Waterloo researchers create ‘world’s largest functioning model of the brain’
November 30, 2012

Serial working memory task (from movie). (Credit: Chris Eliasmith et al./Science)
A team of researchers from the University of Waterloo have built what the claim is the world’s largest simulation of a functioning brain.
The purpose is to help scientists understand how the complex activity of the brain gives rise to the complex behavior exhibited by animals, including humans.
The model is called Spaun (Semantic Pointer Architecture Unified Network). It consists of 2.5 million simulated neurons. The model captures biological details of each neuron, including which neurotransmitters are used, how voltages are generated in the cell, and how they communicate.
Spaun uses this network of neurons to process visual images to control an arm that draws Spaun’s answers to perceptual, cognitive and motor tasks.

Spaun Anatomical architecture (credit: Chris Eliasmith et al./Science)

Information flow through Spaun during the WM task (credit: Chris Eliasmith et al./Science)

Spaun functional architecture. Thick black lines indicate communication between elements of the cortex; thin lines indicate communication between the actions election mechanism (basal ganglia) and the cortex. Boxes with rounded edges indicate that the action selection mechanism can use activity changes to manipulate the flow of information into a subsystem. The open-square end of the line connecting reward evaluation and action selection denotes that this connection modulates connection weights. (Credit: Chris Eliasmith et al./Science)
While the claim appears to be misleading, since IBM Research – Almaden actually recently simulated 530 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses on a supercomputer, the Waterloo researchers explain that “although impressive scaling has been achieved, no previous large-scale spiking neuron models have demonstrated how such simulations connect to a variety of specific observable behaviors,” the researchers say in a Science paper.
Human-like multitasking
“The model can perform a wide variety of behaviorally relevant functions. We show results on eight different tasks that are performed by the same model, without modification.
“This is the first model that begins to get at how our brains can perform a wide variety of tasks in a flexible manner — how the brain coordinates the flow of information between different areas to exhibit complex behavior,” said Professor Chris Eliasmith, Director of the Center for Theoretical Neuroscience at Waterloo, Canada Research Chair in Theoretical Neuroscience, and professor in Waterloo’s Department of Philosophy and Department of Systems Design Engineering.
Unlike other large brain models, Spaun can perform several tasks. All inputs to the model are 28 by 28 images of handwritten or typed characters. All outputs are the movements of a physically modeled arm that has mass, length, inertia, etc.
Researchers can show patterns of digits and letters to the model’s eye, which it then processes, causing it to write its responses to any of eight tasks. And, just like the human brain, it can shift from task to task, recognizing an object one moment and memorizing a list of numbers the next. Because of its biological underpinnings, Spaun can also be used to understand how changes to the brain affect changes to behavior., the researchers suggest.
“Spaun provides a distinct opportunity to test learning algorithms in a challenging but biologically plausible setting,” say the researchers in Science. “More generally, Spaun provides an opportunity to test any neural theory that may be affected by being embedded in a complex, dynamical context, reminiscent of a real neural system.”
“In related work, we have shown how the loss of neurons with aging leads to decreased performance on cognitive tests,” said Eliasmith. “More generally, we can test our hypotheses about how the brain works, resulting in a better understanding of the effects of drugs or damage to the brain.”
In addition, the model provides new insights into the sorts of algorithms that might be useful for improving machine intelligence. For instance, it suggests new methods for controlling the flow of information through a large system attempting to solve challenging cognitive tasks.
Professor Eliasmith has written a book on the research: How To Build A Brain will be availabe this winter.
Comments (23)
by Bob Blum
Amara: Here’s another juicey tidbit for your readers.
I was so impressed by SPAUN that I went to YouTube to see if Chris Eliasmith had lectured on it. I was annoyed (initially) to find that there were no lectures. Instead there were just several rock n rock videos.
My immediate reaction was… damn, just pop culture.
But then I did a double-take. The lead guitarist and vocalist is none other than THE Chris Eliasmith. And the group is The Action Potentials!!!
So, Chris is a multi-talented Renaissance man.
by Bob Blum
Amara, thanks for the heads-up on this very important paper.
(It’s really too bad that the paper itself is not open access;
however, I see that Chris Eliasmith is very good about posting pdfs on his website. So, hopefully it will soon be there.)
