The world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain tissue
Immortalist
Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
by living brain tissue.
Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey
matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who
unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.
Their groundbreaking experiments explore the vanishing boundary
between natural and artificial intelligence, and could shed light on
the fundamental building blocks of memory and learning, one of the
lead researchers told AFP.
"The purpose is to figure out how memories are actually stored in a
biological brain," said Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University
of Reading and one of the robot's principle architects.
Observing how the nerve cells cohere into a network as they fire off
electrical impulses, he said, may also help scientists combat
neurodegenerative diseases that attack the brain such as Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's.
"If we can understand some of the basics of what is going on in our
little model brain, it could have enormous medical spinoffs," he said.
Looking a bit like the garbage-compacting hero of the blockbuster
animation "Wall-E", Gordon has a brain composed of 50,000 to 100,000
active neurons.
Once removed from rat foetuses and disentangled from each other with
an enzyme bath, the specialised nerve cells are laid out in a nutrient-
rich medium across an eight-by-eight centimetre (five-by-five inch)
array of 60 electrodes.
This "multi-electrode array" (MEA) serves as the interface between
living tissue and machine, with the brain sending electrical impulses
to drive the wheels of the robots, and receiving impulses delivered by
sensors reacting to the environment.
Because the brain is living tissue, it must be housed in a special
temperature-controlled unit -- it communicates with its "body" via a
Bluetooth radio link.
The robot has no additional control from a human or computer.
From the very start, the neurons get busy. "Within about 24 hours,
they start sending out feelers to each other and making connections,"
said Warwick.
"Within a week we get some spontaneous firings and brain-like
activity" similar to what happens in a normal rat -- or human --
brain, he added.
But without external stimulation, the brain will wither and die within
a couple of months.
"Now we are looking at how best to teach it to behave in certain
ways," explained Warwick.
To some extent, Gordon learns by itself. When it hits a wall, for
example, it gets an electrical stimulation from the robot's sensors.
As it confronts similar situations, it learns by habit.
To help this process along, the researchers also use different
chemicals to reinforce or inhibit the neural pathways that light up
during particular actions.
Gordon, in fact, has multiple personalities -- several MEA "brains"
that the scientists can dock into the robot.
"It's quite funny -- you get differences between the brains," said
Warwick. "This one is a bit boisterous and active, while we know
another is not going to do what we want it to."
Mainly for ethical reasons, it is unlikely that researchers at Reading
or the handful of laboratories around the world exploring the same
terrain will be using human neurons any time soon in the same kind of
experiments.
But rats brain cells are not a bad stand-in: much of the difference
between rodent and human intelligence, speculates Warwick, could be
attributed to quantity not quality.
Rats brains are composed of about one million neurons, the specialised
cells that relay information across the brain via chemicals called
neurotransmitters.
Humans have 100 billion.
"This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human brain where
we can look -- and control -- the basic features in the way that we
want. In a human brain, you can't really do that," he said.
For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions facing
scientists today is how to link the activity of individual neurons
with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of whole organisms.
"The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something which
may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied to the
activity of individual neurons," he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_article=1
Spaceman
> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> by living brain tissue.
Oh crap,
The creation of the Dalak race has begun.
:)
Errol
> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> Their groundbreaking experiments explore the vanishing boundary
> between natural and artificial intelligence,
Vanishing? vanishing??????????
> and could shed light on
> the fundamental building blocks of memory and learning, one of the
> lead researchers told AFP.
>
> "The purpose is to figure out how memories are actually stored in a
> biological brain," said Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University
> of Reading and one of the robot's principle architects.
>
If it's vanishing, why do they still have to figure out anything?
> "If we can understand some of the basics of what is going on in our
> little model brain, it could have enormous medical spinoffs," he said.
>
Understanding the basics is not quite the same message as the
vanishing boundary between artificial and natural intelligence.
Edward Green
> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...
That's very creepy, if it's real
The Trucker
Yup. This will have the religious nut cases up in arms for certain. How
much will a replacement laborer cost? Can we stop importing them from
Mexico?
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Jerry Kraus
Interesting game. But, is it really anything more than that? I often
have the feeling, these days, that scientific experiments aren't
really intended to accomplish anything at all, other than attract
attention. What really are they trying to design with this particular
monstrosity, other than the outline for a research grant?
Immortalist
wrote:
Dalek is a member of a fictional extraterrestrial race of mutants from
the British science fiction television series Doctor Who. Daleks are
organisms from the planet Skaro, integrated within a tank-like
mechanical casing. The resulting creatures are a powerful race bent on
universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or
remorse (as all of their emotions were removed except hate). They are
also, collectively, the greatest extraterrestrial enemies of the Time
Lord known as the Doctor. Their most famous catchphrase is "EX-TER-MI-
NATE!", with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic
electronic voice
Immortalist
Gotta start somewhere and when they pile the nerves on the thing might
become more human than human...
In the great beer can theory of consciousness if you had 100,000 bear
cans that could be either standing up or on their side and you
organized them into a network it could perform intelligence, therefore
if alien brains worked by canning they would need to resupply their
beer can supply in a way similar to how in Star Trek they sometimes
have to find Dilithium Crystals for heir warp drives. Therefore aliens
could be building up beer can recycling sites is a possibility that
cannot be denied with inductive logic but its probability is low.
Immortalist
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:23:23 -0700, Edward Green wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 1:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> > <...>
> >>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...
>
> > That's very creepy, if it's real
>
> Yup. This will have the religious nut cases up in arms for certain. How
> much will a replacement laborer cost? Can we stop importing them from
> Mexico?
>
Technological innovations of automation, corporate reengineering, lean
production, and computers have replaced the need for workers at an
alarming rate culminating in "The Third Industrial Revolution". Every
sector and industry has experienced significant trends in unemployment
and underemployment. Although virtually every worker has been
affected, technology has undermined the worker and reconceptualized
our notion of the workplace. Technology will replace nearly all labor
in today's rapidly changing globalized economy.
Solutions to global worker displacement include shorter work week to
share the remaining work to all workers. Rifkin also argues for
investment in the third sector of volunteerism and social services to
combat the rise in crime and violence that is inevitable in a society
of large scale employment. In the near future there will be massive
unemployment and we are headed to a society run by machines.
Look forward to the end of private ownership of the means of
production. Hypercompetitiveness will eliminate owners, replacing them
by better robot decision makers. Then enter nano-technology by which
individual atoms are stack in any way that please man or robot, then
fusion whereby abundant elements are combined to create scarce
elements as if by alchemy. Then the robots become a vast "welfare
state" with humans living totally for free. They will shout "tax the
robots more" when they need to alocate more resources from scientific
research the robots complete.
Starting with contemporary robotics research, a likely course for the
next 40 years of robot development, will be the rise of
superintelligent, creative, emotionally complex cyberbeings and the
end of human labor by the middle of the next century. Robot
corporations will take up residence in outer space with rogue cyborgs;
planet-size robots will cruise the solar system looking for smaller
bots to assimilate; and eventually every atom in the entire galaxy
will be transformed into data-storage space, with a full-scale
simulation of human civilization running as a subroutine somewhere.
The end result of the robotic evolution, will be beings with awesome
intelligence that are able to arrange spacetime and energy for
computation. The physics of time travel, conscious robots are indeed
possible in the author's eyes, or at best possible given our current
understanding of it. The robots themselves, with their enhanced
capabilities, will have their own arguments about us, we fight to
merge with them, we (merged with them) become the government.
We live happily ever after in the dreamstate utopia with little
flowers in
out hair....
The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of
the Post-Market Era
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X53813A21
Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O4B720A21
Immortalist
Should they throw it away then because it will be abused but possibly
developed?
Jan Panteltje
Green <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
<fbbdd014-7b3b-4b56...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Aug 14, 1:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
><...>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar..=
>.
>
>That's very creepy, if it's real
Have been thinking about this.
What if the experiment was repeated with politician's brain cells?
And brain cells from GW Bush (if he has enough)?
Would the outcome be different?
But on the more serious side, I'd like to give that thing challenges,
so as to learn math for example to obtain food....
The bad thing is: I will at most be as good as us.
Perhaps one day outsmart the researchers, start a species of its own,
take over the planet.. Oh but Bush already tried that.
The good thing is: we can learn about how our neurons organise.
Nice experiment.
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
No problem with that but i prefer penroses' idea that consciousness is
non-computational (cannot be simulated on a computer)
Penrose considered that if consciousness were no more than a program--
even a horrendously complex one--why wouldn't artificial-life
researchers or neuroscientists have gained at least a tiny insight
into its nature?
The reason, penrose concluded, is that the "quality of understanding
and feeling possessed by human beings is not something that can be
simulated computationally"
Penrose used the chinese room argument to show that the hardware
doesn't understand what the program is about.
I like the idea that consciousness arises from the very structure of
space-time itself and penrose is the closest to that concept.
Androcles
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g83lop$t7e$1...@news.datemas.de...
Be more interesting if the neurons were replaced by durable, replaceable
hardware and still functioned in exactly the same way. When an organ
is transplanted to prolong the life of an individual it is the function that
is of importance, not the material it is made of. The Jarvik 7 heart worked
but eventually the individual died, the rest of the system failed.
That was not a failure of the heart.
http://www.texasheart.org/Research/Devices/j7tah.cfm
Keep the software, replace the worn hardware as you would a car part
such as the engine or alternator and you have the elixir of life, eternal
youth.
It matters not which computer the software runs on, the character and the
memories are contained in the software.
