The Human Brain Project

However, I tend to think that a more rigid definition of consciousness is needed ( and may well be one of the major results of the HBP). I think this, because I am thinking about similar complex programs as a full brain simulation, which demonstrate complex behavior, but no consciousness. ( For example very detailed simulations of super nova explosions.)

What they are trying to say is that we can put a lot more data into our simulations and run them at different abstraction levels, which will help us improve our understanding of the brain. This improved understanding can be used for innovation in computing, e.g. through neuromorphic processors, see http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/cms/groups/vision/projects/... which is one of the project partners.

I've also come across a couple of startups building on brain-inspired computing. The only one that comes to mind at the moment is Brain Corporation in San Diego http://www.braincorporation.com

There are two problems here. The first is feasibility; the second is the relevance of our results. Feasibility. Neuroscientists have mapped all of C.elegans’ 300 or so neurons. However, enormous amounts of key data needed are still missing. For instance we do not have enough data on the physiology and pharmacology of C. Elegans neurons and synapses. And we still have limited data on the distribution of ion channels, receptors and other proteins on neurons, synapses and glia. Without this data we cannot build unifying models. A second problem is how easy it is to obtain the data. The crucial requirement for unifying models is the ability to access the data needed. Obtaining a deep understanding of the molecular machinery of a single neuron or a single synapse is just as difficult in C. Elegans as in human beings. And many datasets – particularly data on cognition - are actually easier to acquire in rodents, or even in humans. So we can’t just say: “let’s do this quickly in worms and do complex brains later”: we have to solve the same basic challenges, whatever brain we model. What we are actually doing is building a generic strategy we can use to reconstruct any brain.

Relevance: Studying the “simple” nervous systems of organisms like C.elegans or drosophila, is obviously very important, particularly for molecular and genetic studies. However the organization, electrophysiology and function of the mammalian brain are quite different. One of the HBP’s most important goals is to contribute to the development of new treatments for brain disease. But pharmaceutical companies already have great difficulties in translating results from mouse to human beings; with simpler organisms these problems become much worse. If we want to make a real contribution to clinical research, it is probably unwise to invest heavily in simple systems, so distant from the human brain.

Extremely useful platforms that should be open. In addition to which I agree with you that they should allow access to their papers.

Also note, "The HBP has allocated a large proportion of its funding to what we call Competitive Calls. The HBP Competitive Calls Programme will allow researchers from outside the HBP Consortium to propose research and applications development projects using the HBP platforms and to receive funding from the HBP. Proposals will be evaluated by peer reviewers from outside the Consortium. We expect to see many proposals for research and approaches that the current Consortium has never considered"

and

"From year 3 onwards the HBP will fund a large number of HBP Ph.D studentships and post-doctoral fellowships."

(my understanding is that these are in addition to any postdocs recruited by partner organizations using their individual funding for the project).

Besides, whether you call them "diseases" or "disorders" or another term, there are many ways that our neurology can fail us. The "Classification" section of this Wikipedia article lists several major ones, but there's countless more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder#Classific...