Even if he could record all the spikes from all the neurons at once, he said, the brain is not alone: in order to properly connect with the dots, you must immediately draw on the external stimuli encountered by the brain, as well as physical behavior. And he decided that we needed to understand the brain on a larger scale before trying to understand the meaning of what neurons meant.
Others were concerned about the impact on the stability of these areas. Cornelia Bargmann, a psychologist at Rockefeller University, was concerned that it might interfere with research conducted by independent researchers. (Bargmann was recently asked to lead the BRAIN Initiative.)
There is no single, consistent view of how the brain works, and not all members of the group have agreed that experimenting with the brain is the best way to learn.
When the US sought out scientists to improve, the EU’s work was closely monitored, Markram was the leader. But as Noah Hutton wrote in his 2020 film In SilicoMarkram’s main ideas were soon fulfilled. When he was the first to study technology, Hutton was commissioned to read Markram’s papers and was fascinated by his idea of comparing the human brain; when he started making cartoons, he thought about writing. He soon realized that a business that was spent with a billion dollars was better known for fighting and changing their goals than scientific skills.
In Silico portrays Markram as an influential leader who needs to speak out boldly about the future of brain science in order to attract funding to support his vision. But the work was disrupted from the start with a major problem: there is not a single, consistent view of how the brain works, and not all of the members agreed that making a experimental brain is the best way to learn. It did not take long for these differences to occur in the EU project.
In 2014, hundreds of European experts wrote a letter outlining concerns about management, income generation, and transparency The Work of the Human Brain. The scientists found Markram’s goal to be quick and narrow and would not give money to researchers looking for alternatives to brain training.
“What struck me was that, if he did well and turned on and checked where it worked, what did you learn?” Terry Sejnowski, a technical expert at Salk Institute who served on the BRAIN Initiative’s advisory committee, told me. Its imitation is as complex as the brain. ”
The Human Brain Project’s governing body voted to reform the organization and leadership in early 2015, with a three-member executive committee chaired by Markram and a 22-member steering committee. was elected director. “When I started, the project was in jeopardy,” he says. “People were openly skeptical of whether the project would go ahead.”
But a few years later he came out again, having “disagreed” with his co-workers. The project is now focused on providing new research tools to assist scientists, storing, analyzing the amount of data — collecting non-systems has become a problem in the field — and creating 3D brain teasers and software for experimental design.
The US BRAIN Initiative, however, changed. In early 2014, in response to scientific concerns and acknowledging the limits of potential, it turned out to be something more sensible, to look at. developing technologies to explore the brain.
A new day
These changes are beginning to bear fruit, although they are not the ones that initiated the major psychological tasks in the first place.
Last year, the Human Brain Project released a 3D digital maps that integrate different stages of human activity per millimeter and micrometer measurement. It’s Google Earth Brain.
Source link