Replace my neurons with transistorised memory cells, give me energy in
electrical form rather than chemical and as long as the function and state
of the cells (on or off) is identical then I have eternity. I'm quite
willing
to be the first experiment, I face death anyway. Nothing to lose and
everything to gain.
Spaceman
Yes, I knew all that, but sadly now humans have created the "proto-type".
Good thing there will be no "TARDIS" nor any "real" timewars.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Somehow, I'm not too worried about that possibility. What worries me
isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What worries me
is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything, and was only
proposed because it sounds a bit like the "Terminator".
Edward Green
> On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:23:23 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
> <fbbdd014-7b3b-4b56-bc01-c8dd13187...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Aug 14, 1:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> ><...>
> >>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar..=
> >.
>
> >That's very creepy, if it's real
>
> Have been thinking about this.
> What if the experiment was repeated with politician's brain cells?
> And brain cells from GW Bush (if he has enough)?
> Would the outcome be different?
>
> But on the more serious side, I'd like to give that thing challenges,
> so as to learn math for example to obtain food....
>
> The bad thing is: I will at most be as good as us.
> Perhaps one day outsmart the researchers, start a species of its own,
> take over the planet.. Oh but Bush already tried that.
>
> The good thing is: we can learn about how our neurons organise.
> Nice experiment.
Joking aside, as I think they said in the article, rat vs. human
intelligence seems to be a matter of quantity, not quality. It's
plausible to think a rat has some experience which vaguely resembles
ours, as does a dog: free of language, abstract thought, but with some
emotions. And what is the experience of a rat brain artificially
grown in a box? We don't know, and this could be animal cruelty.
I'm not sure I actually believe the article. How is the lump of tissue
kept alive? Is it simply suffused with nutrient?
Immortalist
But what about Agent Smith and the Matrix possibility? In the future
put humans in a dream state where they believe it is way back now;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHiX0FZcjkA
Immortalist
If you notice in the article that the computer is made of nerve cells
only. It is easy to make or grow a brain, we do it through
reproduction and development of embryos. All we have to do is
manipulate these biological activities and we can probably discover
more aspects of consciousness than nature itself has. If I take a
rock, I take all its quantum forces with it, if I copy the rock with
actual minerals and figure a way to put them together just like they
are in the rock, I have aligned such forces Penrose spoke of.
> Penrose considered that if consciousness were no more than a program--
> even a horrendously complex one--why wouldn't artificial-life
> researchers or neuroscientists have gained at least a tiny insight
> into its nature?
>
> The reason, penrose concluded, is that the "quality of understanding
> and feeling possessed by human beings is not something that can be
> simulated computationally"
>
> Penrose used the chinese room argument to show that the hardware
> doesn't understand what the program is about.
>
> I like the idea that consciousness arises from the very structure of
> space-time itself and penrose is the closest to that concept.
Something in the cell itself may align some quantum forces and these
cells are in our test tubes. There probably soon will be no need to
appeal to the impossibility dogma and Penrose's main fears will become
extinguished.
Microtubules are cylindrical molecules made by gluing together 13
strands of the protein, tubulin, to make a tube 25 nanometres across,
with a central channel about 15 nanometres wide. Each microtubule is
covered by a fuzz of protein stubs, known as MAPs (microtubule
associated proteins), and these can be used to hook clusters of
microtubules together into larger lattices. Both microtubules and MAPs
seem to be capable of a certain amount of movement, meaning that they
can be woven into plastic structures, able to give and bend.
The structural properties of microtubule assemblies make them a
valuable building material within cells. For example, a bundle of 20
microtubules form the beating, hair-like cilia that coat the surface
of many small single-celled animals, allowing them to swim. However
the main use for microtubules appears to be to make an internal
skeleton for cells-an intricate scaffolding that gives a cell its
shape but also can deform and bend enough to allow it to move.
The existence of the microtubule cytoskeleton was discovered only
relatively recently in the 1970s-previously the fixative chemicals
used in electron microscopy was having the unfortunate effect of
dissolving the tubules-so biologists still have much to learn about
what the cytoskeleton does and how it operates. Yet biologists believe
that it not only holds a cell in shape but also plays an important
role in cell metabolism, acting as a piping system or an internal
highway to move plasma and other essential cell products about the
cell. Some have suggested microtubules might do this by using their
MAP spurs to drag cell protoplasm along, hand over hand, in a
miniature bucket brigade running up the sides of a tubule.
There is also evidence that the cytoskeleton could serve as a
primitive brain. Biologists have long been puzzled how a simple single-
celled animal, like the slipper-shaped paramecium, could behave so
intelligently when it has no nervous system. A paramecium is
surprisingly nimble as it swims about in pond-bottom detritus,
twisting in and out of tight spaces in search of its dinner. Somehow
the protozoan manages to respond swiftly to information coming in from
a light-sensitive eyespot and its touch-sensitive cilia to co-ordinate
its swimming action. Several biologists have speculated that the
cytoskeleton could serve as the communication and information
processing link needed to organise such relatively complex behaviour.
This suggestion that the cytoskeleton could be a "brain within a
brain" has particularly excited the quantum theorists. In casting
around for a suitable cell structure to operate as a go-between,
connecting the sub-atomic realm with the macroscopic world of firing
brain cells, some theorists had considered that the membranes at the
synaptic junctions between nerve cells might be the site of quantum
interactions. Others had wondered whether the ion channels down the
flanks of neurons could be ruled by quantum effects. But quickly,
microtubules began to look a far better bet. While microtubules are
not unique to neurons, they are found there in particular abundance (a
fact that does not surprise neurologists given that nerve cells are so
metabolically-active and microtubules seem essential to metabolic
activity). Furthermore, the speed at which microtubules can switch
state between relaxation and contraction is believed to be of the
order of a nanosecond. This may be slow by the usual time scales of
quantum events, but it is about a million times faster than the cell
firing events usually believed to underlie consciousness and so at
least appears to get the biology of the system within striking
distance of a quantum explanation.
http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_quantum%20mind.html
Immortalist
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Somehow, I'm not too worried about that possibility. What worries me
> isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What worries me
> is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything, and was only
> proposed because it sounds a bit like the "Terminator".
Can explain why you believe it will ever, in the near or even far
future lead to anything? Using only nerve cells seems like a major
step, like inventing the transistor or something. This could be so
revolutionary that it changes everything in the information world.
Jan Panteltje
Green <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
<5a4efb7a-a2c7-43ee...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:>
>Joking aside, as I think they said in the article, rat vs. human
>intelligence seems to be a matter of quantity, not quality. It's
>plausible to think a rat has some experience which vaguely resembles
>ours, as does a dog: free of language, abstract thought, but with some
>emotions. And what is the experience of a rat brain artificially
>grown in a box? We don't know, and this could be animal cruelty.
>
>I'm not sure I actually believe the article. How is the lump of tissue
>kept alive? Is it simply suffused with nutrient?
The article is probably true, there was a preceeding experiment:
rat cells control flight simulator:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm
Yes it is in some nutricient, and it seems they add chemicals as
'reward' or 'punishment' to correct action (feedback in the neural net).
Hope I got that one right.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> by living brain tissue.
Maybe, but a rat brain interface was used to fly an F16 simulator years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
> > > Should they throw it away then because it will be abused but possibly
> > > developed?
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlTImvP8M-Q&feature=related-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Somehow, I'm not too worried about that possibility. What worries me
> > isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What worries me
> > is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything, and was only
> > proposed because it sounds a bit like the "Terminator".
>
> Can explain why you believe it will ever, in the near or even far
> future lead to anything? Using only nerve cells seems like a major
> step, like inventing the transistor or something. This could be so
> revolutionary that it changes everything in the information world.
Not really. We've hooked up electrodes to the human brain that
allowed people to crudely manipulate devices. But, we haven't
proceeded to be able to manipulate much of anything psychokinetically,
for practical purposes. Now we have a few neurons that can be used to
very crudely manipulate something. The problem isn't the general
concept. It's the crudeness of the technique. And the total abscence
of any general approach to structure the research process so as to
refine the technology. Scientists are good speculators. But,
frequently, they are very bad at moving from theory to practice.
Perhaps because the system doesn't really reward results. Neurons
produce electrochemical discharges, obviously these discharges can be
used to crudely influence an electronic system. But, to produce
something of real practical value, that may be a qualitatively
different step. Which the scientists have no way of knowing how to
proceed to. And may not which to proceed to, if they have no
incentive to do so.
zinnic
>
> Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> by living brain tissue.
>
> Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey
> matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who
> unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.
> Rats brains are composed of about one million neurons, the specialised
> cells that relay information across the brain via chemicals called
> neurotransmitters.
>
> Humans have 100 billion.
>
> "This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human brain where
> we can look -- and control -- the basic features in the way that we
> want. In a human brain, you can't really do that," he said.
>
> For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions facing
> scientists today is how to link the activity of individual neurons
> with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of whole organisms.
>
> "The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something which
> may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied to the
> activity of individual neurons," he said.
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...
Mystics again have to fold their tents and retreat furthur and furthur
into the boundless desert of their 'unpromising' land.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's a "mystic"? Someone who doesn't think we know everything?
John
> The article is probably true, there was a preceeding experiment:
> rat cells control flight simulator:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm
> Yes it is in some nutricient, and it seems they add chemicals as
> 'reward' or 'punishment' to correct action (feedback in the neural net).
> Hope I got that one right.
How neurons select connections is an intriguing subject. The
impoverished (simple) configuration described in the article should
persuade the curious to consider reading Stephen Wolfram's book, _A New
Kind of Science_.
Jerry Kraus
Ah, so many questions. So much money. So much time. So few
answers. Makes for very steady work, no?
