|
-- Posted by tomexe on 11:58 pm on April 28, 2003
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030428082503.htm
-- Posted by JB on 12:20 am on April 29, 2003
That's incredible.
...
Every day we come a little closer to seeing another absurd sci-fi fantasy become an everyday reality.
-- Posted by NateW on 3:32 am on April 29, 2003
This marks the first time that a biological or robotic research project has ever actually given me the creeps. I mean, yeah I feel sorry for the critters that get their heads popped open to put electrodes in their brains or whatever, but that doesn't give me the creeps. This does.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, in fact I hope they get boatloads of funding because I want to see what they do next. But damn... cultured neurons for robot control... that's creepy. I can't explain... it just gives me the creeps.
Expect the anti-science religious wacko community will latch onto this with a vengeance. Or ignore it as they completely fail to understand what it means... :-)
-- Posted by Earle Bishop on 11:45 am on April 29, 2003
Does it mean the beginning of the end? =D
I think it will usher in a whole new era of neural network research and applications. We might even acquire better insight into what makes a human brain function!
-- Posted by JB on 12:01 am on April 30, 2003
And someday we'll build a computer singer, stick a few biochips into it, and it'll go insane and take over the world.
...
Wait, that was fiction.
...
But so was this a few years ago.
-- Posted by tomexe on 12:37 am on May 1, 2003
I want to know how they are reading the electric signals, and how well.
I always wanted a thought operated computer.
-- Posted by Ghola on 4:23 pm on May 1, 2003
Well I'll be damned. One step closer to neural headsets/jacks. ^_^
-- Posted by tomexe on 6:02 pm on May 15, 2003
New York Times has done a more detailed article on this experiment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/technology/circuits/15next.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5040&en=a76871e7511f31f9&ex=1053662400&partner=MOREOVER
May 15, 2003
Wired to the Brain of a Rat, a Robot Takes On the World
By ANNE EISENBERG
HE nerve center of a conventional robot is a microprocessor of silicon and metal. But for a robot under development at Georgia Tech, commands are relayed by 2,000 or so cells from a rat's brain.
A group led by a university researcher has created a part mechanical, part biological robot that operates on the basis of the neural activity of rat brain cells grown in a dish. The neural signals are analyzed by a computer that looks for patterns emitted by the brain cells and then translates those patterns into robotic movement. If the neurons fire a certain way, for example, the robot's right wheel rotates once.
The leader of the group, Steve M. Potter, a professor in the Laboratory for Neuroengineering at Georgia Tech, calls his creation a Hybrot, short for hybrid robot.
"It's very much a symbiosis," he said, "a digital computer and a living neural network working together."
Dr. Potter has been building the system of hardware, software, incubators and rat neurons that constitute the Hybrot since 1993, when he was a postdoctoral student at the California Institute of Technology. He and his group have not only introduced the neurons to the world outside their dish; the team has also closely monitored minute changes that take place in the shape and connections of the neurons as they are stimulated, using techniques like time-lapse photography and laser imaging.
Dr. Potter hopes that close observation of how brain cells behave as they are exposed to a world of sensation will help researchers understand the way small groups of neurons go about learning. "If the network begins to get better at a job," he said, "we will watch what changed within the network to allow it to do that."
Dr. Jonathan Wolpaw, laboratory chief and professor of neuroscience at the Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health and the State University of New York at Albany, said that Dr. Potter's research could yield a simple system for exploring the capacity of neurons and circuits to change based on incoming activity.
"These changes could be analogues of what happens in learning," Dr. Wolpaw said. "You are dealing with neurons, the same tissue as in a brain," although in a different setting and with different circuitry. "Some things presumably are in common, for example, the neuron's capacity for plasticity," he said.
In Dr. Potter's hybrid system, the layer of rat neurons is grown over an array of electrodes that pick up the neurons' electrical activity. A computer analyzes the activity of the several thousand brain cells in real time to detect spikes produced by neurons firing near an electrode.
A silver three-wheeled model of the robot is commercially available through the Swiss robotics maker K-Team (www.k-team.com) for about $3,000 and is about the size of a hockey puck. It trundles along at a top speed of one meter per second.
"We assign a direction of movement, say, a step forward, that is automatically triggered by a pattern of spikes," said Thomas DeMarse, a former member of Dr. Potter's group who is an assistant professor in the department of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida. "Twenty of these patterns, for instance, means 20 rotations of the wheel."
