http://www.inventikon.com/articles/discovery.

html

title>IBM Cat Brain Computer Debunked : Discovery News

skip to main content

earth
space
tech and gadgets
animals
history
adventure
human
autos
video
rss feeds
discovery.com

Discovery News > Tech and Gadgets News > IBM Cat Brain Computer Debunked

IBM Cat Brain Computer Debunked

According to one reknowned scientist, IBM's recent claim is all
hype.

Fri Dec 4, 2009 05:00 AM ET

Content provided by Greg Fish

Like 30 likes. Sign Up to see what your

friends like.
facebook share20
0

1 of 7 5/26/2012 9:06 PM
 http://www.inventikon.com/articles/discovery.html

IBM has not simulated the complex function of a mammal's brain, says one scientist.
iStockphoto

After IBM�s announcement that they had developed a neural network that exceeded the processing power of
a feline cortex, Henry Markram sent several scathing e-mails and comments debunking the claim. Markham
heads up the Blue Brain project at Lusanne, Switzerland-based EPFL, where his team is attempting to reverse
engineer the mammalian brain. According to Markram, the cat brain claim is little more than hype from
Dharmendra Modha, the manager of IBM�s Almaden Research Center.

Science blogger and tech analyst Greg Fish caught up with Markram to ask him what problems he sees in
IBM�s simulation, what kind of neural models he envisions for the future and what practical applications
they may have to computing in general.

Greg Fish: How far short do you feel IBM has come up in their claim of simulating a structure exceeding the
scale of a feline cortex and why?

Henry Markram: They claim to have simulated over a billion neurons interacting. Their so called "neurons"
are the tiniest of points you can imagine, a microscopic dot. Over 98 percent of the volume of a neuron is
branched (like a tree). They just cut off all the branches and roots and took a point in the middle of the trunk
to represent a entire neuron. In real life, each segment of the branches of a neuron contains dozens of ion
channels that powerfully controls the information processing in a neuron. They have none of that.

Neurons contain tens of thousands of proteins that form a network with tens of millions of interactions. These
interactions are incredibly complex and will require solving millions of differential equations. They have none
of that.

Neurons contain around 20,000 genes that produce products called mRNA, which builds the proteins. The
way neurons build proteins and transport them to all the corners of the neuron where they are needed is an
even more complex process which also controls what a neuron is, its memories and how it will process
information. They have none of that.

They use an alpha function (up fast, down slow) to simulate a synaptic event. This is a completely inaccurate
representation of a synapse. There are at least six types of synapses that are highly non-linear in their
transmission (i.e. that transform inputs and not only transmit inputs). In fact you would need a tens of
thousands of differential equations to simulate one synapse. Synapses are also extremely complex molecular
machines that would themselves require thousands of differential equations to simulate just one. They
simulated none of this.

2 of 7 5/26/2012 9:06 PM
 http://www.inventikon.com/articles/discovery.html

There are complex differential equations that must be solved to simulate the ionic flow in the branches, to
simulate the ion channels biophysics, the protein-protein interactions, as well as the complete biochemical and
genetic machinery as well as the synaptic transmission between neurons. Hundreds of thousands of more
differential equations. They have none of this.

Then there are glia -- ten times more than neurons -- and the blood supply, and more and more. These "points"
they simulated and the synapses that they use for communication are literally millions of times simpler than a
real cat brain. So they have not even simulated a cat's brain at one millionth of its complexity. It is not even
close to an ants brain.

Fish: The official IBM press release did not explicitly state that the Blue Matter team modeled a cat brain,
however many blogs and news sites did. Do you feel the distortion of the announcement is the fault of IBM,
the press, or both and why?