Jan Panteltje
<no...@droffats.ten> wrote in <18-dnVwozvoYdjvV...@supernews.com>:
Yes, it is an interesting subject, the 'new kind of science' never was
such that it changed main stream I think.
Interesting is that they write something like 'If no stimuli are present,
then the neurons just wither away'.
If we look at ourselves as [controlled by] a larger number of those neurons,
then I see some analog things.
If you lock somebody up without any input from the outside world, then
they probably wither away too (or if young never develop).
There have been cases of children growing up in the wild...
Our constant 'curiosity' to look at things, and ask 'why?', is like the net
asking for input, grabbing any input, and wanting to do something with it.
How do those neurons really pass on messages? It is all in the time domain (pulses).
Do neurons that feel pulses with the same frequency, or happening at the
same instant in time, build connections, like 'that is (sounds) like my thing?'
(During spikes that are in sync in the time domain there is a lower potential
difference between neurons, so maybe that potential difference somehow influences grows
of connections).
Perhaps something like that, and delete connections that are out of sync with your
own firing (ideas).
Of course the human brain is much more complex, and has many areas for processing many different things.
So I am only guessing.
As to 'mystic' and ,consciousness,, well 'mysticism' will have to go,
if we look to the past, where the earth was at the centre of the universe, and
the sun and stars orbiting around it, we will now have to give up on the idea
that 'we' are special, we are controlled by just a larger collection of neurons.
Consciousness is nothing special, I gave this example many times
in sci.physics, a light sensitive cell that moves a sunshade, so that when
the sun shines the shade closes, _is_ conscious of light.
The simplest sensor - activator mechanism.
We are more complex, but not much, look at how the iris closes when light
is bright, and opens in the dark.
Same neurons, at yet an other job.
I hope I did not go too far of subject -all those cross postings-, but there is a field
that definitely needs some more research.
Jerry Kraus
> On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:00:10 -0500) it happened John
> As to 'mystic' and ,consciousness,, well 'mysticism' will have to go,
> if we look to the past, where the earth was at the centre of the universe, and
> the sun and stars orbiting around it, we will now have to give up on the idea
> that 'we' are special, we are controlled by just a larger collection of neurons.
Spendid. So why do you care? And why bother studying it at all? If
all we are is a few utterly meaningless electrochemical connections.
And, by the way, why haven't we made more progress in Artificial
Intelligence by this time? No computer comes remotely close to human
intelligence except in extremely narrowly defined activities like
chess.
Jan Panteltje
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<ce1affdb-3f95-4fba...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Aug 16, 11:02 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:00:10 -0500) it happened John
>> <n...@droffats.ten> wrote in <18-dnVwozvoYdjvVnZ2dnUVZ_r7in...@supernews.=
>com>:
>
>
>> As to 'mystic' and ,consciousness,, well 'mysticism' will have to go,
>> if we look to the past, where the earth was at the centre of the universe=
>, and
>> the sun and stars orbiting around it, we will now have to give up on the =
>idea
>> that 'we' are special, we are controlled by just a larger collection of n=
>eurons.
>
>Spendid. So why do you care?
There is more to neural nets then I can explain here in a reasonable size posting.
There is much more to 'neurons', and our current software model of those neurons
needs fixing.
I find understanding our selves, our nature, and nature, a facinating enterprise,
And we need to.
> And why bother studying it at all? If
>all we are is a few utterly meaningless electrochemical connections.
Well, if _you_ call yourself meaningless is not anybody else's problem.
That would be as dumb as saying: 'Because the earth is not at the centre
of the solar system we are all meaningless'.
Makes no sense to me.
Nature is beautiful, it is, in a way, 'mechanical', our understanding
is limited, but growing, will there be an end? (for us) I think not.
>And, by the way, why haven't we made more progress in Artificial
>Intelligence by this time?
For the reasons I just mentioned, and 'artificial' intelligence is a bad word ;-)
We need _real_ intelligence, and so what is that according to you?
>No computer comes remotely close to human
>intelligence except in extremely narrowly defined activities like
>chess.
Chess is a dumb example, it is 100% methodical, some of those very good
chess programs have old games programmed in them (look at the source of GNU chess for example).
Chess has nothing to do with intelligence, the fact you waste your time with it proves that.
Jerry Kraus
> On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
> <ce1affdb-3f95-4fba-8988-b47fae8e7...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
If you accept that knowledge is limitless -- or may well be, in any
case -- then what is your objection to "mysticism"? Generally, what
people mean by "mysticism" is simply trying to find new ways of
looking at things. And how do you know that everything is
"mechanical"? As far as that goes, what do you mean by "mechanical"?
Most likely, you mean in terms of currently understood structures like
neurons.
For all we know, our brains may be linked to some universal
consciousness spreading beyond the stars, which we currently have no
understanding of. Who knows?
Jan Panteltje
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<97c07482-37c5-47f0...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>If you accept that knowledge is limitless -- or may well be, in any
>case -- then what is your objection to "mysticism"? Generally, what
>people mean by "mysticism" is simply trying to find new ways of
>looking at things. And how do you know that everything is
>"mechanical"? As far as that goes, what do you mean by "mechanical"?
>Most likely, you mean in terms of currently understood structures like
>neurons.
>
>For all we know, our brains may be linked to some universal
>consciousness spreading beyond the stars, which we currently have no
>understanding of. Who knows?
Yes, have you ever seen a person die?
It seems, in a way, our eyes can perceive more then just the visible spectrum...
To me, it was like that energy that pervades everything (and gives us life) was
withdrawing from that body.
'Going to the spirit in the sky' is one way, a song even, to describe it, but in
my understanding of it, it is the spirit in the sky separating from the body,
leaving the body as is, to rot away, return to dust if you will, it's molecules
and atoms will be re-used.
So, what is this force? His hand in our body, we are the glove.
He has the whole world in is hand could also read:
He has his hand in the glove we are.
So that was the spiritual part, and I have no explanation.
So, 1) there is life, given by this mysterious force, and 2) there is us,
and 2a) our awareness of of that force, and 2b) our understanding of our neural net,
while it lives.
Obviously we do not understand while we are dead, as then then it is no more in its working form.
To understand your own net (now we have descended way down from the 'spiritual' to the practical),
do meditation, probe your own net.
You may find some interesting aspects that can help you to live a happy life.
Most important thing there is.
Does this answer your question?
Mechanical? Sure we are on a mechanical level now, and I mean something were
we can see a mechanisms, structures, and understand and play with these.
The story of the monk who went up the mountain, realized enlightenment, and
walked back down the other side to hold a party, comes to mind.
But who am I top teach, as He has got the whole world in his hand.
John
> And the total abscence
> of any general approach to structure the research process so as to
> refine the technology.
Your ignorance is simply astounding. Do you think there are not
entrepreneurs waiting with bated breath, paying acute attention to
scientific research?
Your secret wish is to become the Tsar, the top dictator of all that you
would determine to be appropriate science. Look, we've had characters
like you in history and it did not work out.
Jerry Kraus
> On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:34:59 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
> <97c07482-37c5-47f0-9f8e-295b88e74...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
Fair enough. But, getting back to the mechanical, and the main topic
of this particular thread -- rat neurons controlling electronics --
what concerns me is that the emphasis in the research is likely to be
much more on generating research grant proposals than on developing
any useful applications. I fear this is the nature of the
professional research environment -- a self-sustaining bureaucracy.
John
You ignorant fuck. Wolfram made his money himself and continues to
support his own research.
John
> On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:00:10 -0500) it happened John
> <no...@droffats.ten> wrote in <18-dnVwozvoYdjvV...@supernews.com>:
>
>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>>> The article is probably true, there was a preceeding experiment:
>>> rat cells control flight simulator:
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm
>>> Yes it is in some nutricient, and it seems they add chemicals as
>>> 'reward' or 'punishment' to correct action (feedback in the neural net).
>>> Hope I got that one right.
>> How neurons select connections is an intriguing subject. The
>> impoverished (simple) configuration described in the article should
>> persuade the curious to consider reading Stephen Wolfram's book, _A New
>> Kind of Science_.
>
> Yes, it is an interesting subject, the 'new kind of science' never was
> such that it changed main stream I think.
Ah, it's not like Wolfram is a dead scholar. He's a contemporary. What
kind of change would you expect so soon?
Jerry Kraus
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:00:10 -0500) it happened John
>
> >> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> >>> The article is probably true, there was a preceeding experiment:
> >>> rat cells control flight simulator:
> >>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm
> >>> Yes it is in some nutricient, and it seems they add chemicals as
> >>> 'reward' or 'punishment' to correct action (feedback in the neural net).
> >>> Hope I got that one right.
> >> How neurons select connections is an intriguing subject. The
> >> impoverished (simple) configuration described in the article should
> >> persuade the curious to consider reading Stephen Wolfram's book, _A New
> >> Kind of Science_.
>
> > Yes, it is an interesting subject, the 'new kind of science' never was
> > such that it changed main stream I think.
>
> Ah, it's not like Wolfram is a dead scholar. He's a contemporary. What
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I'm talking about the original cited article in this thread
by a University professor, not about Wolfram, or his book.
Michael A. Terrell
Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
> For all we know, our brains may be linked to some universal
> consciousness spreading beyond the stars, which we currently have no
> understanding of. Who knows?
If that is true, a lot of people have lost their connection, as
evidenced by the ever increasing number of fools on USENET. :(
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Rod Speed
> What's a "mystic"?
> Someone who doesn't think we know everything?
No sane scientist does.
