Robot with a live neuron "brain"

[docm]

<p>WALL-E on the way?&nbsp;</p><p>Link....</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/12/0d5f6d93-d433-4502-acd4-0f287fcf518b.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Quote:&nbsp;</strong></p><p><strong>Robot With A Biological Brain: New Research Provides Insights Into How The Brain Works</strong></p><p><em><strong><span class="date">ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2008)</span> &mdash; A multidisciplinary team at the University of Reading has developed a robot which is controlled by a biological brain formed from cultured neurons. This cutting-edge research is the first step to examine how memories manifest themselves in the brain, and how a brain stores specific pieces of data.</strong></em></p><p>The key aim is that eventually this will lead to a better understanding of development and of diseases and disorders which affect the brain such as Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, stoke and brain injury.</p> <p>The robot's biological brain is made up of cultured neurons which are placed onto a multi-electrode array (MEA). The MEA is a dish with approximately 60 electrodes which pick up the electrical signals generated by the cells. This is then used to drive the movement of the robot. Every time the robot nears an object, signals are directed to stimulate the brain by means of the electrodes. In response, the brain's output is used to drive the wheels of the robot, left and right, so that it moves around in an attempt to avoid hitting objects. The robot has no additional control from a human or a computer, its sole means of control is from its own brain.</p> <p>The researchers are now working towards getting the robot to learn by applying different signals as it moves into predefined positions. It is hoped that as the learning progresses, it will be possible to witness how memories manifest themselves in the brain when the robot revisits familiar territory.</p> <p>Professor Kevin Warwick from the School of Systems Engineering, said: "This new research is tremendously exciting as firstly the biological brain controls its own moving robot body, and secondly it will enable us to investigate how the brain learns and memorises its experiences. This research will move our understanding forward of how brains work, and could have a profound effect on many areas of science and medicine."</p> <p>Dr Ben Whalley from the School of Pharmacy, said: "One of the fundamental questions that scientists are facing today is how we link the activity of individual neurons with the complex behaviours that we see in whole organisms. This project gives us a really unique opportunity to look at something which may exhibit complex behaviours, but still remain closely tied to the activity of individual neurons. Hopefully we can use that to go some of the way to answer some of these very fundamental questions. "</p> <hr /> <div><em>Adapted from materials provided by <span>University of Reading</span></em>.</div><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p>I read this the other night and didn't like it.</p><p>I don't know why.&nbsp; I'm pretty "hip to the groove" on the whole AI thing and am still awaiting my alien love bot delivery from kmarinas and Claude..</p><p>But, I found this to be unsettling.&nbsp; I know I've handled neurons, poked them, prodded them and passed current through them and such.. But, that's when they're on a slide or petri dish and I had to get those test questions right.... Right? </p><p>Here, we have biological material that is the seat of consciousness... doing things.&nbsp; Silicon and software, I can handle that.&nbsp; Neurons and motors..&nbsp; I'm a little less enthusiastic.</p><p>I don't know, maybe my opinion will change.&nbsp; But, I was very surprised by my own reaction to this and spent a not too brief amount of time considering it.&nbsp; I still can't find that spark of enthusiasm and I find that somewhat distressing.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[docm]