As the robot moves, it functions as a sensory system, delivering feedback to the neurons through the electrodes. For example, Mr. DeMarse said, the robot has sensors for light and feeds electrical signals proportional to the light back to the electrodes. "We return information to the dish on the intensity of light as the robot gets closer and the light gets brighter."
The researchers monitor the activity of the neurons for new signals and new connections. Dr. Potter said that the feedback mechanism was crucial to the functioning of the neural network. In traditional, isolated cultured networks, he said, in which neurons are not connected to a body, the activity patterns of the neurons are largely pathological. "They behave in an aberrant way," he said. "It's a symptom of sensory deprivation, because the neurons are not receiving the input they usually get."
He decided to provide a body for the neurons early in his research, first in computer simulation and then in reality, so that neurons would have feedback. In that way, if the cells learned, he and his group might observe the changes that came about in the network. "People say learning is a change in behavior that comes from experience," he said. "For a cultured network to learn, it must first be able to behave."
There is an analogy to the human nervous system in the feedback loop developed by Dr. Potter, said Nicholas Hatsopoulos, an assistant professor in the department of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Hatsopoulos also works on brain-machine interfaces, including ways that brain signals may one day be used to move prosthetic devices.
"Potter's device has sensors that pick up information, and then the signals go back to the dish and stimulate the cells," he said. Similarly, he said, "signals out of the brain control the arm, but there are also sensors in the muscles and skin that send information back, too."
Such feedback loops are necessary to basic research in brain-machine interactions, he said. Researchers need not only to record signals that drive a device but also take signals from sensors and stimulate the nervous system. "Closing the loop will be a key issue in moving this field to the next level, for the feedback presumably helps learning," he said.
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis, a neuroscientist at Duke University, has identified signals generated by a monkey's brain as it gets ready to move, and then used the signals to move a robotic arm. "We are discovering that when animals learn to operate a robotic device, the operation changes the sensory and motor maps of the animal," he said. "Steve is looking for the same thing at the cellular level."
Dr. Potter has not yet demonstrated learning in his network but said he might be able to do so within six months. In experiments, Dr. Potter said he hoped to observe the Hybrot following an object at a certain distance.
"The next step is to watch it to see if it becomes better at following this object," he said. "That would become exciting."
-- Posted by EdZ on 3:15 pm on July 21, 2003
Great idea! why build an expensive silicon neural net, when you can grow one cheap. good news for making cheap reactive components too. dunk them in some glucose solution, pop in an oxidiser, change it every couple of weeks, and doesent need any wires! totally modular.
-- Posted by Fanboy on 8:24 pm on July 21, 2003
Here's a Dumb question. Would a robot run by a biological neuro-net thingie have to worry about neural disorders and other illnesses?
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 5:54 pm on July 23, 2003
Sounds like the first true cyborg. To me, this could conceivably be turned into a terrible thing. What's to prevent researchers from doing something like that to a soldier who is mortally wounded? The government owns everyone in the military and can do as they please with us. The last thing I'd ever want is to be a real live "Robocop". Especially if I understood what had been done to me and was powerless to affect my own demise.
Some people would and do think that would be cool. I'll bow out, and appreciate being able to miss that particular party.
-- Posted by tomexe on 6:43 pm on July 23, 2003
I would just like them to figure out how to get computers and nerves to communicate.
Robocop isn't a good model. Try watching or reading Ghost In The Shell, by Masamune Shirow. And the new sequal manga GITS II: Man-Machine Interface
Now THAT considers the full spectrum of possibilites for cybernetics to revolutionize human life.
The possiblity of "uploading" yourself is intriguing.
(Edited by tomexe at 4:00 pm on July 23, 2003)
-- Posted by JB on 7:49 pm on July 23, 2003
Quote: from tomexe on 5:43 pm on July 23, 2003
I would just like them to figure out how to get computers and nerves to communicate.
Robocop isn't a good model. Try watching or reading Ghost In The Shell, by Masamune Shirow. And the new sequal manga GITS II: Man-Machine Interface
Now THAT considers the full spectrum of possibilites for cybernetics to revolutionize human life.
The possiblity of "uploading" yourself is intriguing.
I really prefer reading as opposed to watching.
The comic was a lot better than the movie.
And relevant to our discussion, much more in-depth.
Especially the graphic novel, which had several pages of author's ntoes at the back.
-- Posted by tomexe on 10:42 pm on July 23, 2003
But the movie is something he could go and rent and at least understand what we were refrencing in one day. The two manga would take longer.
