Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, June 13, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Reverse Engineering The Brain To Model Mind-body Interactions

by Science Daily

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612080431.htm

Reverse Engineering The Brain To Model Mind-body Interactions

ScienceDaily (Jun. 12, 2008) — When you grab a cold beverage out of the cooler this summer, what is really going on between your brain, your eyes and your hands?

"It is still a mystery, really," says UBC computer science professor Prof. Dinesh Pai. "No one has ever completely mapped out the processes at the level of specific neurons, muscles and tendons."

Pai is part of a UBC team leading an international initiative to do just that. "Essentially, we are reverse engineering the brain to produce the first working computational model of the complex interplay between our minds and our bodies."

The project could produce great leaps forward in many areas, including medicine, industry and robotics. Although the project is just ramping up, the team's mapping and modeling expedition is already producing some of the world's most realistic computer simulations of the human body.

"Our research is really guided by a desire to determine and model exactly what is happening under our skin, first and foremost," says Pai, who recently received $500,000 from UBC's Peter Wall Institute for the project. "There will be many exciting outcomes from this project, but it really falls under the category of pure research."

"Current robots have as much in common with human movements as helicopters do with seagulls," Pai adds. "The challenges are similar, but they use completely different solutions."

Pai's five UBC co-investigators include Prof. John Steeves, Director of International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD); Prof. Martin McKeown of the Pacific Parkinson's Research Centre; Prof. Alan Mackworth, Computer Science; Prof. Tony Hodgson, Mechanical Engineering, and Prof. Tim Ingliss, School of Human Kinetics.

To make the project a reality, they have brought together a multidisciplinary dream team from Canada (UBC, McGill), the U.S. (UCLA, University of Washington, Northwestern University, Smith Kettlewell Eye Research Institute), Japan (Digital Human Research Centre) and Italy (Santa Lucia Foundation.)

Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the team is cataloging body parts and functions and tracing their interactions with the brain. This information is being used to create a working three-dimensional computer model of all these functions.

"We are in uncharted territory, in terms of computing," says Pai. "It's not like you can find software like this at your local Future Shop or Best Buy. So we have been creating our own as we go along."

Down the road, the team's findings will enable doctors to test surgical outcomes before picking up a scalpel, Pai says.

"There is an amazing amount of variance between humans – skeletons, organs, muscles can all differ in size from person to person," says Pai. "That means there is always some guesswork involved in surgery."

"But if you can give someone an MRI and create a personalized computer model, suddenly a doctor has more information to work with," he says. "They can say, 'If I cut this tendon, what exactly is going to happen, given this patient's unique body.'"

Advances in the field of neuroprosthetics -- devices that replace or improve the function of an impaired nervous system -- is another desired research outcome, Pai says.

"With a better understanding of mind-body connections, we hope to be able to use electrodes in the brain or spinal cord to restore some functions in people who have experienced strokes or some other disability."

While these applications are still years away, the field of digital animation is taking note of their research. The upcoming prestigious computer science conference SIGGRAPH will publish research by Pai and PhD candidate Shinjiro Sueda that outlines how the team's modeling of body movements can help to make digital animations of humans more realistic.

Comments 1 - 13 of 13 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #192521 by zeroangel on June 13, 2008 at 9:12 am

 avatarSo, how much longer will it be before I can swap out my body for a cyborg body and take myself one step closer to immortality? *smile*

Other Comments by zeroangel

2. Comment #192558 by Edouard Pernod on June 13, 2008 at 11:32 am

 avatarI think in about 80 years that will be possible. The biggest challenge in life extension will be preservation of the central nervous system. We know less about the CNS and the physiology of it than any other body system, and the WHO estimates that neurological disease will be the #1 cause of death by 2040. Diseases that affect other portions of the body will largely be treatable by then, but as of now it looks like protecting the central and peripheral nervous systems from deterioration will be the biggest challenge.

Stem cells provide the potential for growing transplant organs in a lab, and things like IGF1 and Thymosin Beta 4 hold promise as ways to get the body to regenerate damaged tissues, but the brain isn't a machine, it's essentially a very complex computer network that can't just be "repaired" or "replaced". While deep brain stimulation has led to interesting results and may even stimulate neuronal growth (which was previously assumed impossible), it currently appears extremely difficult to reverse brain deterioration. There's also the matter of what happens if diseased Neurons can be replaced with new ones. Do you lose part of your identity if they are replaced?

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

3. Comment #192563 by LochRaven on June 13, 2008 at 11:50 am

 avatarDon't worry, zeroangel..."Big Al's Cyborg Emporium coming soon to a location near you!" Well, maybe not that fast, but one never grows tired of reading about scientific advances...although some do seem to prefer "older" writings, don't they? ;-)

Other Comments by LochRaven

4. Comment #192566 by MPhil on June 13, 2008 at 12:01 pm

 avatarBut we're not in completely uncharted territory in terms of brains and computation. Our brains are neural networks - and while we are far from having a working model with the complexity of the brain, computational neuroscience does know how (in principle) the brain computes things - we know this by modelling dynamic neural networks.

Neural Network theory has perhaps provided more insight into the body-mind problem in terms of information-processing than anything else. You won't get anywhere with van Neumann architecture linear processing. Neural networks are the way to go... for example we can show that even incredibly simple artificial neural networks are extremely effective at novelty detection and learning.