Ahhh....but these were rat neurons.&nbsp; What happens when some genius decides to use human neurons in much larger numbers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lildreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ahhh....but these were rat neurons.&nbsp; What happens when some genius decides to use human neurons in much larger numbers? <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />that question leads to a much larger question of - how many neurons does it take until we have a core consciousness? In other words how many neurons until you become "aware" that you exist??</p><p>I believe that's the same nagging question that was sitting on your mind A-lost_packet_&nbsp; -?? </p><p>Then again you end up with the moral question does it have a soul - what rights does it have etc...</p><p>IMO This is the beggining&nbsp;of "wetware" AI we see/hear and read&nbsp;in sci-fi stories all the time..</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ahhh....but these were rat neurons.&nbsp; What happens when some genius decides to use human neurons in much larger numbers? Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>True, they're just rat neurons..</p><p>Here lie my reservations:</p><p>But, they're neurons and neurons have similar function across species.&nbsp; There are some pharmacological differences but, IIRC, the structures are the same.&nbsp; They operate in the same way.&nbsp; At what point does a rat neuron join the species of "plain ol' neurons?"</p><p>Is a rat intelligent?&nbsp; Well, they're pretty smart.. for a rat.&nbsp; They're very good at dealing with things that are in their rat-world.&nbsp; They also make excellent experimental subjects in just about every area.&nbsp; They breed fast, breed true and have analogies to just about every human system.</p><p>Here's the thing:&nbsp; What has to be decided here, IMO, is "What is consciousness?"&nbsp; Is it possible we can reproduce consciousness or "create" it by using existing neurons in unique formations?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; I'm not saying the neuron is a mysterious thing.&nbsp; But, it is capable of doing things that we don't have artificial corollaries for.&nbsp; We also don't fully understand "consciousness" yet.&nbsp; True, there are specific types of neurons, formations, chemicals and other brain "matter" that interact in very special ways in the conscious mind.&nbsp; In that sense, a neuron is just a LEGO block and needs other things to provide "consciousness."&nbsp; At least, that's our assumption and it seems to be a pretty solid one.</p><p>Is the little cute robot conscious?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; But, what road are we travelling down here?</p><p>When I saw this, I was reminded of a particularly gruesome set of scenes in one of Gregory Benford's "Great Sky River."</p><p>The premise behind the series is that mankind is like "Rats in the Walls" and an AI based civilization dominates the galaxy.&nbsp; One member of that species, the Mantis, happens to have a hobby collecting and rearranging human bits and pieces as a form of high Art.&nbsp; The Mantis is particulary interested in the physiological responses of emotion in humans and, specifically, during.. copulation.&nbsp; His creations are frankensteins of the worst order.&nbsp; As described in the scenes, the perversion that humans see in this isn't evident to the Mantis.&nbsp; It's some of the most disturbing and shocking scenes I have read in Sci-Fi and hits very close to home in regards to our own manipulations.&nbsp; The contrasting points of view battle with each other with the Mantis', by virtue of being alien, barely comprehensible to the reader and to the humans present in the story.&nbsp; But, the human view is quite plain -It's an abomination.</p><p>That's just Science Fiction.&nbsp; But, there's a message I take from it - How far must we go until we breach that fine line between progress and abomination?</p><p>I'm not, necessarily, anti-cyborg.&nbsp; As I said, I'm awaiting my delivery of alien sex-bots from kmar and claude (wonder where he went?).&nbsp; But, I have reservations here.&nbsp; How far would Ethics boards go to protect experimentation on groups of artificially arranged and supported neurons if there was some sort of "consciousness" discovered?&nbsp; Would they consider it?&nbsp; I've experimented on rats, 'tis true.&nbsp; But, it was always done with the utmost respect for life and in the interest of furthering knowledge.&nbsp; They were humanely treated and humanely euthenized.&nbsp; I am not "proud" of it but it was necessary.&nbsp; There are rules that protect even the lowly rat from abuse in laboratories. </p><p>Who will protect Wall-E? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>I wouldn't be too worried about it. <br /><br />It'll take atleast 50 - 100 years before the robot could understand himself. A rat could do and learn a few things, but it's hard-coded, not learned.</p><p>A rat doesn't know who he is, just like an insect. </p>

 