-- Posted by Ajay on 12:27 am on July 24, 2003
I've been trying to get my hands on anything by Shirow for the past few months with no luck. No stores I've been in seem to carry it.
Probably going to have to start ordering copies off the internet.
-- Posted by Ghola on 3:26 pm on July 25, 2003
Anime Cons are excellent places to get that sort of thing, if there are any in the area and you feel like paying the registration fee.
-- Posted by tomexe on 4:46 pm on July 25, 2003
Amazon carries the Dark Horse Press English translations of Shirow.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569710813/qid=1059168620/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-0976708-2171346?v=glance&s=books
We have a Borders here that carries them too.
(Edited by tomexe at 1:51 pm on July 25, 2003)
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 5:54 pm on July 25, 2003
I've seen it and I own it. The problem with "Ghost in the Shell" is that they blithely assume that there will be no nueroses that will come up. The characters in the movie were all volunteers and though it didn't say so, I assume received special training and on going evaluations. I know that most amputees complain about ghost sensations.. Could you imagine having ghost feelings from an entire body? No, thanks. I'll pass.
-- Posted by JB on 2:50 am on July 26, 2003
Quote: from ChrisDickerson on 4:54 pm on July 25, 2003
I've seen it and I own it. The problem with "Ghost in the Shell" is that they blithely assume that there will be no nueroses that will come up. The characters in the movie were all volunteers and though it didn't say so, I assume received special training and on going evaluations. I know that most amputees complain about ghost sensations.. Could you imagine having ghost feelings from an entire body? No, thanks. I'll pass.
Ghost sensations implies there are no longer any REAL sensations coming back.
You forget that the body is replaced with something that, while mechanical, still provides for feeling.
It's really an amputation as much as a transplant, though admittedly a transplant on a scale far beyond anything we can do currently.
...
Actually, Motoko's skin in Ghost in the Shell is MORE sensitive than human skin, owing to a particularly dense "nerve ending" distribution. 'S also not available to civilians. .
Shirow actually put a LOT of thought into the background, though it doesn't really show in the movie(which he didn't even write, he was a consultant for the mechanicals).
The author's notes in the graphic novel actually deal with a lot of issues that weren't addressable within the context of the story, such as how a non-humanoid body would work with a human brain "at the controls", so to speak.
-- Posted by Ajay on 12:29 pm on July 26, 2003
<>
Oshii is still amazing though. :)
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 1:45 pm on July 26, 2003
It could be the holy grail and the way to solve all of man's ills, but I still want nothing to do with it, personally. I just want a real large caliber rifle to deal with any cyborgian basket cases.
-- Posted by JB on 11:24 pm on July 26, 2003
Quote: from ChrisDickerson on 12:45 pm on July 26, 2003
It could be the holy grail and the way to solve all of man's ills, but I still want nothing to do with it, personally. I just want a real large caliber rifle to deal with any cyborgian basket cases.
Awww...
-- Posted by EdZ on 10:13 am on July 31, 2003
Although this could be taken as a bad thing, so can most new technologies. For example, it could allow a person who has full body paralysis to move again by replacing the nerves which have been damaged, or if their body is also damaged, they could have most of the body replaced too. ghost in the shell is an interesting movie, although the mangas are very hard to find, so i havent read any. The idea of transplanting not the brain, but the neural impulses in it is interesting, as it allows the consiosness (i think thats how you spell it) to expand into its new brain, instead of being stuck in its old one, which wouldnt be able to adapt well to its new body. But then this gives rise to the idea that, when the impulses are read and transferred, there would be 2 identical consciosnesses, what if the biological one was separated from the mechanical one. Is the mechanical 'person' a new being, or the original person, ore something else. A ghost of the original?
But i dont think anything nearly like this wil happen anytime soon.
-- Posted by tomexe on 3:24 pm on Aug. 1, 2003
Quote: from ChrisDickerson on 10:45 am on July 26, 2003
It could be the holy grail and the way to solve all of man's ills, but I still want nothing to do with it, personally. I just want a real large caliber rifle to deal with any cyborgian basket cases.
So if you are in a accident and wind up like Christopher Reeve, or as a amputee, you are just going to commit suicide? Or are you going to let them install the cybernetic limb or nerve bridge that will make you functional again?
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 5:59 pm on Aug. 1, 2003
If it's a simple fix, like bridging the gap in a injured spinal cord, that's one thing. I'd even happily support amputated limb replacement. But where is the stopping point? At what point does it become too much? When you talk about doing this the opposite way, force growing a brain into a robotic body, that I am entirely against.
