Re: The world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain tissue
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: The world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain tissue         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Immortalist
Date: Aug 15, 2008 22:36

On Aug 15, 4:53 am, Errol gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 7:32 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 14, 7:56 am, Errol gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 14, 7:59 am, Immortalist 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)
>

If you notice in the article that the computer is made of nerve cells
only. It is easy to make or grow a brain, we do it through
reproduction and development of embryos. All we have to do is
manipulate these biological activities and we can probably discover
more aspects of consciousness than nature itself has. If I take a
rock, I take all its quantum forces with it, if I copy the rock with
actual minerals and figure a way to put them together just like they
are in the rock, I have aligned such forces Penrose spoke of.
> Penrose considered that if consciousness were no more than a program--
> even a horrendously complex one--why wouldn't artificial-life
> researchers or neuroscientists have gained at least a tiny insight
> into its nature?
>
> The reason, penrose concluded, is that the "quality of understanding
> and feeling possessed by human beings is not something that can be
> simulated computationally"
>
> Penrose used the chinese room argument to show that the hardware
> doesn't understand what the program is about.
>
> I like the idea that consciousness arises from the very structure of
> space-time itself and penrose is the closest to that concept.

Something in the cell itself may align some quantum forces and these
cells are in our test tubes. There probably soon will be no need to
appeal to the impossibility dogma and Penrose's main fears will become
extinguished.

Microtubules are cylindrical molecules made by gluing together 13
strands of the protein, tubulin, to make a tube 25 nanometres across,
with a central channel about 15 nanometres wide. Each microtubule is
covered by a fuzz of protein stubs, known as MAPs (microtubule
associated proteins), and these can be used to hook clusters of
microtubules together into larger lattices. Both microtubules and MAPs
seem to be capable of a certain amount of movement, meaning that they
can be woven into plastic structures, able to give and bend.

The structural properties of microtubule assemblies make them a
valuable building material within cells. For example, a bundle of 20
microtubules form the beating, hair-like cilia that coat the surface
of many small single-celled animals, allowing them to swim. However
the main use for microtubules appears to be to make an internal
skeleton for cells-an intricate scaffolding that gives a cell its
shape but also can deform and bend enough to allow it to move.

The existence of the microtubule cytoskeleton was discovered only
relatively recently in the 1970s-previously the fixative chemicals
used in electron microscopy was having the unfortunate effect of
dissolving the tubules-so biologists still have much to learn about
what the cytoskeleton does and how it operates. Yet biologists believe
that it not only holds a cell in shape but also plays an important
role in cell metabolism, acting as a piping system or an internal
highway to move plasma and other essential cell products about the
cell. Some have suggested microtubules might do this by using their
MAP spurs to drag cell protoplasm along, hand over hand, in a
miniature bucket brigade running up the sides of a tubule.

There is also evidence that the cytoskeleton could serve as a
primitive brain. Biologists have long been puzzled how a simple single-
celled animal, like the slipper-shaped paramecium, could behave so
intelligently when it has no nervous system. A paramecium is
surprisingly nimble as it swims about in pond-bottom detritus,
twisting in and out of tight spaces in search of its dinner. Somehow
the protozoan manages to respond swiftly to information coming in from
a light-sensitive eyespot and its touch-sensitive cilia to co-ordinate
its swimming action. Several biologists have speculated that the
cytoskeleton could serve as the communication and information
processing link needed to organise such relatively complex behaviour.

This suggestion that the cytoskeleton could be a "brain within a
brain" has particularly excited the quantum theorists. In casting
around for a suitable cell structure to operate as a go-between,
connecting the sub-atomic realm with the macroscopic world of firing
brain cells, some theorists had considered that the membranes at the
synaptic junctions between nerve cells might be the site of quantum
interactions. Others had wondered whether the ion channels down the
flanks of neurons could be ruled by quantum effects. But quickly,
microtubules began to look a far better bet. While microtubules are
not unique to neurons, they are found there in particular abundance (a
fact that does not surprise neurologists given that nerve cells are so
metabolically-active and microtubules seem essential to metabolic
activity). Furthermore, the speed at which microtubules can switch
state between relaxation and contraction is believed to be of the
order of a nanosecond. This may be slow by the usual time scales of
quantum events, but it is about a million times faster than the cell
firing events usually believed to underlie consciousness and so at
least appears to get the biology of the system within striking
distance of a quantum explanation.

http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_quantum%%20mind.html
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!