Robert Monsen
wrote:
>No problem with that but i prefer penroses' idea that consciousness is
>non-computational (cannot be simulated on a computer)
While I enjoyed "The Emperor's New Mind", I didn't buy his argument.
The whole Searle "chinese room" argument begs the question. He posits
a situation where a man in a box sees chinese symbols flashed on a
screen, and, using some big reference book and a bunch of rules for
putting marks on paper, outputs results. The assumption is that the
formal responses are answers to questions generated by the reference
book. The man knows no chinese. So, Searle asks, how can the man
really be 'thinking' in Chinese, and answering the questions. This is
thought to be a reducto ad absurdum proof of the inability of
computers (the man) to think.
It is obviously the system of book, notes, and man that form the
consiousness. His argument is roughly equivalent to saying that John
Searle's amigdala can't do geometry, so John Searle isn't consious.
He clearly knows better than to fall into this logical trap, so I
conclude that his argument is specious.
Penrose, however, was saying something slightly different. He was
asserting that we just can't build the right hardware right now, and
may never be able to do it. I don't know whether that is true, but if
we can never simulate minds, how come can we currently simulate
electrical circuits? They obviously depend on quantum states, but
spice does a fair job at it. How can we simulate bridges? Traffic?
Weather?
Now, if the question is "Is a simulation of weather actually real
weather?", then the answer is no, it is obviously not real weather.
Nobody gets wet. A simulation of a personality won't be a personality
in this sense, and that is what Searle is probably thinking. It just
isn't human. My answer is, so what! Can I talk to it?
How do you know I'm really human? I might be a computer program,
running on some darpa computer...
Regards,
Bob Monsen (aka phylum simon genus newell v2.3221.1)
Robert Monsen
I've determined experimentally that Microsoft Windows hates me... does
that count?
Regards,
Bob Monsen
zinnic
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Somehow, I'm not too worried about that possibility. What worries me
> > > isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What worries me
> > > is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything, and was only
> > > proposed because it sounds a bit like the "Terminator".
>
> > Can explain why you believe it will ever, in the near or even far
> > future lead to anything? Using only nerve cells seems like a major
> > step, like inventing the transistor or something. This could be so
> > revolutionary that it changes everything in the information world.
>
> Not really. We've hooked up electrodes to the human brain that
> allowed people to crudely manipulate devices. But, we haven't
> proceeded to be able to manipulate much of anything psychokinetically,
> for practical purposes. Now we have a few neurons that can be used to
> very crudely manipulate something. The problem isn't the general
> concept. It's the crudeness of the technique. And the total abscence
> of any general approach to structure the research process so as to
> refine the technology. Scientists are good speculators. But,
> frequently, they are very bad at moving from theory to practice.
> Perhaps because the system doesn't really reward results. Neurons
> produce electrochemical discharges, obviously these discharges can be
> used to crudely influence an electronic system. But, to produce
> something of real practical value, that may be a qualitatively
> different step. Which the scientists have no way of knowing how to
> proceed to. And may not which to proceed to, if they have no
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them
wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude flying
machines will never be useful for transport. The list goes on and on.
zinnic
>
> - Show quoted text -
evidence of scientists seeking answers to what they do not yet know!
Why would people who think they 'know' everything do research?
zinnic
>
And without scientific research our current lack of understanding will
remain the impotent "for all we know" speculations of mysticst.
Rod Speed
> Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them wrong!
We'll see...
> Example- DNA research will have no utility,
Bet you cant cite anyone that said that.
> Crude flying machines will never be useful for transport.
That wasnt scientists.
> The list goes on and on.
And sometimes it was the scientists themselves too.
Rutherford claimed that nothing useful would ever come out of nuclear physics.
Strange Creature
Spaceman wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> >
> > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > by living brain tissue.
>
>
> Oh crap,
> The creation of the Dalak race has begun.
> :)
Yes. Get a vat that can grow rat neurons and
produce an insert that is 1m x 1m x 1m, and
it will probably take over the Earth by 2020, and
maybe even become the top world champion
at chess, either biological or non-biological.
Strange Creature
Spaceman wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> >
> > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > by living brain tissue.
>
>
> Oh crap,
> The creation of the Dalak race has begun.
> :)
Yup. Although bigger versions of these little
guys could probably eventually drive an auto or
a semi more safely than a human, they still
have the same defects of biological neural
networks, basically, configurability and
reproducibility of the pattern of neural
connections after one has been trained,
along with long training times to get it
to work properly.
It's also interesting to ask how long the
little soup cans will last considering that
the the original rats might have lasted
only a few years, that is if they will be
preserved for that long. Nerve cells
don't reproduce that much so it might
be an interesting question on several
levels.
Spaceman
So one day we will all be riding our "automated"
travel systems and we will all hear those dreaded words..
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
I hope the guy that invented these things real name is not Davros.
:)
Strange Creature
> is transplanted to prolong the life of an individual it is the function that
> is of importance, not the material it is made of. The Jarvik 7 heart worked
> but eventually the individual died, the rest of the system failed.
> That was not a failure of the heart.
> http://www.texasheart.org/Research/Devices/j7tah.cfm
>
> Keep the software, replace the worn hardware as you would a car part
> such as the engine or alternator and you have the elixir of life, eternal
> youth.
> It matters not which computer the software runs on, the character and the
> memories are contained in the software.
> Replace my neurons with transistorised memory cells, give me energy in
> electrical form rather than chemical and as long as the function and state
> of the cells (on or off) is identical then I have eternity. I'm quite
> willing
> to be the first experiment, I face death anyway. Nothing to lose and
> everything to gain.
The problem is that brains
1. Weren't designed to have information directly
transferred from external sources to produce
instant information transfer - all of the inputs
and outputs to each neuron are indirect and
are interfaced in nature exclusively with
sensory cells and sensory organs or muscles
in the one organism only, and with other neurons.
2. They rewire and program themselves at
least partially by changing the physical
connections between the neighboring
neurons. The manufacturing of most
electronic devices freezes their physical
state at the end of the manufacturing
process, relying on their electronic
and magnetic properties to produce
volatility. The only exception that I
can think of to this is the relay, and
relays as electronic devices are
generally not produced on the size
scales of electronic gates in
microprocessors or even nerve
cells. (There probably have been
a few micromachines that have been
produced experimentally.)
In order to get something to work,
you have to make something
better than what natural brains
do now, since natural brains
simply do not do these things
to begin with.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Aug 15, 7:32 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 7:56 am, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 14, 7:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> > > > between natural and artificial intelligence,
>
>
> > > > and could shed light on
> > > > the fundamental building blocks of memory and learning, one of the
> > > > lead researchers told AFP.
>
> > > > "The purpose is to figure out how memories are actually stored in a
> > > > biological brain," said Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University
> > > > of Reading and one of the robot's principle architects.
>
>
> > > > "If we can understand some of the basics of what is going on in our
> > > > little model brain, it could have enormous medical spinoffs," he said.
>
> > > vanishing boundary between artificial and natural intelligence.
>
> > Gotta start somewhere and when they pile the nerves on the thing might
> > become more human than human...
>
> > In the great beer can theory of consciousness if you had 100,000 bear
> > cans that could be either standing up or on their side and you
> > organized them into a network it could perform intelligence, therefore
> > if alien brains worked by canning they would need to resupply their
> > beer can supply in a way similar to how in Star Trek they sometimes
> > have to find Dilithium Crystals for heir warp drives. Therefore aliens
> > could be building up beer can recycling sites is a possibility that
> > cannot be denied with inductive logic but its probability is low.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> non-computational (cannot be simulated on a computer)
>
> even a horrendously complex one--why wouldn't artificial-life
> researchers or neuroscientists have gained at least a tiny insight
> into its nature?
>
> The reason, penrose concluded, is that the "quality of understanding
> and feeling possessed by human beings is not something that can be
> simulated computationally"
>
> Penrose used the chinese room argument to show that the hardware
> doesn't understand what the program is about.
>
> I like the idea that consciousness arises from the very structure of
> space-time itself and penrose is the closest to that concept.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Penrose could be the Zen master of mathematicians.
The mind cannot understand the mind, the eye cannot see itself, and
the individual is "far greater" then the sum of its parts.
Science can only discover what life (or consciousness) is not. A
valuable process of elimination.This is why we get a 'trickle' of
spirito/philisophical insights such as Penrose, Hawking and David
Deuche.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Aug 15, 7:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Immortalist wrote:
> > > On Aug 14, 7:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Immortalist wrote:
> > >>> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> > >>> by living brain tissue.
>
> > >> Oh crap,
> > >> The creation of the Dalak race has begun.
> > >> :)
>
> > > the British science fiction television series Doctor Who. Daleks are
> > > organisms from the planet Skaro, integrated within a tank-like
> > > mechanical casing. The resulting creatures are a powerful race bent on
> > > universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or
> > > remorse (as all of their emotions were removed except hate). They are
> > > also, collectively, the greatest extraterrestrial enemies of the Time
> > > Lord known as the Doctor. Their most famous catchphrase is "EX-TER-MI-
> > > NATE!", with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic
> > > electronic voice
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalek
>
> > Yes, I knew all that, but sadly now humans have created the "proto-type".
> > Good thing there will be no "TARDIS" nor any "real" timewars.
> > :)
>
> But what about Agent Smith and the Matrix possibility? In the future
> put humans in a dream state where they believe it is way back now;
>
If your attention is on some future outcome or past experience, you
are dreaming. Perfectly natural, but not real.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > by living brain tissue.
>
> > matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who
> > unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.
> > cells that relay information across the brain via chemicals called
> > neurotransmitters.