-- Posted by Fanboy on 9:30 pm on Aug. 3, 2003
If you grow a brain (Or any biological part for that matter), how would you protect the biological parts from infection? Also, we are forgeting that the human brain is uber complex and would be very difficult to program.
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 10:43 pm on Aug. 4, 2003
One thing that has carried me through my adult life is the realization that there are few problems that can not be solved with sufficient application of high explosive. That, and if you think that you are having a great day because you woke up sucking air, instead of talking to St. Peter, then you realize that all your problems are relatively minor inconveniences that the sufficient application of high explosive can take care of...
-- Posted by noahrei on 9:59 pm on Aug. 5, 2003
Hey Christopher Reeve is actually recovering, I don't know what they are using on him, he said that they don't want to release it since it is a new procedure but he has thus far been able to move hip fingers and I think toe I beleive he actually siad that he has been able to move his arm slightly.
-- Posted by rustysickle on 8:42 pm on Aug. 8, 2003
This is a nice development. It is understandable as to how growing a neuron machine interface can be applied to help amputees and parapalegics. I consider the fact that they managed to get brain cells to grow as rather amazing. Can this technology be used to grow/build interfaces for other "peripherals" ? Peripherals like a non-limb device or perhaps an entire mech itself. ^_^ Would the use of such devices require a brain to rewire itself? A brain would already be wired for the normal amount of limbs/body parts what effect might another component make? Just a silly thought.
-- Posted by Earle Bishop on 9:23 pm on Aug. 8, 2003
Whoah, Rustysicle! That's two blasts form the pasts in one month.
-- Posted by rustysickle on 9:53 pm on Aug. 8, 2003
Sorry, but I am a lurker by habit. A very long lurker. I just like to read unless a topic really interests me. And this one really does. ^_^
Oh, in hindsight, I think a brain might be rewired if a new "peripheral" is added. Since the article above mentioned how signals from the robot's parts wounds up affecting the neurons. Perhaps as a user learns how to use the "peripheral" the user's brain will form new connections for more effective use.
-- Posted by EdZ on 1:34 pm on Aug. 9, 2003
The brain is almost continually rewiring itself for new 'peripherals'. e.g. when you use a computer, it takes very littel time from consciously having to psh the mouse about to make the cursormove, to moving the cursor without even realising that your hand is moving. the same can be said for almost any tool that humans can use. this is the reason that humans have become earth's dominant life form, that we can quickly adapt to using tools. no other animal can be given a tool and will have the ability to quickly learn to use it.
-- Posted by tomexe on 2:05 pm on Aug. 10, 2003
Wow, no one noticed this on the news ticker yet?
Roboblood
By James M. Pethokoukis
The result was a 100-page paper in 2002 on what the duo termed a "vasculoid"–essentially a nanomachine that would replace the human blood supply. Instead of having red and white blood cells floating through your veins, some 500 trillion (it's not often I get to type the word "trillion" when it's not in the same sentence as "national debt") nanobots would fill the entire vasculature of the body, some lining the blood vessels and some swarming through them. Collectively known as the vasculoid, they would, as the paper states, "duplicate all essential thermal and biochemical transport functions of the blood, including circulation of respiratory gases, glucose, hormones, cytokines, waste products, and all necessary cellular components." The nanobots, made of a sapphire- or diamondlike material, would be biopowered through glucose and oxygen.
Interesting isnt it?
-- Posted by tomexe on 2:46 pm on Aug. 14, 2003
This is interesting too:
The Wannabe Cyborgs Grow Up
Academic attention and widespread media coverage show that the transhumanist philosophy and movement have matured from misunderstood and marginalized to credible and challenging
Monday, August 11, 2003, 6:51:00 AM CT
Do you hope to become a cyborg someday? Would you like to modify and enhance your genome and those of your offspring, perhaps even acquiring some animal characteristics? Does the prospect of living as an uploaded consciousness in a supercomputer appeal to you? Would you like to achieve an open-ended lifespan and enter into a post-biological phase of existence?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, the good news is that you're not alone. You, my friend, are a transhumanist. Even better, you're now less likely than ever to be considered a freak, abnormal or a whack job. As Bob Dylan once said, the times they are a-changing, and what was once considered fringe is slowly creeping into popular acceptance.
From academic conferences to mainstream media attention, critics are learning that transhumanism cannot be dismissed out of hand. Rather, they're being forced to counter transhumanism with well-rounded and potent arguments, which they have so far largely failed to do.