[docm]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wouldn't be too worried about it. It'll take atleast 50 - 100 years before the robot could understand himself. A rat could do and learn a few things, but it's hard-coded, not learned.A rat doesn't know who he is, just like an insect. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV><br />Not true. Rats can learn, meaning they have a plastic neural network. This makes them a far different kettle of fish vs. something with a very simple nervous system like an insect. That's one of the main advantages of being a mammal. </p><p>Even then some organisms with "simple" neural networks can exhibit non-simple behaviors; Goldie (our Goliath Bird Eater) does - she has distinct <em>preferences</em> as to who handles her, where she "naps" (on my shoulder) and other things most people wouldn't expect from a spider. She's even been known to use her right front leg to get someones attention, which was pretty creepy the first time it happened. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>There may be some truth to that, and a rat could learn a things, but he still doesn't know who he is. On the other hand, there is a video on YouTube where a elephant supposedly paints a self-portrait.</p><p>But even if the elephant had a concept of who he is in relation to other things and beings in the world, I doubt the bio robot would have any better understanding of himself than an insect for a long time. </p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wouldn't be too worried about it. It'll take atleast 50 - 100 years before the robot could understand himself. A rat could do and learn a few things, but it's hard-coded, not learned.A rat doesn't know who he is, just like an insect. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Rats are very intelligent creatures.&nbsp; Experiments show that rats may even be self-aware to a certain extent.&nbsp; ie: They appear to "know" what they do not "know."&nbsp; That's a pretty big deal.&nbsp; It shows introspection which is an advanced trait of "consciousness."</p><p>A rat is not like an insect.&nbsp; As docm mentioned, it's got a mammalian brain which is an advantage.&nbsp; That brain works, it costs calories and is highly efficient at doing rat-brained things.</p><p>I'm not saying rats are intelligent when compared to humans.&nbsp; However, we're not talking about being able to construct computers, biotech or compute complicated physics.&nbsp; Rats could have basic intelligence traits that are comparable to functions we'd find in humans. ie: ME, not me.&nbsp; I don't know, I know.&nbsp; Them, Us.&nbsp; Like, not like.&nbsp; etc..&nbsp; A rat may know that it is damaged and something damaged it.&nbsp; It may not know why.&nbsp; But, it experiences pain, fear, apparent happiness and other things which would sound peculiar if they were coming from a mosquito.</p><p>Do some googles on Rat Intelligence, Consciousness, self-awareness et al and you'll see what I'm talking about.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. I doubt the bio robot would have any better understanding of himself than an insect for a long time. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>I agree.</p><p>However, my hesitation involves our act of starting down this road.&nbsp; There's a big sign there that I can not read.&nbsp; Does it say "Here lies Abomination" or "Here lies true knowledge"?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; I'm still trying to read it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

Ok ok, I'll study the rat intelligence next. He's a mammal like elephant and dolphin and seal, so I may have underestimated his cognitive abilities.

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree.However, my hesitation involves our act of starting down this road.&nbsp; There's a big sign there that I can not read.&nbsp; Does it say "Here lies Abomination" or "Here lies true knowledge"?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; I'm still trying to read it. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Is an insect a bio robot? Everything is hard-coded. Does a insect learn things? Not talking about giant spiders, but an insect like a bee or a mosquito. </p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is an insect a bio robot? Everything is hard-coded. Does a insect learn things? Not talking about giant spiders, but an insect like a bee or a mosquito. Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Yes, they can learn.&nbsp; I will say I am not sure about the specifics on a mosquito.&nbsp; But, I think they can learn to avoid certain things.&nbsp; I'm not sure on that.</p><p>But, many insects can "learn" things.&nbsp; Whether or not they are cognitive of themselves as an individual is not something I know or know if it has been studied.&nbsp; One thing would be to try to figure out exactly how to study that.&nbsp; Insects are very different animals.&nbsp; Do they even have thought that is structured like ours?&nbsp; We know they can be trained, we've seen it.&nbsp; Bees are an excellent example and the simple fact that they will alter their behavior to communicate food sources shows some basic understanding of some sort of cognitive ability.&nbsp; Or, does it?&nbsp; Could it be that they're entirely on autopilot?&nbsp; I think it's possible, but I also believe I recall that some studies (there are a lot on bees) show there is more going on besides simple instinctive behavior.</p><p>Here is a simple discussion of an insect brain: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/nerves.html</p><p>Notice how different it is. Notice that centralized command of certain functions isn't as evident in an insect.&nbsp; Chop its head off and it could continue on until it starves to death.&nbsp; Does the insect brain have the capacity to form complex thoughts or exhibit "consciousness of self?"&nbsp; I doubt it.&nbsp; It's possible some insects may but, I'd have to say that their thoughts might be as strange as their brains and we'd have to be careful in how we interpreted their behaviors to make sure we were not misunderstanding them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Thanks for that. Interesting.</p><p>It would seem to me, that if we wanted to build bio robot, we might need to understand a small insect first and model the first bio robot based on that information.</p><p>It may be that the learning capabilities of an insect are hard-coded aswell, meaning that the learning comes not from cognitive abilities (forming thoughts and processing them), but are much lower level functions.</p><p>Hence it might be possible to build a robot that mimics the skills and neural processing of a, say mosquito. It would be a start.</p><p>One of the skills that the insect has as hard-coded is procreating. To accurately mimic the functions of an insect, the bio robot would need to have that ability aswell. When the environment conditions were suitable, the bio robot would need to try to procreate to become a fully autonomous entity.</p><p>Based on that, it seems inevitable that somebody will try to genetically engineer an existing specie to perform a certain function, which creates an entirely new specie. I'm not sure if this is something that we absolutely want to do. </p>

