The world's first robot controlled exclusively by living bra

[Edward Green]

On Aug 16, 6:17 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:18:21 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
5a4efb7a-a2c7-43ee-99f8-6ad7d1b09...@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

That makes the latest release "first robot controlled by living brain
tissue" a bit gimmicky. Obviously if you can control an electronic
simulator with X you can also control something with moving parts with
X.

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.

I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food. What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons. Narcotics?

 

[jmfbahciv]

Edward Green wrote:

On Aug 16, 6:17 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:18:21 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
5a4efb7a-a2c7-43ee-99f8-6ad7d1b09...@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

That makes the latest release "first robot controlled by living brain
tissue" a bit gimmicky. Obviously if you can control an electronic
simulator with X you can also control something with moving parts with
X.

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.

I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food. What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons. Narcotics?

Change.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Richard Herring wrote:

In message <O5OdnaT2uqQUNzfVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv
jmfbahciv@aol.?.invalid> writes
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <r5Odnf0DHeuC1jTVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv
jmfbahciv@aol.?.invalid> writes
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 16, 5:32?pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
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.
Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and
engineering.

Nor how many model airplanes the Wrights made.
Nor to have heard of Sir George Cayley...

I don't rememeber hearing the name. Who was/is he?

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

Thank you. . I thought I had sensed a line of bait for a story, so
I thought I'd ask.

/BAH

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:18:59 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in
<ebc62575-d51b-4d70-9e32-6c02ec66cb55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

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.

I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food. What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons. Narcotics?

Maybe like with a horse, give it a cube of sugar if it does things right.
Maybe neurons like certain chemicals, I really do not know.

 

[John]

Rod Speed wrote:

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Pity about the parasail. That technology has been around for millennia.

I find that an interesting statement.

Your problem.

Can you tell us where and when the parasail appeared in history before, say, 1964?

Look at kites sometime. They've been around for millennia and some are the same technology.

Kites are absolutely not the same technology. Your ignorance is
profound. NB: I do know what I am talking about. You do not.

 

[Richard Herring]

In message <lOadnZEFvLHMlTHVnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@supernews.com>, John
<nohj@droffats.ten> writes

Rod Speed wrote:
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Pity about the parasail. That technology has been around for
millennia.

I find that an interesting statement.
Your problem.

Can you tell us where and when the parasail appeared in history
before, say, 1964?
Look at kites sometime. They've been around for millennia and some
are the same technology.

Kites are absolutely not the same technology. Your ignorance is
profound. NB: I do know what I am talking about. You do not.

A single counterexample would be more compelling than any number of
ad-hominems, unsupported assertions and claims to be an authority.

--
Richard Herring

 

[John]

Edward Green wrote:

I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food. What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons. Narcotics?

At the level addressed in the article, the cells' reward is carrying out
their genetic instruction, purpose. It is no more profound than an
entwining vine, the growth of a blade of grass.

In a highly complex and social animal, a reward can be work itself.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Aug 20, 7:51 am, John <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

Edward Green wrote:
I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food.  What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons.  Narcotics?

At the level addressed in the article, the cells' reward is carrying out
their genetic instruction, purpose. It is no more profound than an
entwining vine, the growth of a blade of grass.

In a highly complex and social animal, a reward can be work itself.

I think the problem here is that we are dealing with something so
trivial that what, if anything, can be developed from it is far from
clear. This is not "The Terminator". They have far more
sophisticated robots built from straight electronics. There is no
reason whatsoever to suppose that this technology will get anywhere
near what we have already achieved in robotics using conventional
electronics.

 

[jmfbahciv]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:18:59 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in
ebc62575-d51b-4d70-9e32-6c02ec66cb55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

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.
I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food. What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons. Narcotics?

Maybe like with a horse, give it a cube of sugar if it does things right.
Maybe neurons like certain chemicals, I really do not know.

Our ponies preferred gum or gravy.

/BAH

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Aug 20, 4:52 pm, "jjs" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:cc78cd80-021f-4a4c-952d-9cc268ae0aa4@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...


I think the problem here is that we are dealing with something so
trivial that what, if anything, can be developed from it is far from
clear.

Trivial to he with little appreciate of what was actually done. But then,
you would have to be a curious and open person. Killfile.

Have you ever noticed that people you "killfile" tend to get more
attention from your efforts? Kill away. It's what people expect from
fools.

 

[zinnic]

On Aug 20, 2:18 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 6:17 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:18:21 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
5a4efb7a-a2c7-43ee-99f8-6ad7d1b09...@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

That makes the latest release "first robot controlled by living brain
tissue" a bit gimmicky.  Obviously if you can control an electronic
simulator with X you can also control something with moving parts with
X.

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.

I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food.  What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons.  Narcotics?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food is composed of nutrients which are chemicals capable of
interacting to provide energy that sustains a cycle of electrochemical
reactions as in neuronal function.

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 22, 2:30 am, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

On Aug 20, 2:18 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:





On Aug 16, 6:17 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:18:21 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
5a4efb7a-a2c7-43ee-99f8-6ad7d1b09...@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

That makes the latest release "first robot controlled by living brain
tissue" a bit gimmicky.  Obviously if you can control an electronic
simulator with X you can also control something with moving parts with
X.

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.

I had wondered about the reward or punishment thing: whole organisms
will work for food.  What takes the place of "food" for a blob of
neurons.  Narcotics?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food is composed of nutrients which are chemicals capable of
interacting to provide energy that sustains a cycle of electrochemical
reactions as in neuronal function.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I may have heard either Gordon Ramsey, or Jamie Oliver make
the same comment.

Just like the Sistene chapels ceiling surface has been stained with
various pigments.


BOfL

 

[Immortalist]

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.

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_ar...

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?

Should they throw it away then because it will be abused but possibly
developed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlTImvP8M-Q&feature=related

 

[Immortalist]

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

Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
by living brain tissue.

Oh crap,
The creation of the Dalak race has begun.


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

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;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHiX0FZcjkA

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:18:21 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Edward
Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in
<5a4efb7a-a2c7-43ee-99f8-6ad7d1b090bf@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.

 

[John]

Jerry Kraus wrote:

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.