Meanwhile, all your readers with an interest in brain science should go to Chris’s website NENGO and look at the SPAUN videos – they are excellent.
Mr Friendly: thanks so much for your mention of actual applications done by Blue Brain and by Modha’s group.
These projects are significant because achieving dynamical control in a large model of spiking neurons is extremely difficult. (I will be digging into the SPAUN paper to find out its strengths and its “cheats.”) (I sent this paper around at Stanford and to Stan Franklin.)
Cheers, Bob
by Dr.Pratt
When one of these “brains” can prove it has a sense of “I am” and can meditate and reach enlightenment…it will mean they stole someones brain out of their skull and claimed to have made it. The whole AI interprise is laughable and pathetic.
by GAUSS
Those are harsh words. Why do you see the AI enterprise that way?
by MrFriendly
Many religious and “spiritual” people probably aren’t keen on the idea of an inorganic machine becoming intelligent and self-aware.
by Lia Parr
SPAUN will help people understand human behavior in the future. There are benefits in this kind of technology.
by GAUSS
There are indeed.
by MrFriendly
I’m not suggesting that machines will become self-aware anytime soon. In fact, my optimism for it happening in my lifetime continues to fade, based on what I see and hear from neuroscientists. However, it probably will happen sometime late this century, or in the 22nd century, and it’s pretty clear to me that some people will never accept that these machines will be fully conscious, if they believe in a “soul” or “spirit.”
by Editor
The purpose of developing neuromorphic (brain-mimicking) computer systems — as in the excellent research at IBM Almaden, EPFL (Blue Brain), and the Swiss AI Lab, which we have profiled in KurzweilAI — is to use hints from the brain to achieve smarter systems that go beyond the limitations of von Neumann machines, not to achieve consciousness or self-awareness.
by Xavier
Hm, that explains a lot. AI began with ambitious dreams to grant machines the qualities of self-awareness, consciousness, intelligence and freewill. Instead it turned into a business model that seeks to develop and exploit smarter tools labeling them as “intelligent”.
This is supported by an aloof academic class that emphasizes credentialism and abstractions over clear insights. I think a large part of academia is now a sham and a stumbling-block in the way of achieving reflective AI with freewill.
But it’s somewhat understandable. For once there is a lot of money to be made from this and a machine with freewill would run detrimental to control. I don’t blame humans for wanting to uphold the upper hand. The people in AI are really bright and intellectual, but not necessarily wise.
We already grasped the principles behind the brain and thus intelligence, but it shows that human intelligence is not that special after all. I can even imagine such a machine developing a sense of wonderment and spirituality, just like humans. Maybe that’s another reason why it’s so uncomfortable.
I checked “Spaun” out. It’s cute how it writes those numbers, but it needs 24GB of RAM for the full implementation. I can think of another system that can to all this and more with a fraction of the resources (since I don’t want to appear paternalistic, the vigilant reader may deduce what I mean).
by Editor
“AI began with ambitious dreams to grant machines the qualities of self-awareness, consciousness … and freewill.” I’m not familiar with such stated goals. Citation?
by Xavier
They are inherent in human intelligence. Therefore, any AI that is truly intelligent must automatically possess at least the potential to attain them.
The short answer: I cannot give you a scientific quotation right now, but it was generally presumed in the SciFi of the time (Clarke, Asimov, etc.).
The (too) long answer: The problem is that “intelligence” was understood in simple logical terms and that it would be relatively easy to “program” a machine to appear intelligent, but it was soon discovered that this is impossible to do with the “top-down” approach of coding instructions. This is known today as the “hard problem”.
The irony is that its actually an easy problem if you understand the biological basis of intelligence (neural networks) and do not occupy your time with various theories that accomplish very little if anything (this is just ego investment for the most part and millions of dollars are at stake).
Furthermore, through the lens of economics as it is prevalent today, it is not desirable to produce such a machine, because it might claim independence from humanity. What we see now is just a rehash of old methods with subtle hints at neural networks here and there.