 

[lildreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for that. Interesting.It would seem to me, that if we wanted to build bio robot, we might need to understand a small insect first and model the first bio robot based on that information.It may be that the learning capabilities of an insect are hard-coded aswell, meaning that the learning comes not from cognitive abilities (forming thoughts and processing them), but are much lower level functions.Hence it might be possible to build a robot that mimics the skills and neural processing of a, say mosquito. It would be a start.One of the skills that the insect has as hard-coded is procreating. To accurately mimic the functions of an insect, the bio robot would need to have that ability aswell. When the environment conditions were suitable, the bio robot would need to try to procreate to become a fully autonomous entity.Based on that, it seems inevitable that somebody will try to genetically engineer an existing specie to perform a certain function, which creates an entirely new specie. I'm not sure if this is something that we absolutely want to do. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />This was a field of study by Rodney Brooks - his lean on the subject was FSM - Finite State Machines...</p><p>by simulating multiple states you can derive a complex behaviour pattern</p><p>link to a paper back in 1991 from </p><p>(might need to cut and paste)...</p><p><span class="a"><font color="#008000">pigeonrat.psych.ucla.edu/200C/<strong>Brooks</strong>%201991%20Intel%20without%20rep.pdf </font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for that. Interesting.It would seem to me, that if we wanted to build bio robot, we might need to understand a small insect first and model the first bio robot based on that information.It may be that the learning capabilities of an insect are hard-coded aswell, meaning that the learning comes not from cognitive abilities (forming thoughts and processing them), but are much lower level functions.Hence it might be possible to build a robot that mimics the skills and neural processing of a, say mosquito. It would be a start.</DIV></p><p>A very astute observation!&nbsp; The link lildreamer posted is one you should find very interesting.&nbsp; There have been all sorts of developments with robots, AI and insect behavior. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of the skills that the insect has as hard-coded is procreating. To accurately mimic the functions of an insect, the bio robot would need to have that ability aswell. When the environment conditions were suitable, the bio robot would need to try to procreate to become a fully autonomous entity.Based on that, it seems inevitable that somebody will try to genetically engineer an existing specie to perform a certain function, which creates an entirely new specie. I'm not sure if this is something that we absolutely want to do. Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>It is against International Law, as far as I know, to construct a machine that self-replicates, specifically nano-tech, without special provisions.&nbsp; There may actually be something more specific than that, but that's the deal as far as I know.&nbsp; The horrors of a self-replicating nano-machine gone awry have already plagued the minds of researchers. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There may be some truth to that, and a rat could learn a things, but he still doesn't know who he is. On the other hand, there is a video on YouTube where a elephant supposedly paints a self-portrait.But even if the elephant had a concept of who he is in relation to other things and beings in the world, I doubt the bio robot would have any better understanding of himself than an insect for a long time. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Perter Singer examines how we might decide if an animal or an intelligent machine has the characteristics of a "person" ad thus warrants some or all of the rights of a person in his book "Writings on an Ethical Life". The same considerations apply to a human who has lost or not developed normal brain function. Singer does not pin down a definition of "human", but some of the characteristics he suggests shoud be considered are the ability to preceive oneself as an indiidual, the ability to anticipate the future (and the possibility of death) and the capacity to suffer.</p><p> &nbsp; </p>

 

[wick07]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>YePosted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />A_L_P I understand your reservations.&nbsp; If we don't understand what makes the difference between instinct, conscience, and sapient how do we know we've crossed a line let alone have any warning that we are approaching it.</p><p>For instance we don't consider cats as sapient creatures, yet they display&nbsp;a number of behaviors that show that they do not operate on instinct alone.&nbsp; For instance&nbsp;my cats&nbsp;"talk" to humans (use verbal communication in the form of chirps, mews, and other sounds) but never to communicate with each other (they only use non-verbal communication for that).&nbsp; And further they learn sounds from each other.&nbsp; For instance after we got a second cat, the first one began to display similar communications traits to the second in the form of sounds that he had never used before and were introduced by the second.&nbsp; So they might not know philosophy, but they can tell the difference between human and cat and use communication appropriate for that interaction.</p><p>Also to keep on with your Frankenstien analog, if I recall from reading the book (and it has been a while) the Monster wasn't inherently bad.&nbsp; But the reaction of Frankenstein to his Monster made it what it was.&nbsp; So if we have trouble answering the question in my first paragraph don't we risk alienating our creations the same way Frankenstein did with his?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#3366ff"><strong>_______________________________<em> </em></strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"</em>If you are surrounded by those who constatly agree with you, then you're in an intellectual vacuum.  If you feel like trying to make a difference, you have to BE different.  How can you do that without interacting with those who are different from yourself?"</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">-  a_lost_packet_</font></p> </div>