Crystal pyramid hats
In September of last year, Wesley J. Smith, writing for the National Review Online, fired a shot at transhumanism with his essay "The Transhumanists: The Next Great Threat to Human Dignity." Transhumanism, declared Smith, seems "like something posted on the Web by a guy who wears a crystal pyramid on his head to keep the CIA from intercepting his thoughts."
Indeed, for those who are unfamiliar with the various speculations of many of today's leading futurists, the transhumanist agenda must seem awfully weird, possibly even grossly implausible, and for others, disgusting. Certainly, items on the to-do list of many transhumanists are undeniably extreme: Cyborgization, transgenic modification, cryonics and so on.
In fact, this stuff seems so sci-fi, so distant, that it can provoke a chorus of guffaws followed quickly by self-assuring dismissals. And as for those who espouse such transformations, they're often dismissed as having fallen off their rocker.
And as far as the transhumanist "ethics" is concerned, most outside observers immediately draw comparisons to eugenics. Part of the problem is that the notion of self-directed morphological and cognitive redesign really has no precursors; most people don't know quite what to make of transhumanism, so they compare it to previous "social experiments."
But even a year ago, Smith realized that there was something more to transhumanism than a bunch of hubristic techno-geeks. "Transhumanists," writes Smith, "come from the highest levels of academe." They are "breaking the intellectual ground they hope will eventually lead to public acceptance of genetic manipulation -- not just to improve health, but to change our very natures."
The transhuman academy
This notion -- that some serious thinkers espouse transhumanism -- was reinforced at the World Transhumanist Association's recent TransVision conference held at Yale University at the end of June. Cosponsored by the Yale Interdisciplinary Bioethics Program's Working Group on Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology and Transhumanism, this conference brought together leading transhumanist thinkers, scientists, ethicists and activists. Speakers and attendees addressed such issues as human redesign, bioethics, posthumanism, cyborgs, artificial intelligence, consciousness uploading and the hypothesized technological singularity.
High-profile speakers included Gregory Stock, author of Redesigning Humans; Gregory Pence, author of Who's Afraid of Human Cloning; Reason magazine's science correspondent Ronald Bailey; Consciousness theorist Stuart Hameroff; William Bainbridge of the National Science Foundation; WTA chair and philosopher Nick Bostrom; WTA secretary James Hughes; Extropy Institute president Natasha Vita-More; Cyborg Steve Mann (virtually, of course) and biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey.
Other highly respected transhumanists who attended included singularitarians Eliezer Yudkowsky and John Smart; Futurists Anders Sandberg, Robin Hanson and Jose Cordeiro; Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology; Wrye Sententia of the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics and singer-songwriter Elaine Walker of the band Zia -- among many others.
Out of obscurity and into the fire
Not surprisingly, with such a strong cast of thinkers, activists, ethicists and performers, the media took notice.
TransVision was well covered by the press. Considering that the WTA only really got up and going with real vigor a year and a half ago, and that transhumanist memes are still largely obscure, the conference made it into some fairly serious publications.
Days before the conference, the Hartford Advocate ran a preview article titled "Alive and Ticking," and TomPaine.com ran Jesse Reynold's transhumanist critique, "21st Century Eugenics."
Immediately after the conference, Reason's Bailey published his observations of TransVision in an article called "Making the Future Safe." The conservative Center for Genetics and Society also published a critique in its monthly newsletter.
And -- perhaps most significantly -- The Village Voice, in an excellent and well-balanced article called "Cyborg Liberation Front: Inside the Movement for Posthuman Rights" by Eric Baard, generated lots of buzz. The article was subsequently posted to Fark.com for discussion on July 29 and was Slashdotted on July 30.
Rooted in rights and reason
It's not just the exposure that's helping to spread the word about transhumanism, it's also what's being said.
As Baard writes in The Village Voice, "Dismiss it as a Star Trek convention by another name, and you could miss out on the culmination of the Western experiment in rights and reason."
Whoa. Do I have this right? Are there actually some people out there in medialand who actually get it? It would appear so.
Yes, transhumanism is growing up. Due to a number of technological and scientific breakthroughs, the scenarios transhumanists have long discussed are becoming more plausible with each passing year. Moreover, transhumanists -- with their principles firmly entrenched in rational, liberal democratic and progressive traditions -- are presenting a compelling, formidable and intellectually stimulating ethical framework.
As we inexorably head towards a posthuman condition, and as transhumanism gains more public acceptance over the coming years and decades, it will be crucial that the transhumanist philosophy and agenda remain dedicated to these principles -- not just so that the bio-Luddites can be countered, but because the future of the human species may depend on an accountable, responsible and well thought out movement that openly and critically discusses the pressing and pending issues with which transhumanists are familiar. Discourse needs to begin now. The bipolar stratification and the resultant debates between transhumanists and reactionary bioconservatives has questionable value.
We're heading down the path to conscious redesign. Wasting time with those who do nothing but complain about it (something I'm guilty of myself) is less than useless. Pragmatic and realistic approaches are what's called for, and through conferences such as TransVision and spreading their ideas, transhumanists are helping to bring these approaches about.
George Dvorsky is the deputy editor of Betterhumans and the vice-president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit organization devoted to encouraging the use of technology to transcend limitations of the human body. He is also the director of Sentient Developments, a Transhumanist think tank, and a freelance writer. You can reach him at george@betterhumans.com
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?articleID=2003-08-11-1
-- Posted by tomexe on 10:48 pm on Aug. 24, 2003
And we have this lot in England approaching the problem from the exact opposite angle. Trying to build a concious machine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1029052,00.html
-- Posted by Caesar02 on 11:16 pm on Aug. 24, 2003
Transhumanist... I have a new name for myself =)
I love this stuff. This is the kind of thing I look forward to living in twenty years. The way I see it, it's just Evolution Version 2.0, nothing more. Most people are just creeped out because they don't understand it. The rest are creeped out because they do understand it. After all, it's scary stuff. Its like being handed the key to a door that opens to wherever you like. Its not a decision that should me made lightly, but I dont think it should be regulated in any way, shape or form. If you ask me, a person should be able to do whatever they want to do with their body, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. If you look around this great internet of ours, there are plenty of people who think tatoos and piercings are immoral. This is definetly more extreme than a tatoo, but in my book it falls in the same category. At the very worst, the only person you're hurting is yourself, and you can do that whether cybernetics and gene manipulation are banned or not.
-- Posted by tomexe on 11:28 pm on Aug. 27, 2003
Now a Japanese group is asking for goverment funds to build a robot with the intelligence of a child- and they even have gone as far as to name it "Project Atom" after Tetsuwan Atom AKA Astroboy.
http://www.silicon.com/news/500012/1/5746.html
-- Posted by tomexe on 4:19 pm on Sep. 17, 2003
Yet another entry.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/robot-03o.html
Worlds largest spiking neural net computer.
-- Posted by tomexe on 11:09 am on Oct. 25, 2004
Brain in a Dish Flies Plane
By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
Oct. 22, 2004 — A University of Florida scientist has created a living "brain" of cultured rat cells that now controls an F-22 fighter jet flight simulator.
Scientists say the research could lead to tiny, brain-controlled prosthetic devices and unmanned airplanes flown by living computers.
And if scientists can decipher the ground rules of how such neural networks function, the research also may result in novel computing systems that could tackle dangerous search-and-rescue jobs and perform bomb damage assessment without endangering humans.
“ The end result is a neural network that can fly the plane to produce relatively stable straight and level flight. ”
Additionally, the interaction of the cells within the lab-assembled brain also may allow scientists to better understand how the human brain works. The data may one day enable researchers to determine causes and possible non-invasive cures for neural disorders, such as epilepsy.
For the recent project, Thomas DeMarse, a University of Florida professor of biomedical engineering, placed an electrode grid at the bottom of a glass dish and then covered the grid with rat neurons. The cells initially resembled individual grains of sand in liquid, but they soon extended microscopic lines toward each other, gradually forming a neural network — a brain — that DeMarse says is a "living computational device."
The brain then communicates with the flight simulator through a desktop computer.
"We grow approximately 25,000 cells on a 60-channel multi-electrode array, which permits us to measure the signals produced by the activity each neuron produces as it transmits information across this network of living neurons," DeMarse told Discovery News. "Using these same channels (electrodes) we can also stimulate activity at each of the 60 locations (electrodes) in the network. Together, we have a bidirectional interface to the neural network where we can input information via stimulation. The network processes the information, and we can listen to the network's response."
The brain can learn, just as a human brain learns, he said. When the system is first engaged, the neurons don't know how to control the airplane; they don't have any experience.
But, he said, "Over time, these stimulations modify the network's response such that the neurons slowly (over the course of 15 minutes) learn to control the aircraft. The end result is a neural network that can fly the plane to produce relatively stable straight and level flight."
At present, the brain can control the pitch and roll of the F-22 in various virtual weather conditions, ranging from hurricane-force winds to clear blue skies.
Not Science Fiction
This brain-controlled plane may sound like science fiction, but it is grounded in work that has been taking place for more than a decade. A breakthrough occurred in 1993, when a team of scientists created a Hybrot, which is short for "hybrid robot."
The robot consisted of hardware, computer software, rat neurons, and incubators for those neurons. The computer, programmed to respond to the neuron impulses, controlled a wheel underneath a machine that resembled a child's toy robot.
Last year, U.S. and Australian researchers used a similar neuron-controlled robotic device to produce a "semi-living artist." In this case, the neurons were hooked up to a drawing arm outfitted with different colored markers. The robot managed to draw decipherable pictures — albeit it bad ones that resembled child scribbles — but that technology led to today's fighter plane simulator success.
Steven Potter, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at Georgia Tech who directed the living artist project, believes DeMarse's work is important, and that such studies could lead to a variety of engineering and neurobiology research goals.
"A lot of people have been interested in what changes in the brains of animals and people when they are learning things," Potter said. "We're interested in getting down into the network and cellular mechanisms, which is hard to do in living animals. And the engineering goal would be to get ideas from this system about how brains compute and process information."
Though the "brain" can successfully control a flight simulation program, more elaborate applications are a long way off, DeMarse said.
"We're just starting out. But using this model will help us understand the crucial bit of information between inputs and the stuff that comes out," he said. "And you can imagine the more you learn about that, the more you can harness the computation of these neurons into a wide range of applications."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html
-- Posted by EdZ on 1:45 pm on Oct. 25, 2004
So rat neurons can replace chips. Now chips can replace rat neurons!
Brain prosthesis passes live tissue test
18:13 25 October 04
NewScientist.com news service
The world’s first brain prosthesis has passed the first stages of live testing.
The microchip, designed to model a part of the brain called the hippocampus, has been used successfully to replace a neural circuit in slices of rat brain tissue kept alive in a dish. The prosthesis will soon be ready for testing in animals.
The device could ultimately be used to replace damaged brain tissue which may have been destroyed in an accident, during a stroke, or by neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. It is the first attempt to replace central brain regions dealing with cognitive functions such as learning or speech.
To achieve their result, Theodore Berger and his colleagues at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, US, had to develop a system that would “read” real neural signals from healthy tissue, process them just as the lost brain tissue should, and pass on the resulting signals to the next brain area.
The brain region they are trying to replace is the hippocampus, which is vital for forming memories. The hippocampus has a well-understood three-part circuit. It also has a regular repeating structure, so elements of all three parts of the hippocampal circuit can be kept in a fully functional state, even in small slices in a culture dish.
Mathematical mimicry
In previous work, Berger’s team had recorded exactly what biological signals were being produced in the central part of the hippocampal circuit and had made a mathematical model to mimic its activity. They then programmed the model onto a microchip, roughly 2 millimetres square.
Now the team has tested whether its chip can work like the real thing. They cut out the central part of the circuit in real rat brain slices and used a grid of miniature electrodes to feed signals in and out of their microchip. “We asked if output from an intact slice was the same as from a slice with the substituted chip,” says Berger. “The answer was yes. It works really well.”
The signals produced by the intact brain slice and the prosthetic hippocampus matched in shape, timing and statistics, the team revealed at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego on Sunday.
“It proves you can take out a piece of a central brain region - a piece with real clinical interest - replace it with a chip, and get it to operate as it did before,” said Berger.
Long-range connections
The team are now working towards testing their prosthetic device on a live rat, which they expect to do within three years. They are also developing a mathematical model of primate hippocampal activity, so that they can eventually move on to testing the device in monkeys.
Guenter Gross, at the University of North Texas in Denton, is impressed with the approach, but adds “the problem will be how to make the long-range connections". Even if the device can replace the local connections, he suggests, the hippocampus makes connections to many different brain regions. “There are intricate, complicated connections formed during development that cannot be replaced,” he says.
Another problem is that when a region of the brain is damaged, immune cells and brain cells called glia migrate into the damaged site. They will affect any attempt to bypass or replace the damaged tissue, says Gross.
However, Berger says the team are developing special electrodes coated with proteins that should mimic healthy tissue and repel the unwanted cells. There’s no reason why this approach couldn’t be used to replace any region of the brain, says Berger. “We see this as a very general approach.”
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996574
Those darn lucky rats. They get all the fun stuff.
-- Posted by Merlyn on 2:36 pm on Oct. 25, 2004
I read a book once (big shock I know) however I can't remember the name or author.