Markram: I know very well how the press can blow up things, but this time the press is not to blame. They
are the victim of an outright false announcement. This is IBM's Modha false claim, no one else is to blame.
Here is an excerpt from the abstract of his non peer-reviewed "Cat Out of the Bag" Gordon Bell Prize paper:

"The simulations, which incorporate phenomenological spiking neurons, individual learning

synapses, axonal delays, and dynamic synaptic channels, exceed the scale of the cat cortex,
marking the dawn of a new era in the scale of cortical simulations."

This is not a media blow up at all, the media was unethically mislead. It is a serious case of misconduct and
any scientists should not stand by and listen to such nonsense and watch the public being deceived. That is
what can happen if papers are not peer-reviewed. Well, this is his peer review.

Furthermore, Eugene Izhikevich [of the Brain Corporation in San Diego, CA,] performed a simulation that is
actually 60 times larger than Modha's already several years ago (100 billion neurons) and he did it on desktop
computers. Modha, even used Izhikevich's equations, so he knows very well that his simulation was not even
the largest performed. Izhikevich should get the Bell prize not this guy.

Ovidiu Anghelidi [Toronto, Canada] actually holds the world record with a 700 billion
neuron simulation. In fact, his neurons are much more complex neurons as he uses
what is known as the Hodgin-Huxley equations which can capture the subtleties of
complex ion channels on neurons. Their simulation took days so it is not optimal, but if
they had a supercomputer available this would be really straight forward -- no big
technical feat.

So, this pretty much discredits the Gordon Bell committee for not even checking what has been done
previously. The fact that he (i.e. Modha) had a supercomputer to do this makes it technically even more trivial,
not more remarkable. Try doing it on a GRID or on desktops.

Fish: What is your take on cognitive computing projects and how do you see models of cortical structures or
entire brains advancing the concept? How would it be applied in practical uses?

Markram: These are not the kind of simulations that I think will help you understand the brain, but I fully
accept that neural networks can be extremely powerful for computing problems that normal AI cannot easily
solve. In fact, the neural network industry is huge and simulating larger networks does get you new kinds of
computing capabilities. What I object to is the false and misleading claim this is brain. It is an artificial
network, not an artificial brain simulation. If you can use new learning algorithms then you can train such

3 of 7 5/26/2012 9:06 PM
 http://www.inventikon.com/articles/discovery.html

artificial networks to solve very complex problems, but you will probably need a trillion trillion such neurons
to get close to the computational power of a small insect.

Fish: In your conception, what would be an accurate model of a brain or a brain structure and how would it
be set up?

Markram: Well, you need to at least mathematically abstract every single interaction at the molecular level
and build in all the constraints that took evolution billions of years to discover. You need to have the right
composition of neurons, the right numbers and the right synaptic connectivity between the neurons etc etc.
Blue Brain uses a strategy to reach this goal, following biology rather than theory.

Fish: Do you believe that such models could lead to artificial intelligence or sci-fi technologies like mind
uploading often mentioned in the popular science realm? If so, how could such systems be set up?

Markram: My prediction is that we will understand the neural code way before we finished building the brain
- if we build it bottom up (not just points interacting). The neural code is the code that the brain uses to
represent information. Once you have this code many things will be possible such as virtual reality that
stimulates your brain to experience certain perceptions. The technology to stimulate the brain in this way will
probably take longer, but eventually it will come. Now to record is much the same. If you can record from
billions or trillions of locations in the brain, you probably could catch a neural state that represents a thought
or a memory.

If you can stimulate the brain with these patterns then the other person may see something similar. However,
our brains are calibrated differently so you would have to learn how to interpret the stimulation and then you
should be able to see what someone else saw. So downloading is far in the future, but there is no fundamental
reason why it will not happen eventually. I kind of allude to it, better not to speculate too far into the future.
Like 30 likes. Sign Up to see what your friends like.
facebook share20
0

stumbleupon share
digg share
reddit share

NEXT STORY: Next-Gen Touch Screen Inspired by Coffee Rings next

True Horror Stories

from Space
Want to explore space?
Think again, it's not so

4 of 7 5/26/2012 9:06 PM