Paul and Patricia Churchland have been doing work in this area for quite some time.

"Neurocomputational Perspective" by Paul Churchland is well worth a read.

Other Comments by MPhil

5. Comment #192567 by zeroangel on June 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm

 avatarKeeping my fingers crossed folks. It's awfully sad, but I have a feeling if it ever does happen, aspiring cyborgs like myself will have to be ever-vigilant of peasents with pitchforks.

Fortunately, I will have my skull-crushing super-human strength and enhanced senses :).

Other Comments by zeroangel

6. Comment #192568 by fizhburn on June 13, 2008 at 12:10 pm

 avatar@MPhil

Smolensky and Legendre's The Harmonic Mind is difficult but fascinating reading on the topic of computation as well. I've been a fan of Smolensky's for a couple of years now.

Other Comments by fizhburn

7. Comment #192576 by MPhil on June 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm

 avatarfizhburn,

Thanks - sounds very interesting. I don't mind difficult. I'm a philosopher specializing in philosophy of mind/neurophilosophy. I have some knowledge of neural network theory, neuroanatomy, automata theory, have good training in formal logic etc... I love difficult :)

Anyway - if you're interested in the body/mind problem and neuroscience... Paul Churchland is someone whose work you might find really interesting.

Sadly, I have so many books to read that I would need more than one life to earn the money to buy them all - and then I would probably need another life to read them all :)

Oh, btw - I have a blog where I post about philosophy, (neuro)science, religion and stuff... if you're interested, you're welcome to take a look and contribute to the comments if you like:

http://mphil.livejournal.com

You'd be in good company - Steve Zara, Brian English and others are frequent visitors as well :)

Other Comments by MPhil

8. Comment #192584 by Lucas on June 13, 2008 at 1:14 pm

 avatarRan across this a couple days ago. Seems to indicate that brain deterioration is perhaps less powerful than we think. Am I wrong? Is there indeed some sort of specific loss of cells, proteins, synapses, dendrites, etc. that are normal and not environmentally created? I guess what I mean is, given the ability to, say, grow a new body and transplant an old brain into it, would the brain cease to function just because it is old?

"115-year-old Woman's Brain in Tip-Top Shape"

http://www.livescience.com/health/080609-oldest-brain.html

Other Comments by Lucas

9. Comment #192601 by fizhburn on June 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm

 avatarMPhil,

I'll check it out.

In the interest of full disclosure I should mention I'm also a philosopher, working (mostly) in philosophy of language and metaphysics. I first encountered Smolensky and the Churchlands in a seminar of Rob Cummins's on mental representation.

Other Comments by fizhburn

10. Comment #192603 by Edouard Pernod on June 13, 2008 at 2:38 pm

 avatarIt's great the lady made it to 115 with very little neural degeneration, but she is an anomaly. I suspect the reasons for her resilient neurological state would be genetic.

I think mental exercises and avoidance of neurotoxic substances is the way to go in order to prevent neural degradation with age, although ones' genetic makeup would largely determine how their brain fares in late age.

Interestingly there have been studies indicating that people who experienced near-starvation at a young age or at least famine tend to have activated Sirtuin receptors which have been demonstrated to delay age associated deterioration. I had one great-to-the-nth power grandfather live to 113 (1791-1904), name was Ware Long and lived in Wales. I'm going to have my dad do research and figure out where exactly he lived and if there were famine conditions in that area in the late 17-early 1800s, as it seems really unusual that somebody would live that long at a time when medicine was ignorant of practically everything.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

11. Comment #192620 by MPhil on June 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm

 avatarfizhburn,

... I thought as much - I read through your comments, thought about the book you recommended and thought "Philosopher with a special interest in Philosophy of Language sounds about right" :)

Say, - if I may ask - what is your position towards philosophy of language (specifically concerning meaning)?

Other Comments by MPhil

12. Comment #192623 by fizhburn on June 13, 2008 at 4:52 pm

 avatarMPhil,

As you know, that's a rather broad question. I (think I) usually talk in terms of sense and reference, rather than meaning, since meaning is such a thin concept.

Or if your question is about how I view philosophy of language as a part of the discipline, I would put forward the view that semantic difficulties (equivocation, vagueness, etc.) are often at the heart of philosophical problems. It's a wedge into many metaphysical problems as well. Semantics is prerequisite to the problem of universals, for example, on which I work.

Or, from a phil. mind point of view, if the question is about intensionality, I am externalist of the "Brains in a Vat"-era Putnam type.

I could be more specific if you have some particular application of `meaning' in mind.

Other Comments by fizhburn

13. Comment #192628 by MPhil on June 13, 2008 at 5:15 pm

 avatarYes - I know.

Ah, you use the Frege-terminology. Reference as extension of a term and sense as that quality over which we pick out the entities to which the term is supposed to refer.

Oh my - don't get me started on the problem of universals. I think that either the problem is a pseudo-problem arising form the limits of our thinking and language - or, if that is not the case, I think either anti-realist conceptualism or trope nominalism would be the best answers we have.

I personally haven't made up my mind on the question of "meaning" - or, if you will - of sense and reference, although I do tend towards a Strawson-type behaviourism.

Other Comments by MPhil
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: