Talk:Human Brain Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Brain mapping coverage[edit]

Brain mapping is a research area that has received massively escalating funding. (see $100 million dollar project funded by Paul Allen (Microsoft) Allen Brain Atlas, 2009 NIH $30 million project Human Connectome Project (and related article Connectome), 1 billion euro, 10 year project, Human Brain Project (EU), and 2013 NIH $3 billion 10 year project Brain Activity Map Project

I envision the specific "project" articles will cover project management aspects (politics, funding, lead personalities, schedules, major milestones, broadly covered general news events, etc.) while the actual scientific details will be covered in singular (vs. plural) noun-topic-titled articles (encyclopedia style). Actually, after searching I was surprised how deep the coverage actually was already on Wikipedia. To create links to those I originated List of topics related to brain mapping. More details are included on the talk page. Please feel free to comment or edit.

I'm also pondering what "frequently asked questions" might be out there on the general topic of brain mapping? I started a very preliminary "guess" list. It really applies across all four major projects. see: User:Rjlabs/Brain mapping frequently asked questions. It's totally informal, just at the brainstorming stage. It's not intended to be an outline for any article, however if there are answers (now or in the future) contained in various Wikipedia scientific topic articles, pointers might be added in the List of topics related to brain mapping page out to them. Again, feel free to add, edit or comment.
Rick (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 13 March 2013‎ Rjlabs

Copyright violation reverted[edit]

[1] apparently copy-pasted material from [2], presumably without permission. I have restored the version before and merged the changes after the subsequent changes from the same IP address. --Chealer (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Finish line[edit]

With the Human Genome Project the finish line was sharply defined. One sense of the word "project" is an activity directed toward a well-defined finish line.

So far as I can tell with this project, the finish line is to spend to budget, which makes the parallel nature of Human X Project presumptuous and misleading. A well-defined finish line, if one exists, would be a tremendous addition to this article. If it doesn't exist, we're not allowed to say so, unless some notable grump pees in their cornflakes, lest we stray into OR. — MaxEnt 21:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the European Commission does have a tradition of such projects. I agree their goals are so vague that it will probably end up with researchers taking the money simply to further their own careers and goals. Chris55 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As of NOV 2015, you seem to have been right here. Zezen (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Brain Simulation"[edit]

The article's summary states that the project's purpose is to "simulate the complete human brain on supercomputers", and it cites an article written by one of WIRED's former PopSci writers.

Considering that the HBP's own statement contradicts this, shouldn't the text be adjusted? Something along the lines of constructing a database would be far more accurate.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I didn't want to edit the page only to discover that I overlooked some kind of rule, but this seems fairly open-and-shut to me.

--BartholomewRSP (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You should feel free to fix anything you see that is wrong -- that's what Wikipedia is all about. This is a bit tricky, though. The document you cite was written last summer in response to severe criticism, and the aims it lists are not necessarily exactly the same as the original aims, or the aims that Henry Markram described when giving talks about the project. It's clear that the current statement is wrong, but without careful work there is a danger of substituting one form of error for a different form of error. But you should feel free to edit the article in the way that seems correct to you. The worst that can happen is that somebody will revert your edits. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the statements you mentioned (and the ones that the article cites) were made by an individual, while the one I cite was specifically signed by the project as a whole. It was in response to criticism, yes - however, I believe that this only reinforces my point, as it serves as a clarification of earlier claims. That aside - whether or not the statement is in line with the Markram's original vision is irrelevant, isn't it? The summary should describe the current state of affairs, after all.
In any case, I've gone ahead and simply removed the sentence in question, since its point was sufficiently addressed in the recent addition made by another user.
(talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

154 Scientists[edit]

  1. german: Treffen sich 154 Wissenschaftler aus der Europäischen Union zur Untersuchung/Analyse von 154 Gehirnen natuerlicher Blondinen, Haarfarbe blond! 62.181.219.126 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Human in nature[edit]

Essay with unclear bearing on article

add also these data:

"Thought" is not the same with it's "method of application". These are two different senses (notions) are interlinked though. Each "system of application of thought - thinking materialization system" has it's unique properties and specificities. If one wants to create a "thinking human brain", has to produce "thought itself" and not "a digital thinking mechanism via mimicking a biological one". We should create a "digital analogue of the biological brain" only for medical reasons, so I am not against that idea. But we have to keep in mind, that we need to create a machine able to express "thought" directly, and not as a "biological analogue". Of course, most of the things I mentioned, occur mathematically as we evolve the project.

We have to build all "brain organels" and "connect" them appropriately. We have to analyze, the "coding" of the inputs and outputs of each organel, also reproduce the wiring including "neuroplasticity" and "feedback mechanisms (loops)".

There are two main ways to electronically mimic "neuroplasticity": a. "Silicone imprints" of bilion or trillion more than needed "transistor connections", and introducing intermediate switches. To apply that method one has to produce a "Bloch sphere" based CPU design. A " Bloch sphere" CPU is comprised of many "Bloch CPU spheres". Each single one "Bloch CPU sphere" is constituted of many layers of "logic gates", and among each layer there are layers of "nanoscale switches". Some scientists imprint these "Bloch CPU spheres" as plane structures (only the circuitry is spherical), others imprint them on actual spheres. The cheapest way to produce a "Bloch CPU sphere" is to imprint with a special "spheric inkjet printer" all the different layers of the sphere via using different "nanomaterial alloys" per "functional layer". One can also create "plain Bloch CPU spheres" via the classic CPU production method. If we evolve the required nanomaterials, and then define each "alloy recipe" in order each separate task is performed, the nanomaterial process will be cheaper. When we acquire the "Bloch CPU spheres" we have to entangle many of those, to mimic a "quantum computer", also we need a classic CPU to control the system, and an "operating system".

b. Classic CPUs or future (actual - not Bloch clones) quantum CPUs with the necessary "circuitry" and "operating system(s)".

(talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but Wikipedia talk pages are intended to be used for discussion of ways to improve the associated Wikipedia article. Any changes to a Wikipedia article need to be justified by referring to reputable published sources. Please don't use this page to discuss ideas that don't have a direct bearing on the Wikipedia article. Looie496 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Brain Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Brain Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)