The world's first robot controlled exclusively by living bra

[Jerry Kraus]

On Aug 16, 9:53 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 -

What's a "mystic"? Someone who doesn't think we know everything?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
<jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in
<ce1affdb-3f95-4fba-8988-b47fae8e7260@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 Aug 16, 10:00 am, John <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

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_.

Ah, so many questions. So much money. So much time. So few
answers. Makes for very steady work, no?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:34:59 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
<jkraus_1906@yahoo.com> wrote in
<97c07482-37c5-47f0-9f8e-295b88e743fe@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]

Jerry Kraus wrote:

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.

 

[John]

Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Aug 16, 10:00 am, John <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
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_.

Ah, so many questions. So much money. So much time. So few
answers. Makes for very steady work, no?

You ignorant fuck. Wolfram made his money himself and continues to
support his own research.

 

[John]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:00:10 -0500) it happened John
nohj@droffats.ten> wrote in <18-dnVwozvoYdjvVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@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]

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 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.

 

[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.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Aug 16, 12:05 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
ce1affdb-3f95-4fba-8988-b47fae8e7...@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.

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?

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Aug 16, 12:48 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:34:59 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
97c07482-37c5-47f0-9f8e-295b88e74...@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.

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.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Aug 16, 1:09 pm, John <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

Jan Panteltje 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>:

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?- Hide quoted text -

- 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.

 

[Robert Monsen]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Errol <vs.errol@gmail.com>
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]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:

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 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.

I've determined experimentally that Microsoft Windows hates me... does
that count?

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[zinnic]

On Aug 16, 9:40 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-Hidequotedtext -

- 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.- Hide quoted text -

- 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]

On Aug 16, 9:56 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 9:53 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 -

What's a "mystic"?  Someone who doesn't think we know everything?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Someone who claims that irrational speculation trumps the hard won

evidence of scientists seeking answers to what they do not yet know!
Why would people who think they 'know' everything do research?

 

[zinnic]

On Aug 16, 12:34 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 12:05 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Jerry Kraus
jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
ce1affdb-3f95-4fba-8988-b47fae8e7...@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.

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?- Hide quoted text -

And without scientific research our current lack of understanding will
remain the impotent "for all we know" speculations of mysticst.

 

[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.

 

[bigfletch8@gmail.com]

On Aug 15, 9:53 pm, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:

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
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.

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 -

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.- 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