>
> > Humans have 100 billion.
>
> > "This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human brain where
> > we can look -- and control -- the basic features in the way that we
> > want. In a human brain, you can't really do that," he said.
>
> > For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions facing
> > scientists today is how to link the activity of individual neurons
> > with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of whole organisms.
>
> > "The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something which
> > may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied to the
> > activity of individual neurons," he said.
>
> >http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No need for promise in the world of knowing. Everything I have read
here confirms what I have already grasped (as an apprentice mystic).
The speculation is that the metabolic stimulus of the tubles comes
from quantum theory.
The intellectuals progress further into the world of theory. Always
filling in the gaps between the dissection process with conjecture.
I admire them in the same way as I admire the likes of Phelps.
Fantastic effort, remarkable dedication, and wonderful entertainment.
In the same way, I question if I would be willing to swim up and down
a lane for many hours a day for many years, imposing incredible pain
to my organism.
I wonder if this activity would be persued if done in isolation, with
no recognition or acknowledgment from your fellows?
I cannot begin to imagine that scenario. Ironic, when one starts to
realize that the "real" journey is precisely that, without the pain
and boring repetative nature of the 'relative search'.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats rather like a fish asking what a bird is, when it can only
relate to water.
A good definition could be "Someone who does knows we think
everything"
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > The article is probably true, there was a preceeding experiment:
> > rat cells control flight simulator:
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm
> > Yes it is in some nutricient, and it seems they add chemicals as
> > 'reward' or 'punishment' to correct action (feedback in the neural net).
> > Hope I got that one right.
>
> How neurons select connections is an intriguing subject. The
> impoverished (simple) configuration described in the article should
> persuade the curious to consider reading Stephen Wolfram's book, _A New
> Kind of Science_.
What do you make of David Deuche's writings?
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Aug 15, 7:16 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 1:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 14, 4:43 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> > > > > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > > > > by living brain tissue.
>
> > > > > Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey
> > > > > matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who
> > > > > unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.
>
> > > > > the fundamental building blocks of memory and learning, one of the
> > > > > lead researchers told AFP.
>
> > > > > "The purpose is to figure out how memories are actually stored in a
> > > > > biological brain," said Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University
> > > > > of Reading and one of the robot's principle architects.
>
> > > > > electrical impulses, he said, may also help scientists combat
> > > > > neurodegenerative diseases that attack the brain such as Alzheimer's
> > > > > and Parkinson's.
>
> > > > > little model brain, it could have enormous medical spinoffs," he said.
>
> > > > > cells that relay information across the brain via chemicals called
> > > > > neurotransmitters.
>
> > > > > Humans have 100 billion.
>
> > > > > "This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human brain where
> > > > > we can look -- and control -- the basic features in the way that we
> > > > > want. In a human brain, you can't really do that," he said.
>
> > > > > For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions facing
> > > > > scientists today is how to link the activity of individual neurons
> > > > > with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of whole organisms.
>
> > > > > "The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something which
> > > > > may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied to the
> > > > > activity of individual neurons," he said.
>
> > > > >http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...
>
> > > > have the feeling, these days, that scientific experiments aren't
> > > > really intended to accomplish anything at all, other than attract
> > > > attention. What really are they trying to design with this particular
> > > > monstrosity, other than the outline for a research grant?
>
> > > developed?
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What worries me
> > is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything, and was only
> > proposed because it sounds a bit like the "Terminator".
>
> Can explain why you believe it will ever, in the near or even far
> future lead to anything? Using only nerve cells seems like a major
> step, like inventing the transistor or something. This could be so
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a difference between using and inventing.
"We" use "our" brains to "invent".
The intellect attempts to reverse that order. It tries to invent our
brains to discover 'we'.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Aug 15, 4:53 am, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_quantum%20mind.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dont you just love the language. Micro tubules "can" switch from
relaxation to contraction. Cells are metabolically active, and micro
tubules seem to be essential to metabolic activity.
This is really brilliant research, and I take my hat of to such
incredible intellects. They are the Olympians of their field. Higher,
stronger and swifter.
Keep dissecting. Like the swimmer, you will have a job for life.
BOfL
Immortalist
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> > > > developed?
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > isn't that this is going to lead to the "Terminator". What worries me
> > > is that it is extremely unlikely to lead to anything, and was only
> > > proposed because it sounds a bit like the "Terminator".
>
> > Can explain why you believe it will ever, in the near or even far
> > future lead to anything? Using only nerve cells seems like a major
> > step, like inventing the transistor or something. This could be so
>
> Not really. We've hooked up electrodes to the human brain that
> allowed people to crudely manipulate devices. But, we haven't
> proceeded to be able to manipulate much of anything psychokinetically,
> for practical purposes. Now we have a few neurons that can be used to
> very crudely manipulate something. The problem isn't the general
> concept. It's the crudeness of the technique. And the total abscence
> of any general approach to structure the research process so as to
> refine the technology. Scientists are good speculators. But,
> frequently, they are very bad at moving from theory to practice.
> Perhaps because the system doesn't really reward results. Neurons
> produce electrochemical discharges, obviously these discharges can be
> used to crudely influence an electronic system. But, to produce
> something of real practical value, that may be a qualitatively
> different step. Which the scientists have no way of knowing how to
> proceed to. And may not which to proceed to, if they have no
> incentive to do so.
The neat thing about this is that there is already an exposed plan for
developing bio-computers like mammal brains. The genes direct the
assembly of multiple cells and steer them here and there with chemical
gradients until a full brain sort of happens. All these researchers
need to do is learn to "steer" or "herd" these downhill processes and
find structures events in nature would not allow because of survival.
Embryogenesis is the process by which the embryo is formed and
develops. It starts with the fertilization of the ovum, egg, which,
after fertilization, is then called a zygote. The zygote undergoes
rapid mitotic divisions, the formation of two exact genetic replicates
of the original cell, with no significant growth (a process known as
cleavage) and cellular differentiation, leading to development of an
embryo
Immortalist
wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > by living brain tissue.
>
>
Science as Consensus
One of the most important proponents of the "science as consensus"
view of knowledge has been Thomas Kuhn. He set forth his concept of
the scientific paradigm when he published, "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions". For Kuhn, scientific paradigms include, "law,
theory, application, and instrumentation together -- [and] provide
models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific
research" (1, p. 10). The paradigm view of science pictures the
successful scientific community as a consensus group possessing a
paradigm with increasing professional acknowledgment. The concluding
analogy used to illustrate the process of choice between conflicting
views of nature (or paradigms) is evolutionary natural selection.
Science is advanced through, "conflict within the scientific community
of the fittest way to practice science" (1, p. 172). This view of
scientific discovery has three phases to its structure.
[First] is the pre-paradigm phase which is characterized by various
schools of thought vying for position but without sufficient
explanatory successes to their credit to gain preeminence. In this
phase the various paradigms are relatively vague and therefore new
observations can be accommodated because the paradigm's indefinite
form does not clearly demarcate what are acceptable or unacceptable
results. Discovery occurs as a result of the more or less random
observations made and utilized to formulate a more structured paradigm
view.
[Second] is the "normal-science" phase where a clearly demarcated
paradigm view has been established as most successful in the eyes of
the majority of scientists in that field. In this case research is
conducted for, "determination of significant facts, matching of facts
with theory, and articulation of theory" (1, p. 34). Discovery of
facts that do not fit into the paradigm view are not expected and when
"successful" none are found.
[Third] is the "revolutionary science" phase where the emergence of
anomalies begin to challenge the reigning paradigm view. In this case
researchers uncover certain facts that can not be fitted within the
more precise paradigm in a straight forward manner. Those anomalies
which stubbornly remain irreconcilable have the potential to become
what are called "revolutionary anomalies." A key to the next step is
described by Kuhn as a "period of pronounced professional insecurity"
due to the anomalies' stubborn refusal to be assimilated into the
existing paradigm (1, p. 83). This is only resolved when a choice is
made between the old and new paradigm. When this process of
"conversion" occurs it is then possible to recognize not only that
some fact has been discovered but also what the discovery of that fact
means in the context of the new paradigm world view. According to Kuhn
a decision like this is not ultimately made based on some objective
facts, but rather, "a decision of that kind can only be made on
faith" (1, p. 158).
http://www.thingsrevealed.net/structure.htm
http://tom.acrewoods.net/research/philosophy/science/kuhn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
Immortalist
> On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > by living brain tissue.
>
> > matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who
> > unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.
> > cells that relay information across the brain via chemicals called
> > neurotransmitters.
>
> > Humans have 100 billion.
>
> > "This is a simplified version of what goes on in the human brain where
> > we can look -- and control -- the basic features in the way that we
> > want. In a human brain, you can't really do that," he said.
>
> > For colleague Ben Whalley, one of the fundamental questions facing
> > scientists today is how to link the activity of individual neurons
> > with the overwhelmingly complex behaviour of whole organisms.
>
> > "The project gives us a unique opportunity to look at something which
> > may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied to the
> > activity of individual neurons," he said.
>
> >http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar...
>
> into the boundless desert of their 'unpromising' land.
...the emergence of anomalies begin to challenge the reigning paradigm
Immortalist
wrote:
Or maybe throw something in the vat one day and it comes out so
intelligent and powerful that it makes humans into something like pet
dogs.
artilects:
...I believe that 21st century technologies will allow the creation of
"artilects" (artificial intellects, artificial intelligences,
massively intelligent machines), with intellectual capacities many
times greater than those of human beings. Our computers will continue
to increase their intelligence levels at exponential rates, well into
the 21st century, thanks to 21st century technologies that researchers
like myself can already envisage. I will attempt to demonstrate what
these technologies will be, and explain why I think they will be
sufficiently powerful to enable the building of true artilects in the
21st century rather than later. It is these 21st century technologies
that I believe will force humanity to confront the "artilect
issue" (i.e. should we build them or not).
As computers keep getting smarter and smarter in the 21st century,
billions of human beings will be able to see for themselves the
exponential rise in artificial intelligence. For example, they will
notice that their household robots are smarter this year than the
models they had two years previously, that they have more behaviors,
that their verbal responses are more emotional and more human like.
Everyone in the rich political blocks (i.e. those who can first afford
such machines) will be asking themselves "Where is all this fabulous
technological progress headed?" Everyone will be wondering if there
should be a limit to such progress. "Should the development of such
smart robots be stopped after reaching a certain level of
performance?" A growing and collective anxiety will make itself felt.
I think it should be obvious to nearly everyone reading this essay
that it is only a question of time before millions of people start
debating the "artilect issue", e.g. "How far up the intelligence curve
should the artificial brain industry be allowed to progress in
producing artificially intelligent products? Should any constraints be
placed on them at all? If progress should be stopped after reaching a
certain intelligence level, can it be stopped?" In time, this debate
will heat up to such a point that I believe it will become the
dominant issue of our age. It will color and define the 21st century
and beyond.
At the present time, when I talk about the artilect issue (the issue
of species dominance), and the prospect of an artilect war, many
people find it too science-fiction like to take it seriously,
especially the more conservative of my scientific colleagues, whose
analytic abilities are often more developed than their sense of
vision.
...The question most thinking people will be asking themselves within
a few decades will be "Is humanity prepared to see its status as
dominant species on our planet be undermined by the artilects?" Can we
always be sure that the artilects, if we build them, will treat human
beings in a way that will make us feel secure, despite their enormous
intelligence levels, or, would we always harbor the suspicion that
they might one day decide that human beings are so inferior to them,
and such a pest on the surface of the planet that we should be
exterminated? With their gargantuan intellects, such an extermination
would not be difficult for them. I see the debate polarising into two
very opposite ideologies.
...In the 21st century, humanity will be called upon to make the
toughest decision in its history, namely whether it should take the
risk of building artilects or not. I feel ambivalent about the
artilect issue. With my left hand I am passionately involved with my
attempts to build artificial brains. With my right hand I am raising
the alarm. Surely these two attitudes are contradictory? Yes they are.
I feel I am sympathetic to the views of both Terrans and Cosmists.
Immortalist
wrote:
> Spaceman wrote:
> > Immortalist wrote:
> > > A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
>
> > > Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
> > > by living brain tissue.
>
> > Oh crap,
> > The creation of the Dalak race has begun.
> > :)
>
> Yup. Although bigger versions of these little
> guys could probably eventually drive an auto or
> a semi more safely than a human, they still
> have the same defects of biological neural
> networks, basically, configurability and
> reproducibility of the pattern of neural
> connections after one has been trained,
> along with long training times to get it
> to work properly.
>
But then again maybe they will come to have experiences much beyond
human abilities. We should graft them into our nervous systems quickly
and become them, assimilate them like the Borg in Star Trek, before
they escape into space, evolve even further faster then come back like
the Borg in Star Trek.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YytWxrGVKE
Immortalist
wrote:
> On Aug 16, 3:36 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 15, 4:53 am, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dont you just love the language. Micro tubules "can" switch from
> relaxation to contraction. Cells are metabolically active, and micro
> tubules seem to be essential to metabolic activity.
>
> This is really brilliant research, and I take my hat of to such
> incredible intellects. They are the Olympians of their field. Higher,
> stronger and swifter.
>
> Keep dissecting. Like the swimmer, you will have a job for life.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INFORMATION AND LIFE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1)
A universal computer is indeed
universal and can emulate any process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(2)
The essence of life is a process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(3)
There exist criteria by which we
are able to distinguish living
from non-living things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interlude A:
Accepting (1), (2), and (3) implies
the possibility of life in a computer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LIFE AND REALITY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(4)
If somebody manages to develop life in
a computer environment, which satisfies (3),
it follows from (2) that these life-forms
are just as much alive as you and I.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(5)
Such an artificial organism must perceive a
reality (R2), which for itself is just as real
as our "real" reality (R1) is for us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(6)
From (5) we conclude that (R1) and (R2) has the
same ontological status. Although (R2) in a material
way is embedded in (R1), (R2) is independent of (R1).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REALITY AND PHYSICS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(7)
If (R1) and (R2) have the same ontological status
it might be possible to learn something about the
fundamental properties of realities in general, and
of (R1) in particular, by studying the details of
different (R2's). An example of such a property is
the physics of reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Levy
Pantheon Books New York
Copyright © 1992 by Steven Levy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679743898/
> BOfL
Immortalist
wrote:
I think you really mean that if I think my mind is in the future when
imaging the future I am wrong since I can only do things in the
present moments whether I am remembering or predicting.
Were you thinking of this old idea or somethng?
The Twelve Pathways
To the Higher Consciousness Planes of Unconditional Love and Oneness
FREEING MYSELF
1. I am freeing myself from security, sensation, and power addictions
that make me try to forcefully control situations in my life, and thus
destroy my serenity and keep me from loving myself and others.
2. I am discovering how my consciousness-dominating addictions create
my illusory version of the changing world of people and situations
around me.
3. I welcome the opportunity (even if painful) that my minute-to-
minute experience offers me to become aware of the addictions I must
reprogram to be liberated from my robot-like emotional patterns.
BEING HERE NOW
4. I always remember that I have everything I need to enjoy my here
and now—unless I am letting my consciousness be dominated by demands
and expectations based on the dead past or the imagined future.
5. I take full responsibility here and now for everything I
experience, for it is my own programming that creates my actions and
also influences the reactions of people around me.
6. I accept myself completely here and now and consciously experience
everything I feel, think, say, and do (including my emotion-backed
addictions) as a necessary part of my growth into higher
consciousness.
INTERACTING WITH OTHERS
7. I open myself genuinely to all people by being willing to fully
communicate my deepest feelings, since hiding in any degree keeps me
stuck in my illusion of separateness from other people.
8. I feel with loving compassion the problems of others without
getting caught up emotionally in their predicaments that are offering
them messages they need for their growth.
9. I act freely when I am tuned in, centered, and loving, but if
possible I avoid acting when I am emotionally upset and depriving
myself of the wisdom that flows from love and expanded consciousness.
DISCOVERING MY CONSCIOUS-AWARENESS
10. I am continually calming the restless scanning of my rational mind
in order to perceive the finer energies that enable me to unitively
merge with everything around me.
11. I am constantly aware of which of the Seven Centers of
Consciousness I am using, and I feel my energy, perceptiveness, love
and inner peace growing as I open all of the Centers of Consciousness.
12. I am perceiving everyone, including myself, as an awakening being
who is here to claim his or her birthright to the higher consciousness
planes of unconditional love and oneness.
Handbook to Higher Consciousness
by Ken, Jr. Keyes
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0960068880/
> BOfL
Immortalist
> On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:23:23 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
> Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
> <fbbdd014-7b3b-4b56-bc01-c8dd13187...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Aug 14, 1:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain
> >>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_ar..=
> >.
>
> >That's very creepy, if it's real
>
> Have been thinking about this.
> What if the experiment was repeated with politician's brain cells?
> And brain cells from GW Bush (if he has enough)?
> Would the outcome be different?
>
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Aug 16, 5:49 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 3:36 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 15, 4:53 am, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dont you just love the language. Micro tubules "can" switch from
> > relaxation to contraction. Cells are metabolically active, and micro
> > tubules seem to be essential to metabolic activity.
>
> > This is really brilliant research, and I take my hat of to such
> > incredible intellects. They are the Olympians of their field. Higher,
> > stronger and swifter.
>
> > Keep dissecting. Like the swimmer, you will have a job for life.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> INFORMATION AND LIFE
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (1)
> A universal computer is indeed
> universal and can emulate any process.
Nothing more universal than the universe, so it must be also able to
emulate.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (2)
> The essence of life is a process.
Life creates the process of essence.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (3)
> There exist criteria by which we
> are able to distinguish living
> from non-living things.
Correct. We can, but our things cant.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Interlude A:
> Accepting (1), (2), and (3) implies
> the possibility of life in a computer.
Then "Things Aint What Thy Used To Be"
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> LIFE AND REALITY
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (4)
> If somebody manages to develop life in
> a computer environment, which satisfies (3),
> it follows from (2) that these life-forms
> are just as much alive as you and I.
If somebody managed to prove reincarnation, then where would such
logic be?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (5)
> Such an artificial organism must perceive a
> reality (R2), which for itself is just as real
> as our "real" reality (R1) is for us.
Ill just ask my brain if it agrees with that statement.....
(2 hours later).....nope. Just sits ther flashing
synposastically .....
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (6)
> From (5) we conclude that (R1) and (R2) has the
> same ontological status. Although (R2) in a material
> way is embedded in (R1), (R2) is independent of (R1).
1+1=1+1.....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> REALITY AND PHYSICS
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> (7)
> If (R1) and (R2) have the same ontological status
> it might be possible to learn something about the
> fundamental properties of realities in general, and
> of (R1) in particular, by studying the details of
> different (R2's). An example of such a property is
> the physics of reality.
Thanks for confirming my actuality, with your possibility.
Thereby lies the difference.
Reality is where you are looking from, not what you are looking at, no
matter how sophisticated the ability to see becomes.
BOfL
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2e4fg
>
> Steven Levy
> Pantheon Books New York
> Copyright © 1992 by Steven Levyhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679743898/
>
>
>
> > BOfL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jan Panteltje
Creature <strangec...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<eeb2de91-42ec-46ce...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>2. They rewire and program themselves at
>least partially by changing the physical
>connections between the neighboring
>neurons. The manufacturing of most
>electronic devices freezes their physical
>state at the end of the manufacturing
>process, relying on their electronic
>and magnetic properties to produce
>volatility.
Look up FPGA, and for example:
http://altera.com/products/devices/stratix-fpgas/stratix-iv/stxiv-index.jsp
680 000 reconfigurable logic elements.
Can be reconfigured on the fly if must be.
Some of modern electronics is implemented in these Field Programmable Gate Arrays.
Androcles
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g892gf$2eu$1...@news.datemas.de...
Combinatorial versus sequential logic...parallel processing versus
sequential processing,
the end result is the same.
PLCs are used extensively in industry to exploit that fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_logic_controller
Combinatorial logic has the advantage of speed, sequential logic has the
advantage
of flexibility.
Jan Panteltje
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<853c1dfa-9601-410a...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>Fair enough. But, getting back to the mechanical, and the main topic
>of this particular thread -- rat neurons controlling electronics --
>what concerns me is that the emphasis in the research is likely to be
>much more on generating research grant proposals than on developing
>any useful applications.
I dunno, sure there are cases, like for example ITER, building a large
fusion power plant in France, that actually does not produce any electricity,
and never will, and costs billions.
This rat thing however is a rather small scale research, and there are many
possible practical applications one can think of.
Just interfacing neurons with electrical signals can be of medical value.
Think making implants for the blind, like a camera or some sensor in the
eye, I have read about that.
Understanding the brain is ongoing research.
>I fear this is the nature of the
>professional research environment -- a self-sustaining bureaucracy.
That comes for free with it, sure, but OTOH we do have many examples where the system
did produce results.
If the car make a noise, no reason to dump the car and walk, better fix the problem.
In my previous reply I was sort of referring to 'the thing that keeps us alive'.
I have my own little theory, and I think this would make for an interesting experiment.
I will try to explain it here in a simple way:
You know, when they want to know if somebody is still alive, they look at brain activity.
If no more brain activity, then the person is considered dead.
Still organs can be used for transplants if done quick enough.
That brain activity is perhaps measured with electrodes (looking for electrical signals).
There are all sorts of wave patterns in our brain, different ones for waking, sleeping,
and deep sleep for example.
Some are periodic, like a sine wave from an oscillator.
Now here comes the interesting part, I asked myself: 'What can be so that it can stop all of the sudden,
can produce a continuous wave pattern, and have its pattern for example influenced by external events?'.
As this also goes to sci.electronics.basics, let me introduce the 'oscillator'.
An oscillator is made up of one or more stages of amplification (say gain), the output feeding
back to the input.
You all know oscillation (for the other newsgroups, bring a microphone close to a speaker,
and you get a howling noise (frequency), you have connected an input (mike) to an output (speaker) ).
Now to bring this back to that dish of rat neurons, WHAT IF you did not simply blob those together,
but made a so called 'ring oscillator' like this, first make a string of neurons connected like this:
A *************** B
Now if you stimulate A in some way, then a little later B will respond,
the 'message' is passed on from one neuron to the other.
Now the clue of what I am trying to say:
Fold the string, connect B to A.
With some luck (enough 'gain' the neurons will have to give a sufficient strong response to
an input, so they can trigger the next one), and the correct _phase_, it will become a ring oscillator.
Instead of some like dead laying about neurons, we now have a network that displays one of those
same mysterious 'brain waves' that we do.
It activates itself, so it does not wither-away in that sense because of lack of stimuli.
So now we have a figure 'O' neuron net, and touching (stimulating) any point on the O
will sooner or later be experienced by all participating neurons.
Communication in the network is happening at a fixed speed.
When we go a step further we can have a figure eight '8' and now there are 2 possible signal
flows.
One is to follow the '8' as you draw it, if we stimulate bottom left, that signal will travel to top right
first, then via top left to bottom right, while, the symmetry, consider the left side eyes, (light sensitive)
and the right actuators....
The other oscillating mode is 2 circles, the top and bottom of the eight operating as 2 independent circuits.
In this second case, there will be a continuous conflict in the crossing point of the eighth....
In the first case there will be harmony.
Our network will have two states it can be in....
This is not a bad thing, it is actually a requirement, as we also have 2 states of perception, but
that is for a different posting altogether.
So, life as we know it could be just an oscillator (and radiate EM waves too).
Killing any neuron in the chain will stop the oscillation,
a defective or under performing neuron would too.
Do we have, in the depth of our brain, this essential little oscillator?
For the electronic minded here, here is an example of a simple ring oscillator, running
in spice simulator:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/rgb.jpg
zgsm...@gmail.com
> On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
> <853c1dfa-9601-410a-92ec-faecf7a98...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
The neuronal circuits and enzymic cycles are replete with hugely
complex "oscillators". It took millions of years for them to develop
and be selected to allow survival.in a changing environment. The nerve
cell experiments represent the first tiny baby steps. that IMO will
lead to runaway progress in neuroscience. Just a question of time.
zgsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Are you claiming that the "real" journey is "done in isolation, with
no recognition or acknowledgment from your fellows?" Your many posts
to this NG indicate that you have not yet embarked on your own "real"
journey.
I do not blame you. Seems so impotent to be entirely obsessed with
one's self. Look where it got Narcissis!
I would not wish it on anyone.
Jerry Kraus
> On Aug 16, 9:40 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them
> wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude flying
> machines will never be useful for transport. The list goes on and on.-
Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers, bicycle
mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are not of the
process of science, or the concept of science, but of the professional
scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I consider to be
exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you are proposing would gaurantee human immortality. We could
regenerate the human brain. I don't think it's quite as simple as you
think it is. But, best of luck to them.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Aug 16, 5:32?pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and
engineering.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Rod Speed
> zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote
>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them wrong!
>> Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude flying machines will
>> never be useful for transport. The list goes on and on.
> Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research,
Nope. Its just what the DNA controls, a different matter entirely.
> was developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional scientist.
But the discovery of DNA wasnt.
> The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers,
> bicycle mechanics, not professional scientists.
> My criticisms are not of the process of science, or the concept of
> science, but of the professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically.
Which does occassionally manage to do something useful, like discover what DNA is about.
> Which I consider to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.
Everything is all of those to some extent. Most science has a lot less of that than most other areas.
It does however have plenty of mindless fools involved in it, just like every other field does.
zinnic
Bureaucracy is a derogative word and you are correct in your
disapproval of 'scientific' or other types of bureaucracy. However,
collaborative pursuits need to be financed and efficiently
administered for progress to be made. Inspired individuals could not
have developed the Biotechnology industry from Mendel's observations,
nor could they have developed a Boeing 747 from the Wright brothers'
marvelous contraption.
The Wright brothers' contraption to a Boeing 747 Done! Connections
of nerve cells in an agar dish to the understanding of consciousness.
Why not?
zinnic
Not so! Regeneration and immortality of the human brain / computer
requires control of the total physical environment of the Universe.
How will humans brains and their computers prevent the run down of the
universe as it degenerates (from our POV) into dark matter and energy.
We are an insignificant part of the Universe. Even significant parts
are incapable of controlling the whole.!
How do I 'know' this? By consulting the Mystics Scripture that
pronounces that it is impossible for reductionism (sum of the the
parts) to predict emergent properties of the whole.
The Mystics ignore the infinite possibilities that can be derived from
the subtraction, multiplication, division, differentiation,
integration, set theory and numerous other mathematical manipulations
of the parts.
Mystics are mathematically retarded. They just do not add up!
jmfbahciv
/BAH
Richard Herring
<jmfbahciv@aol.?.invalid> writes
Nor to have heard of Sir George Cayley...
--
Richard Herring
Bill Ward
I think one could make a case that the Wright brothers development and use
of a wind tunnel involved doing science in the traditional sense. They
carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous errors in the work of
previous aeronautical researchers.
The fact that they continued on through the engineering stages of
designing, building, and test flying successful aircraft based on their
original research shouldn't really detract from their fundamental
scientific efforts which enabled them to reach that goal.
See:
http://www.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html
Jerry Kraus
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:16:23 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The question is, why did the Wright Brothers realize the necessity of
the Wind Tunnel, while no one else did?
Once the wind tunnel had been invented, the development of manned
flight was inevitable. Without it, people like Otto Lillenthal broke
their necks before they could get much work done.
Rod Speed
> jmfbahciv wrote
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote>>>>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them
>>>>> wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude flying
>>>>> machines will never be useful for transport. The list goes on and on.-
>>>> Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
>>>> developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
>>>> scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers,
>>>> bicycle mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are
>>>> not of the process of science, or the concept of science, but of
>>>> the professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I
>>>> consider to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.
>>> Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and engineering.
>> Nor how many model airplanes the Wrights made.
> I think one could make a case that the Wright brothers development
> and use of a wind tunnel involved doing science in the traditional sense.
More engineering than science.
> They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
> errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.
And thats just engineering, not science.
> The fact that they continued on through the engineering stages
> of designing, building, and test flying successful aircraft based
> on their original research shouldn't really detract from their
> fundamental scientific efforts which enabled them to reach that goal.
> See:
> http://www.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html
Still engineering, not science.
