The world's first robot controlled exclusively by living bra

[zinnic]

On Aug 17, 2:33 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@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.

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]

On Aug 17, 2:33 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@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.

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]

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.

/BAH

 

[Richard Herring]

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...

--
Richard Herring

 

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:16:23 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:

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.

/BAH

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 Aug 18, 2:39 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:16:23 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@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.

/BAH

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- Hide quoted text -

- 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.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:42:36 -0700, Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Aug 18, 2:39 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:16:23 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@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.

/BAH

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- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

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. 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.

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.

 

[John]

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. Improving is far
easier than making the break-through.

 

[John]

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.

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.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Aug 18, 11:55 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

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.

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[jmfbahciv]

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?

/BAH

 

[John]

Rod Speed wrote:

John <nohj@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]

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

--
Richard Herring

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 18, 3:25 am, zgsmi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 16, 7:44 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com
wrote:





On Aug 17, 12:53 am, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> 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.
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.- Hide quoted text -

- 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'.

Are you  claiming  that the "real" journey is "done in isolation, with
no recognition or acknowledgment from your fellows?"

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

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 18, 5:33 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@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.

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

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 18, 5:35 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 17, 12:10 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Aug 16, 7:40 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 12:39 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

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?

- Hide quoted text -

- 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...

- 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.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis-Hide quoted text -

- 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.- Hide quoted text -

- 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

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 18, 12:15 pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:33 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@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.

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!

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

 

[John]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method
aircraft do.

Nonsense.

Tie a strong enough string in the right place on a Cessna 182 and it
will fly just like a kite in a strong enough wind.

Sure. Put a rope on a trailer house and it would fly. You have
demonstrated nothing.

 

[John]

Rod Speed wrote:

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

I find that an interesting statement. Can you tell us where and when the
parasail appeared in history before, say, 1964?

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:05:05 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same
method aircraft do.

Nonsense.

Tie a strong enough string in the right place on a Cessna 182 and it
will fly just like a kite in a strong enough wind.

Sure. Put a rope on a trailer house and it would fly. You have
demonstrated nothing.

Nope. A house trailer would be hard pressed to raise the tether above the
horizontal while a C-182 (or any other airplane) would raise above the
horizontal as soon as the wind got above stall speed.

Maybe an Airstream teardrop trailer with the right bridle and a strong
enough wind?...

It's still weight, lift, drag, and thrust, though, whether it flies like a
kite or an airplane.