“Like Neurons in the Brain”: A Molecular Computer That Evolves

Written By: Surfdaddy Orca
Date Published: May 10, 2010 | View more articles in:

Digital edition View the Digital Edition

Yet another tiny computer? The press release from Michigan Tech asserts that it is “the first time a brain-like ‘evolutionary circuit’ has been realized.” This new molecular computer uses an organic molecular layer and can evolve to solve complex problems, similar to neurons. Like the human brain — and unlike any existing computer — the tiny molecular computer heals itself if there is a defect. Anirban Bandyopadhyay, from the Japanese National Institute for Materials Science, explains: “No existing man-made computer has this property, but our brain does. If a neuron dies, another neuron takes over its function.”

The international research team from Japan and Michigan Tech compared the evolving patterns of their molecular computer to neural activity in the brain as seen by a Functional MRI. With the ability to image the entire volume of the brain, fMRI can isolate many simultaneous and coordinated neural events, as shown in this video of a 3D fMRI of the human brain:

Interestingly, the evolving patterns generated on the molecular layer — when viewed with a scanning tunneling microscope — bear an uncanny resemblance to fMRI images of various events in the human brain. The researchers next used the electrically charged tip of the scanning tunneling microscope to individually set molecules in the top layer to a desired state, essentially writing data into the system.

Image Courtesy of: eurekalert.org

Molecular computing is most frequently associated with DNA computing: custom-synthesized DNA strands are combined with enzymes to create output strands. DNA computing is limited by its ability to return only yes-or-no answers (0, 1) like a binary computer — one strand is longer than another. This results in static circuits that are unable to evolve. In contrast, the electrical circuits of our brains are dynamic, ever-changing and evolving networks of neurons that process events in parallel. While conventional computers are typically built using two-state (0, 1) transistors, the molecular layer is built using a hexagonal molecule called DDQ, made of nitrogen, oxygen, chlorine and carbon, that self-assembles in two layers on a gold substrate and can switch among four conducting states — 0, 1, 2 and 3. “The neat part is, approximately 300 molecules talk with each other at a time during information processing,” says Physicist Ranjit Pati of Michigan Tech. “We have mimicked how neurons behave in the brain.”

The recently-published research paper on the organic molecular layer in Nature Physics explains how modern digital supercomputers operate sequentially at speeds of up to ten trillion instructions per second, and while individual neurons in the human brain fire at only approximately 1000 times per second, they do so collectively and in parallel. Unlike the brain, however, the simultaneous, parallel processing of the DDQs used in the molecular monolayer can produce solutions to problems for which algorithms on computers are unknown, like predictions of natural calamities and outbreaks of disease. The supplementary materials include videos showing the creation of the organic layers, the construction of circuits, and how to replicate heat diffusion and cancer cell evolution.

Physicist Ranjit Pati of Michigan Tech: “We have mimicked how neurons behave in the brain.”

Quantum computing is yet another form of molecular computing that allows for multiple simultaneous computations. It takes advantage of quantum effects to perform the computations and is dependent upon supercooled atoms locked in entangled states with one another. As the number of computational elements (qubits) increases, it becomes progressively more difficult to insulate a quantum computer from matter on the outside. Qubits are different than traditional binary bits. Instead of being yes-or-no, qubits can hold a value of both 0 and 1, as well as all values between 0 and 1. Qubits can be made of atoms, ions, photons or electrons, and can easily become destabilized and lose their values.

Does the organic molecular layer have more AI potential than quantum computing? The Michigan Tech announcement is almost unbelievable — a 4-state organic molecular layer that demonstrates brain-like capabilities such as massively parallel processing, the ability to evolve and self-heal, all while acting like a human brain as seen on a fMRI brain scan. The organic molecular layer might work as a substrate for advanced AI, assuming a way can be developed to write data faster than using a scanning tunneling microscope.

Digital edition View the Digital Edition

Comments

Dear @Sir, @Madam,
WELCOME TO THE NEUROSLAVERY!, May 5, 2010,
Quote: < … > On the Road to Freedom: Welcome to the Future of Humans! < … >
http://mindcon.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/welcome-to-the-neuroslavery/
©MINDCON’S THEORY OF INFOWAR AGAINST CIVILIANS!,
http://mindcon.wordpress.com/
Thank you!
Yours sincerely.

A cauliflower does not look much like the brain, even on the most external level. Here, on the other hand, we observe operational, not just visual, similarity.

It looks like a brain so it must behave like a brain.. So does a cauliflower, but don't reckon you'll do much information processing with it. Either this journo has got completely the wrong end of the stick or this is sensationalist balls beyond belief!

Not trying to flame at all - really really like this article!

about:
"assuming a way can be developed to write data faster than using a scanning tunneling microscope."

Don't you mean a faster read than a scanning tunneling microscope? Which I believe is quite slow... so we are saying that we need to create a new form of organs for this molecular brain?

Bending nanotube fibers, that route ins and outs to a main center ala brain stem.

I'm curious how they ask it a question and how it begins working out the solution.

I'm looking forward to reading the full article. I wonder how the learning (programming) compares to work done on using actual neural cultures as computational units (e.g. Potter at Georgia Tech). Simulating the same equations without living tissue would definitely be a nice robustness gain, not to mention size reduction, but AI skeptics will have a hard time denying "intelligence" to an actual brain! :)

it is a sad thing to note most comment ignore the facts that research takes a lot of time and effort on the pat of extremely competent scientist before all the facts and limitations are known. Until this time, no one can expect should expect extraordinary direct benefit from research. The people comment here exhibit a poor understanding of fundamental research that takes special people with special knowledge and skills. So, when a research results are published, unless you are a basic scientist that work in the same field with vast experience, please do not show your ignorance with your childish comments.

A basic scientist

Do these devices exhibit gain?

It you can't lift the signal out of the noise, then it's just another sensational claim.

Er, anyone can grow systems that output 1, 2, 3, or more states in parallel. This technology will be novel when I can PROGRAM it easily to take input, churn on it, and output a usable answer.

The fact that these "molecular computers" tend to mimic cancer or other phenomena doesn't automatically mean that it is a great use to us, nor does it mean that such a system could predict the weather. (After all, we are unable to predict the weather with our massively parallel brains- tending to be worse than computer models).

Indeed, our neurons are much more like transistors than this article indicates. They are basically On-Off (i.e. binary) devices themselves. What evolves in them is the criteria that must be fulfilled prior to switching states. And this process requires years and years of "programming" in our finest schools and results in varied products.

I'm not saying that the research mentioned in this article is worthless- just that the writer seems to be confusing a lot of terms and inserting a lot more hype than fact.

Neurons aren't really binary. On a certain level, yes, they can fire or not fire. But on another level, they can also output an analogue response, like spiking frequency. On an even higher level, the analogy of a neuron to an electrical device completely breaks down: some neural codes are thought to emerge from populations of neurons (so each independent element acts in coherence with a group of others and the response only makes sense when evaluating all of them together).

This is no less than amazing. If people understood the implications of this, it would be a CNN headline.

Great article. For those interested in AI, i recommend the book "on intelligence" by jeff hawkins which is one of the best if not the best theory of the mind that i had the chance to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/0805074562
Also, his latest works seem to be very promising at numenta:
http://www.numenta.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDzr0_fbnVk
Concerning the latest video link, the sound's quality is awful for the first two minutes but it gets better after.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.