Rod Speed
> The question is, why did the Wright Brothers realize the necessity of the Wind Tunnel, while no one else did?
There is no such 'necessity'
> Once the wind tunnel had been invented, the development
> of manned flight was inevitable. Without it, people like Otto
> Lillenthal broke their necks before they could get much work done.
And plenty of others didnt without using wind tunnels. Its just one way of doing it.
And there was plenty of manned flight that didnt use windtunnels at all.
Bill Ward
I'd say it's because they were skeptics. To this day, most successful
pilots are highly skeptical, and tend not to take things for granted.
Skepticism is also one of the requirements for true science.
John
> The question is, why did the Wright Brothers realize the necessity of
> the Wind Tunnel, while no one else did?
Necessity, a glimmer of insight, brilliance.
> Once the wind tunnel had been invented, the development of manned
> flight was inevitable. Without it, people like Otto Lillenthal broke
> their necks before they could get much work done.
If invention using minimal technology interests you, please consider
surfing for Domina C. Jalbert (Dom Jalbert), the inventor of the
Parasail in 1964. It was possible to invent and build such a sail
hundreds of years earlier: there has been a need for a strong, free
lifting device that long, but nobody had the insight. Jalbert was also
somewhat innumerate so he actually hand made and tested every idea. He
did it and like many inventions, it spawned variations very quickly.
Anyway, you might enjoy the story. It's almost a parable.
John
> And there was plenty of manned flight that didnt use windtunnels at all.
After the Wrights had worked out the first hard part. Improving is far
easier than making the break-through.
John
>> They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
>> errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.
>
> And thats just engineering, not science.
Look at the state of science in 1903. It is silly to judge things
outside of their own time.
I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today he
would come up with a theory, peers would review it, and nobody would
ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just said it.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> And there was plenty of manned flight that didnt use windtunnels at all.
> After the Wrights had worked out the first hard part.
Nope, the others didnt all use what they worked out.
> Improving is far easier than making the break-through.
They made no 'break-thru'
They just happened to be arguably the first to demonstrate powered manned flight.
That would have happened even if they had crashed and been killed, by others.
Rod Speed
> Jerry Kraus wrote>>>> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
>>>>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove
>>>>>>> them wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude
>>>>>>> flying machines will never be useful for transport. The list
>>>>>>> goes on and on.-
>>>>>> Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
>>>>>> developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
>>>>>> scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers,
>>>>>> bicycle mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are
>>>>>> not of the process of science, or the concept of science, but of
>>>>>> the professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I
>>>>>> consider to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.
>>>>> Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and engineering.
>>>> Nor how many model airplanes the Wrights made.
>>> I think one could make a case that the Wright brothers development
>>> and use of a wind tunnel involved doing science in the traditional
>>> sense. They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
>>> errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.
>>> The fact that they continued on through the engineering stages
>>> of designing, building, and test flying successful aircraft based
>>> on their original research shouldn't really detract from their
>>> fundamental scientific efforts which enabled them to reach that goal.
>>> See:http://www.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html-
>> The question is, why did the Wright Brothers realize
>> the necessity of the Wind Tunnel, while no one else did?
> I'd say it's because they were skeptics.
More fool you. It was actually a useful idea that allowed them to work out how flying machines work.
> To this day, most successful pilots are highly skeptical, and tend not to take things for granted.
And fuck all of them bother to use wind tunnels to prove that a particular aircraft will fly.
> Skepticism is also one of the requirements for true science.
Irrelevant to whether they were engineers or scientists.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
>>> errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.
>> And thats just engineering, not science.
> Look at the state of science in 1903.
It was a hell of a lot more than just engineering even at that time.
Most obviously with what Curie and Rutherford etc were getting up to etc.
Pasteur in spades.
> It is silly to judge things outside of their own time.
No one is doing anything like that.
> I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today he would come up with a theory, peers would review
> it, and nobody would ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just said it.
Anyone with a clue would have noticed that birds and insect fly fine.
And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
>>> errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.
>>
>> And thats just engineering, not science.
>
> Look at the state of science in 1903. It is silly to judge things
> outside of their own time.
That things can fly had been know since the first caveman saw the
first bird.
That manmade things can fly had been known for many hundreds, if not
thousands of years.
That a glider, kite, or balloon could fly carrying a human had been known
for many years.
The engineering problems that the Wrights solved were could an engine
be small enough and still powerfull enough to keep a man carrying
aircraft in the air and control of the direction of flight.
This doesn't belittle the Wright's accomplishments, but there were
no new laws, theorems or science as a result of their work.
They did, however, establish a new field of engineering.
If you want to know why the water in your toilet swirls, ask a physicist.
If you want know how to build a toilet that works, ask an engineer.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> In sci.physics John <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >>> They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
> >>> errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.
>
> >> And thats just engineering, not science.
>
> > Look at the state of science in 1903. It is silly to judge things
> > outside of their own time.
>
> That things can fly had been know since the first caveman saw the
> first bird.
>
> That manmade things can fly had been known for many hundreds, if not
> thousands of years.
>
> That a glider, kite, or balloon could fly carrying a human had been known
> for many years.
>
> The engineering problems that the Wrights solved were could an engine
> be small enough and still powerfull enough to keep a man carrying
> aircraft in the air and control of the direction of flight.
>
> This doesn't belittle the Wright's accomplishments, but there were
> no new laws, theorems or science as a result of their work.
>
> They did, however, establish a new field of engineering.
They did much more than that, they estalished a whole new field of
war,
for idiots like shio builders.
jmfbahciv
/BAH
John
> John <no...@droffats.ten> wrote
>> I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today he would come up with a theory, peers would review
>> it, and nobody would ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just said it.
>
> Anyone with a clue would have noticed that birds and insect fly fine.
They beat their wings, too.
> And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.
Kites did not 'fly' in the same manner at all.
Richard Herring
<jmfbahciv@aol.?.invalid> writes
He solved many of the problems associated with stable controlled flight
-- in both theory and practice -- in the early part of the 19th century.
What he didn't have, of course, was a reliable engine.
http://firstflight.open.ac.uk/cayley/cayley.html
http://www.flyingmachines.org/cayl.html
http://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=357
--
Richard Herring
bigfl...@gmail.com
If I had have meant that, I would have written that.Your atttempt to
restate in your words what I am stating, is further illustration of my
point.The need for acknowledgment exists only in the group
consciousness.
In the current climate, if you had just run 1500 metres in 3 minutes
without anyone knowing about it, would it mean as much to you than if
you did it on a the world stage?
You answer will be an indication of your perception of reality.
> Your many posts
> to this NG indicate that you have not yet embarked on your own "real"
> journey.
What we each see is a 'reflection' of reality when we are making
comparisons.
> I do not blame you. Seems so impotent to be entirely obsessed with
> one's self. Look where it got Narcissis!
He was obsessed with 'images' of self. Interesting how subtle this
can be :-)
Obsession dissapears as self awareness grows, the core of which is
fuelled by the overwhealming desire to find self.
Back to my running example.
Im reminded of the joke about the golfing priest who had an
irresistable desire to play on the sabbath, so he went out alone,early
morning and scored 18 succesive holes in one, and thought it was a
reward from God, untill he realized he couldnt mention it to anyone.
> I would not wish it on anyone.
Then you have yet to grasp what spiritual freedom is.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Then dont look at the legal profession. You will have a desire to
organise "professional cleansing".:-)
What you are actually describing are attributes of any "group
consciousness".
Actual self serving is all we are each really capable of. It is
identifying the self that is the problem.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What you are proposing would gaurantee human immortality. We could
> regenerate the human brain. I don't think it's quite as simple as you
>
> - Show quoted text -
A good test would be to watch such constructions reproduce.
Of course, that would interpret immortality as periods between 'big
bangs'.
An LOf Brian style comment "He's not really eternal, he just lives for
a very long time"
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Tell that to Pythagoras.
If it appears to be scripture, it is not mysticism. Such
interpretations as yours are religiously based.
You are sounding like a mystic more and more. An example being your
comment, that mysticics ignore such possibilities. They see such
derivations as actualities.
The whole is not actually made up of the sum of its parts, but
expresses itself (onesself) through parts that appear to be the whole,
which is why matter is seen to be illusiary, even though such
illusions follow mathematical laws. This is why the likes of
Pythagoras were known as mystics, as well as scientists or
mathematicians. There is no compromise in expressing aspects of ones
percieved parts.This appears to be the case when only some of your
parts are not understood.
BOfL
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John <no...@droffats.ten> wrote
>>> I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today
>>> he would come up with a theory, peers would review it, and nobody would ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just
>>> said it.
>> Anyone with a clue would have noticed that birds and insect fly fine.
> They beat their wings, too.
Because they dont have engines.
Anyone with a clue can see that some birds dont beat their wings much and so that mode
should work well with powered aircraft that use an engine instead of beating the wings.
>> And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.
> Kites did not 'fly' in the same manner at all.
Irrelevant, they clearly do fly so there is no reason why you cant have powered flight.
Rod Speed
Bullshit.
> It is identifying the self that is the problem.
Nope.
jjs
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6h0g2hF...@mid.individual.net...
> Anyone with a clue can see that some birds dont beat their wings much and
> so that mode
> should work well with powered aircraft that use an engine instead of
> beating the wings.
So you are saying that if you were thirty years-old in 1900 or so you would
immediately know exactly what the solution was? Is that correct?
>>> And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.
>
>> Kites did not 'fly' in the same manner at all.
>
> Irrelevant, they clearly do fly so there is no reason why you cant have
> powered flight.
Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method
aircraft do.