by up to a quadrillion synapses. Reverse-engineering this vast network would require computational resources far exceeding what’s currently available. Scientists seeking a proof of concept for whole brain emulation have had to turn to simpler model organisms. And by far the simplest available brain — at just 300 neurons — belongs to the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.
Simulating a brain, even one with only 300 neurons, will be a huge achievement. 'Simulating' is a loaded and somewhat ambigious term, Skuhersky defines it as:
a good simulation of a nervous system is one that both accurately replicates its functionality and reliably predicts the future activity of a real system under the same initial conditions. That is, a simulated nematode in a simulated plate of agar should behave the same way as a real nematode in a real plate of agar. If we disturb the simulation — say, by poking or shining a light on it — it should respond the same way the real nematode would. And it should keep acting like a real nematode over time, instead of accumulating more error as time goes on.
A brain-on-chip is a fundamental way to achieving artificial intelligence. To get a nematode on a chip would be big deal — it will get us one step closer to understanding consciousness. If we take a human brain and replicate it functionally on a chip or whatever in every way, will it result in consciousness? I certainly am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that it won't.
People tend to perplexed at this thought, that you can possibly create a conscious being by hand. Consider the following:
If I take every atom/molecule from one brain (assume a snapshot in time) and replicate it one by one at a different location, and replicate the external IO (stimulus, glucose...), what evidence do we have that this won't work? Likely not much.
Now instead of replicating ALL the atoms/molecules exactly, I replace one of the higher level entities like a single neuron with a computational equivalent - a tiny computer of sorts that perfectly replaces a neuron within the error bars of the biological neuron. Will this not work? I mean... will it not behave in the same exact way as the original biological brain with consciousness? (We have some evidence that we can replace certain circuits in the brain with man-made equivalents and it continues to work.)
You know where I'm going with this... FindAll, ReplaceAll. Why would it be any different?
If i had to argue that it wouldn't be the same, here's a quick braindump off the top of my head:
some entities like neurons literally cannot be replicated without the goo. Physics limitation? The existence of the goo is a proof of existence. But still, maybe the goo has properties that cannot be replicated with other substances.
our model of the physical world has serious limitations. on the order of pre-knowing-speed-of-light-limitation. Maybe putting the building blocks together does not create the full thing. Maybe building blocks + magic is needed to create the whole.
other fun limitation of our physical model