background preloader

IBM simulates 530 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses on supercomputer

IBM simulates 530 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses on supercomputer
A network of neurosynaptic cores derived from long-distance wiring in the monkey brain: Neuro-synaptic cores are locally clustered into brain-inspired regions, and each core is represented as an individual point along the ring. Arcs are drawn from a source core to a destination core with an edge color defined by the color assigned to the source core. (Credit: IBM) Announced in 2008, DARPA’s SyNAPSE program calls for developing electronic neuromorphic (brain-simulation) machine technology that scales to biological levels, using a cognitive computing architecture with 1010 neurons (10 billion) and 1014 synapses (100 trillion, based on estimates of the number of synapses in the human brain) to develop electronic neuromorphic machine technology that scales to biological levels.” Simulating 10 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses on most powerful supercomputer Neurosynaptic core (credit: IBM) Two billion neurosynaptic cores DARPA SyNAPSE Phase 0DARPA SyNAPSE Phase 1DARPA SyNAPSE Phase 2

Physicist Proposes New Way To Think About Intelligence (ISNS) -- A single equation grounded in basic physics principles could describe intelligence and stimulate new insights in fields as diverse as finance and robotics, according to new research. Alexander Wissner-Gross, a physicist at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cameron Freer, a mathematician at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, developed an equation that they say describes many intelligent or cognitive behaviors, such as upright walking and tool use. The researchers suggest that intelligent behavior stems from the impulse to seize control of future events in the environment. This is the exact opposite of the classic science-fiction scenario in which computers or robots become intelligent, then set their sights on taking over the world. "It's a provocative paper," said Simon DeDeo, a research fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, who studies biological and social systems. "It actually self-determines what its own objective is," said Wissner-Gross.

Classification du DSM-IV Diagnostics des troubles mentaux Classification du DSM-IV, Manuel diagnostique et statistique des troubles mentaux" publié par l'American Psychiatric Association en 1994 (version française: Masson, 1996). Cette classification est généralement adoptée par les professionnels de la santé en Amérique du Nord. Veuillez noter: cette classification est postée ici à titre de document d'information et outil de recherche, ceci ne confirme pas que l'AGIDD-SMQ adhère en tout ou en partie à cette classification. En fait, à une certaine époque l'homosexualité faisait partie de cette classification et en est maintenant retirée, par contre, on envisage d'y inclure le syndrome pré-menstruel... Il y a 15 catégories principales de diagnostics. 1) Troubles habituellement diagnostiqués pendant la petite enfance, la deuxième enfance ou l'adolescence Retard mental Troubles des apprentissages - Trouble de la lecture- Trouble du calcul- Trouble de l'expression écrite- Trouble des apprentissages non spécifié Délirium

Intelligent Robots Will Overtake Humans by 2100, Experts Say | The Singularity & Artificial Intelligence Are you prepared to meet your robot overlords? The idea of superintelligent machines may sound like the plot of "The Terminator" or "The Matrix," but many experts say the idea isn't far-fetched. Some even think the singularity — the point at which artificial intelligence can match, and then overtake, human smarts — might happen in just 16 years. But nearly every computer scientist will have a different prediction for when and how the singularity will happen. Some believe in a utopian future, in which humans can transcend their physical limitations with the aid of machines. Singularity near? In his book "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" (Viking, 2005), futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that computers will be as smart as humans by 2029, and that by 2045, "computers will be billions of times more powerful than unaided human intelligence," Kurzweil wrote in an email to LiveScience. But other AI researchers are skeptical. Infinite abilities Earth's destruction?

La musique rend intelligent Pour en savoir plus S. Moreno et al., Psychol. C. L'auteur Sébastien Bohler est journaliste à Cerveau&Psycho Du même auteur Selon une étude de l’Université de Toronto au Canada, la pratique de la musique augmenterait l’intelligence verbale des enfants, c’est-à-dire leur capacité de compréhension du discours d’autrui et leur propre expression. La première étude a consisté à faire participer des enfants âgés de quatre à cinq ans à des programmes d’initiation à la musique, où ils écoutaient des mélodies, apprenaient à les reconnaître, à identifier le timbre des instruments, etc. Dans la seconde étude, les psychologues ont fait écouter à des adultes âgés de 18 à 30 ans ou de 40 à 60 ans des phrases enregistrées, dont le ton exprimait six émotions différentes : la peur, la colère, le dégoût, la joie, la tristesse ou la surprise.

Advances in Cultural Neuroscience A lot of good stuff coming out around cultural neuroscience right now. Here are the three main things up front, so people can have them. Then I’ll go over them in turn. Cultural Neuroscience special issue in Psychological Inquiry, with a target article by Joan Chiao and colleagues and commentaries by leaders in the field. The inaugural issue of the new journal Culture and Brain , with Shihui Han serving as editor-in-chief A 2013 Annual Review of Psychology article, A Cultural Neuroscience Approach to the Biosocial Nature of the Human Brain , also by Shihui Han and a long-list of leaders in cultural neuroscience Cultural Neuroscience: Progress and Promise First off, the new issue of Psychological Inquiry has a target review article “ Cultural Neuroscience: Progress and Promise ” by Joan Chiao, Bobby Cheon, Narun Pornpattananangkul, Alissa Mrazek & Katherine Blizinsky. The abstract for the Chaio et al. review: In other words, it’s an ambitious field. Here’s the finish to his commentary:

Evolution of lying ( —Ultimately, our ability to convincingly lie to each other may have evolved as a direct result of our cooperative nature. Thus concludes the abstract of a new paper in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B that considers the evolution of "tactical deception" using a theoretic model and a comparative study of primates. I'm interested to see how the news media handle this paper. Cooperation evolves Many species – most notably our own – have evolved quite extraordinary capacities to cooperate. Cooperation makes it possible for some individuals to cheat, prospering off the cooperative efforts of others. Evolutionary biologists and economists find that even the simplest models of cooperation – such as the prisoner's dilemma game, explained in the video below – can lead to complex rules about when an individual should cooperate and when it should try to cheat. In some species individuals reciprocate directly. Share Video

Evolution [This critique has been withdrawn by the author.] This point in the reasoning chain requires that different genes result in differing reproductive success and that those genes are passed on to offspring. Otherwise there isnt a reason to think that genetic mutation would result in accumulated differences. My impression here that randomized changes that dont result in variable reproductive success are eventually canceled out by other changes. Im not sure I follow, but I dont think my objection is solid enough to be a basis for rejecting the premise. [This rebuttal addresses an earlier critique versionand has not been revised.] While differences in reproductive success are very important in evolution, my statement does not strictly depend on them. Scenario: two animals, same species, different genders, mate with one another and produce four offspring. Clearly, the diversity of the second generation exceeds that of the first. Response to new comments:

Well-connected hemispheres of Einstein's brain may have sparked his brilliance The left and right hemispheres of Albert Einstein's brain were unusually well connected to each other and may have contributed to his brilliance, according to a new study conducted in part by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk. "This study, more than any other to date, really gets at the 'inside' of Einstein's brain," Falk said. "It provides new information that helps make sense of what is known about the surface of Einstein's brain." The study, "The Corpus Callosum of Albert Einstein's Brain: Another Clue to His High Intelligence," was published in the journal Brain. Lead author Weiwei Men of East China Normal University's Department of Physics developed a new technique to conduct the study, which is the first to detail Einstein's corpus callosum, the brain's largest bundle of fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres and facilitates interhemispheric communication.

Social group may be key to fostering creativity ( —Creativity and genius are commonly seen as attributes of an individual, but new research indicates the role played by the surrounding group may be just as important. Shared group membership, or lack of it, motivates individuals to rise to particular creative challenges, says Professor Alex Haslam from the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland. "Shared group membership provides a basis for certain forms of originality to be recognised, or disregarded," said Dr Haslam, who collaborated with international colleagues on a paper published recently in the Personality and Social Psychology Review. "Our research supports the argument that geniuses and creative people are very much products of the groups and societies within which they are located." Typically it is assumed that genius and creativity are the product of the exceptional genes and personality of the individual. "Yet punk only makes sense with reference to what it is breaking away from.

How to Build a Happier Brain - Julie Beck There is a motif, in fiction and in life, of people having wonderful things happen to them, but still ending up unhappy. We can adapt to anything, it seems—you can get your dream job, marry a wonderful human, finally get 1 million dollars or Twitter followers—eventually we acclimate and find new things to complain about. If you want to look at it on a micro level, take an average day. You go to work; make some money; eat some food; interact with friends, family or co-workers; go home; and watch some TV. Nothing particularly bad happens, but you still can’t shake a feeling of stress, or worry, or inadequacy, or loneliness. According to Dr. I spoke with Hanson about this practice, which he calls “taking in the good,” and how evolution optimized our brains for survival, but not necessarily happiness. “Taking in the good” is the central idea of your book. The simple idea is that we we all want to have good things inside ourselves: happiness, resilience, love, confidence, and so forth.

A Neuroscientist's Radical Theory of How Networks Become Conscious - Wired Science It’s a question that’s perplexed philosophers for centuries and scientists for decades: Where does consciousness come from? We know it exists, at least in ourselves. But how it arises from chemistry and electricity in our brains is an unsolved mystery. Neuroscientist Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, thinks he might know the answer. According to Koch, consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. “The electric charge of an electron doesn’t arise out of more elemental properties. What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science. Koch’s insights have been detailed in dozens of scientific articles and a series of books, including last year’s Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. WIRED: How did you come to believe in panpsychism? Go Back to Top.

Why it's time to lay the selfish gene to rest – David Dobbs A couple of years ago, at a massive conference of neuroscientists — 35,000 attendees, scores of sessions going at any given time — I wandered into a talk that I thought would be about consciousness but proved (wrong room) to be about grasshoppers and locusts. At the front of the room, a bug-obsessed neuroscientist named Steve Rogers was describing these two creatures — one elegant, modest, and well-mannered, the other a soccer hooligan. The grasshopper, he noted, sports long legs and wings, walks low and slow, and dines discreetly in solitude. The locust scurries hurriedly and hoggishly on short, crooked legs and joins hungrily with others to form swarms that darken the sky and descend to chew the farmer’s fields bare. Related, yes, just as grasshoppers and crickets are. Not all grasshopper species, he explained (there are some 11,000), possess this morphing power; some always remain grasshoppers. How does this happen? Why? Shapeshifter: the locust. It should. This was the Holy Shit!