The abandonment of connectionism marks the folly of mainstream AI. I just wonder into what Kurzweil and others want to “upload” their brains while still believing that, if only some Chatbot beats the Turing Test, even if this bot is just an immense collection of lookup-tables or algorithms who do not “understand” the conversation but blindly “react” to it, according to sophisticated rules, that it is intelligent in any way. Reconstructing a biologically accurate neuron is not required either, because a neuron is just an on/off-switch and much of its complexity is due to the limits of biology to achieve this simple function. In a computer this would only drain resources for unnecessary structures.
What’s worse is that such systems never come up with radical new ideas. The best that mainstream AI has to offer are genetic algorithms (and some limited neural systems), but our brains do not work this way when it comes to new ideas.
The simple truth is that intelligence is by its very nature delusional, because it is totally free to combine any idea with any other idea. So the only solution for AI and Mind-Uploading is an evolutionary “bottom-up” approach in which a brain connects itself freely and lets several regions emulate neurotransmitter flow via perturbations to produce hallucinations or ideas while other cascades observe this information, invent opinions/meaning about it, and influence its direction by their own volition to some desired outcome, just like the biological equivalent of the human brain does.
My point is that this technology exists since at least 16 years and is used in classified government projects. I enjoy listening to Kurzweil, but he nourishes some misconceptions and says that we have yet to arrive at this technology when his “Singularity” is already here.
Just my opinion of course, but one I had to arrive at after comparing many systems out there with what I know exists behind the scenes. Anyways, thanks for reading.
by Cybernettr
I just wonder into what Kurzweil and others want to “upload” their brains while still believing that, if only some Chatbot beats the Turing Test, even if this bot is just an immense collection of lookup-tables or algorithms who do not “understand” the conversation but blindly “react” to it,
If it passes a properly administered Turing test, then it will most certainly “understand” the conversation and it most certainly won’t be a mere “chatbot.” A chatbot by definition has no understanding and is just a collection of “tricks” designed to fool the uninitiated. Passing a properly administered Turing test by definition means it has understanding. Notice I said “properly administered,” which leaves out the Loebner prize.
by eldrtas
Great advance.
Without accurate models of the synapse all human brain type models are very limited.
by GatorALLin
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/bestoftv/2012/11/29/ac-gupta-albert-einstein-brain.cnn
by MrFriendly
“although impressive scaling has been achieved, no previous large-scale spiking neuron models have demonstrated how such simulations connect to a variety of specific observable behaviors,”
From Modha’s blog: ” We have used Compass to demonstrate numerous applications of the TrueNorth architecture, such as optic flow, attention mechanisms, image and audio classification, multi-modal image audio classification, character recognition, robotic navigation, and spatio-temporal feature extraction. These applications will be published separately.”
Also, Henry Markram and his team have already connected their rat cortical column model to a simple virtual environment, and taught it to balance a ball in the middle of a plate, using four virtual “muscles.”
A lot of you probably already saw that in Noah Hutton’s Blue Brain Year Three film.
by Editor
The Waterloo claim is based on what they say is multitasking in real time as opposed to separate tasks.
by MrFriendly
Yeah, I understand. I meant to quote him from another article in the Calgary Herald:
“Several labs are working on large models of the brain– including the multi-million-dollar Blue Brain Project in Europe – but these can’t see, remember or control limbs, says Eliasmith.
“Right now very large-scale models of the brain don’t do anything,” he said in an interview.”
He may be right about switching tasks, but I had to point out that the BBP is already doing simulated muscle control experiments.
by GAUSS
This can be approximated with multiple signal paths in an asynchronous system. :) The trouble is that most of our world is addicted to synchronous, purely deterministic, 100% controlled models. With this kind of engineering, you simply can’t maintain an absolute control.
by MrFriendly
Hm, I found these videos on youtube months ago. I was wondering if it was legitimate research. Very cool.
by JP. Baquiast
Useless to say that this will complete interestingly Kurzweil’s How to create a mind
by rob
Important to know how our brains work so we can speed up our development but I think ?? that we are maybe making a mistake tring to make and rate computers against our brain function- after all if a computer can make us think it human it must be smarter then us
by yack
I think the most effective way to achieve artificial intelligence is to understand how natural intelligence machines. Maybe it’s a very simple model that allows us to create unlimited power intelligences.
Greetings.
Saludos.