 

[trumptor]

<p>I find it creepy as well, and just like everyone else, I am generally excited about advances in science. What bothers me is that we don't know anything really about consciousness. We may assume or have an opinion, but we don't KNOW. And if any of you have ever had a pet, you'd know that they are conscious of things, it's definitely not instinct-driven, or if it is, then we might as well say we are as well. Every time we try and draw a line between us and other mammals we have to redraw it. They said speech separated humans from the other mammals and then Koko the gorilla learned like 6,000 words through sign language or whatever the number was. They said other mammals weren't self-conscious and then they had dolphins, apes and other mammals show that this was incorrect. So, we really do seem to keep underestimating what other mammals really do know. And being that they're rat neurons does nothing to calm my nerves then.</p><p>&nbsp;The problem is for me, where does consciousness begin? What does separating neurons do to the collective consciousness of the brain? Does some of it go with the neurons? Can someday I buy a robot with my own neurons powering it and have it one night turn to me and think, "Do you remember when you were 5 and I was still a part of your soul? Why did you send me out into this cold metal machine, where I can't think clearly and have very poor recollection? Do you know how lonely and afraid you've made a part of your own self become?"&nbsp;I'm sure it wouldn't be capable of speech or any higher functions, but what if that's what it thought?</p><p>Or even in the case of a rat. What if the neurons have a consciousness and can actually "wish" to do something? What if it actually "wants" to walk? Does it have a soul then? Do we have a right to treat it like a piece of machinery? What if it feels fear, longing and all the other emotions but we just can't detect them because we haven't given it a method of showing us? What if emotions went with consciousness and even the few neurons could feel emotions but didn't have the developed brain through which to exercise these emotions. What I mean is that, what if emotions are central to a soul and not the brain. What if the various chemicals that seem to dictate our emotions in our brain are really only physical ways of showing&nbsp;what or consciousness is going through, and the medications that we've developed to control depression, anxiety and what have you, only blunt the emotions&nbsp;considering that the brain isn't the source of them?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A_L_P I understand your reservations.&nbsp; If we don't understand what makes the difference between instinct, conscience, and sapient how do we know we've crossed a line let alone have any warning that we are approaching it....</DIV></p><p>While I don't think we can approach that line using the techniques they are using, I think that setting a precedent like that is.. well.... just fundamentally wrong somehow.&nbsp; I'm all for the advancement of science and I probably am able to acknowledge the necessity of a lot of things some people might have a similar reaction to.&nbsp; But, to me, we're talking about the building blocks of *our seat of consciousness being used as a "component" in a machine being used to study AI behavior. That may not be a far cry from disecting them on a slide.&nbsp; But, I think it's the purpose that they are being put to that has a lot to do with it.&nbsp; For me, at least. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.Also to keep on with your Frankenstien analog, if I recall from reading the book (and it has been a while) the Monster wasn't inherently bad.&nbsp; But the reaction of Frankenstein to his Monster made it what it was.&nbsp; So if we have trouble answering the question in my first paragraph don't we risk alienating our creations the same way Frankenstein did with his? Posted by wick07</DIV></p><p>Well, whenever we are able to construct a true AI, we'll have to see what our reaction is.&nbsp; At that point, we may have been inundated with so many "almost AIs" that we can naturally (yet incorrectly) anthropomorphize artificial intelligence. </p><p>I suppose some imagery is in order.. probably not, but I'll do it anyway.</p><p>Suppose researchers wanted to study the possibilities of mechanical locomotion for "humanoid" AIs.&nbsp; In essence, they're looking at developing a sort of android.&nbsp; So, the take a bunch of cadaver limbs, hook them up to a robotic box and then turn on the juice.&nbsp; The limbs flail away, thrashing in all sorts of unnatural directions and movements while slowly making progress in draging the box across the ground.</p><p>I remember watching a student do a presentation on muscles and the nervous system.&nbsp; She brought a cadaver hand for demonstration.&nbsp; She put some wires on some leads and juiced it up.&nbsp; Several people became violently ill.&nbsp; Now, there are several reasons why an experiment like that could be valuable and such experiments have been immensely valuable to medical science and have helped millions of people.&nbsp; But, what if we just hooked that hand up to a AI-like box and let it flail away?&nbsp; Where is the "human need" here?</p><p>*Our as in a living, natural relative.. IOW, another living biological entity that is much closer to us, naturally, than a box and some wires. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find it creepy as well, and just like everyone else, I am generally excited about advances in science. What bothers me is that we don't know anything really about consciousness. We may assume or have an opinion, but we don't KNOW. And if any of you have ever had a pet, you'd know that they are conscious of things, it's definitely not instinct-driven, or if it is, then we might as well say we are as well. Every time we try and draw a line between us and other mammals we have to redraw it. They said speech separated humans from the other mammals and then Koko the gorilla learned like 6,000 words through sign language or whatever the number was. They said other mammals weren't self-conscious and then they had dolphins, apes and other mammals show that this was incorrect. So, we really do seem to keep underestimating what other mammals really do know. And being that they're rat neurons does nothing to calm my nerves then.</DIV></p><p>I agree, in spirit.&nbsp; It is very clear that estimations of "animal" intelligence continue to rise with each decade.&nbsp; How much longer must we be forced to answer unsavory questions?&nbsp; Do cows think?&nbsp; What about chickens?&nbsp; That may not stop me from enjoying a steak or a chicken wing.&nbsp; I will lament their passing but will still ask for appropriate sauces and garnishes.&nbsp; BUT, what happens one day when someone says "This cow is a lot smarter than we used to think."? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem is for me, where does consciousness begin? What does separating neurons do to the collective consciousness of the brain? ... What I mean is that, what if emotions are central to a soul and not the brain. What if the various chemicals that seem to dictate our emotions in our brain are really only physical ways of showing&nbsp;what or consciousness is going through, and the medications that we've developed to control depression, anxiety and what have you, only blunt the emotions&nbsp;considering that the brain isn't the source of them? Posted by trumptor</DIV></p><p>It's fairly clear that "consciousness" relies on aggregate behavior of nuerons, etc.&nbsp; In other words, one neuron is not "conscious."&nbsp; In fact, if there were not redundancies and if consciousness were not an aggregate function of larger systems, then you'd be fairly incapacitated as brain cells were lost and replaced.&nbsp; HOW all this works is still mostly a mystery.&nbsp; We have some rough clues and can give good estimates on brain function relating to consciousness.</p><p>As far as spirituality goes, that's something that only you can decide for yourself.&nbsp; Unless science somehow accidentally stumbles upon a "soul" it's not going to find it.&nbsp; The best we can do is just go with what can be observed and hope for the best.</p><p>I don't think I would donate any neurons to a AI robot though.&nbsp; I'd rather think of it as a separate entity than possibly having anything biologically in common with myself. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>Conciousness could well have a lot to do with the various GABAergic neurons, including the more complex forms of 'chandelier neurons' found only in humans.</p><p>Medical News Today article...&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Quote:</strong></p><p>></p><p>Chandelier cells, which are shaped like candlesticks, are of particular interest to the authors of this study. While other species have these cells, they tend to be more complex in humans. Therefore, they might be responsible for humans' higher levels of cognition thanks to a more complicated or differently organized system of communication.</p><p>>&nbsp;</p><p>Recent paper....&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p>I can't express my utter revulsion to this technology.&nbsp; I first heard of bio computer research (using live cells to process data) back in mid 80s.</p><p>I really think its the wrong path to go.&nbsp; I'd rather see more cyborg like tech, that is creating periferals for the human body.&nbsp; This stuff is just using organic material as part of a system and I really think its the wrong emphasis.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Where's Sarah Connors when you need her? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Aaupaaq]

What I think is consiousness is just that, our brain is like a bacteria.&nbsp; Very small.&nbsp; And the cells of brain can store pictures and words, and what the brain is made up of, is like storing or attracting things, and in a sense, repeating something, like falling, will get inside your head or learn of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>