What I do vividly remember is that the main character is kidnapped by a "benevolent" scientist who replaces his brain with an electronic duplicate. While the character is awake, they take out a cube of living brain tissue approximately 1 cm on a side and analyze it, input here gives output there, etc. They then program a microchip in a gold cube with the same response characteristics and implant it in the space where the other part was.
Very cool. As I recall, the only functional difference was that the character had control of the processing speed of his own brain, so that if he chose he could alter his perception of time to observe things by the millisecond if he needed to.
My 2 cents
-- Posted by tomexe on 12:15 pm on Oct. 26, 2004
Now the team has tested whether its chip can work like the real thing. They cut out the central part of the circuit in real rat brain slices and used a grid of miniature electrodes to feed signals in and out of their microchip. “We asked if output from an intact slice was the same as from a slice with the substituted chip,” says Berger. “The answer was yes. It works really well.”
The signals produced by the intact brain slice and the prosthetic hippocampus matched in shape, timing and statistics, the team revealed at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego on Sunday.
Well if you can get a chip to pass signals through without error, you should also be able to either copy and record those signals or to enter new signals.
Why does it look like that we are a lot closer to uploading or downloading memories than we were previously led to beleve?
-- Posted by JRiv on 1:25 pm on Oct. 26, 2004
I'm with Chris on this one there has to be a line drawn somewhere, here's my reasoning, a chip that is built ot function like a brain can and will function like a brain, any truly revolutionary computer brain has the potentail for AI which in turn has the potential to pull a sky net on us. Granted that is an extreme case but consider the fact that a cyborg may infact deem us to be an inferior species
-- Posted by Merlyn on 4:42 pm on Oct. 26, 2004
Note that until we have a better understanding of how brains work, the only way to have a computer thinking like a brain is to have the chips duplicate the behavior of a real brain.
This means that for the foreseable future, the only artificial brains we can make will think just like the real brains they were copied from.
So, find a relativly sane person for the experiments and all should be well.
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 5:06 pm on Oct. 26, 2004
Will it?
-- Posted by JRiv on 6:35 pm on Oct. 26, 2004
shrinks have been trying to detemine who's really sane for years (good thing I've got them fooled);D but seriously imagine the power of having your thoughts integrated into a computer system and remember the saying abote absolute power
(Edited by JRiv at 3:37 pm on Oct. 26, 2004)
-- Posted by kaempfer on 11:10 am on Oct. 27, 2004
Quote: from JRiv on 3:35 pm on Oct. 26, 2004
shrinks have been trying to detemine who's really sane for years (good thing I've got them fooled);D but seriously imagine the power of having your thoughts integrated into a computer system and remember the saying abote absolute power
(Edited by JRiv at 3:37 pm on Oct. 26, 2004)
I want to have my brain hooked up to google and wikipedia. REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
-- Posted by tomexe on 12:22 pm on Oct. 27, 2004
Why would building a replica of a human brain in electronics create "absolute power". Why would accessing computers better giver you better control over other peoples systems?
Just becase a computer or a cyborg can interface more easily with a computer does not mean it will know how to write code or learn how to be a hacker.
-- Posted by Ajay on 2:22 pm on Oct. 27, 2004
<>
They'd probably treat us better than we treat other animals though. Humans have a tendency to treat animals we can relate to (dogs, cats, dolphins,apes) better than more alien ones (chickens, lizards, fish). Hopefully any new intelligence will see humans as enough like them not to warrant total anihilation. This is assumming they think anything like the humans.
I'm not sure what kind of system they would use to determine whether or not a species was lower than them, but I don't understand why they wouldn't make some attempt at wiping out all life on the planet, as humans are as much a part of nature as anything else, despite how we attempt to distance ourselves from it.
<>
Many computer networks hold large ammounts of information (often sensitive information) for easier access and are often tied to other systems that can have direct effects on people's lives. The ability to leaf through the collective information of a network or modify it at any momment simply by thinking about it would probably give you some sort of advantage over people who lacked this ability or the capability to defend against it.
Probably not absolute power, but possibly comprable to a company using computer networks being able to outperform one still relying entirely on a paper based system. Overwhelming perhaps? Or maybe just "cool"?
Trivia gameshows would probably have to ban such augmented people from participating. Race car drivers with real time intuitive knowledge of every aspect of their car's performance through a brain/computer link might have advnatages over ones using instrument panels and other senses.
<>
What kind of interface? Could I, for instance, download all the information and abilities needed to become a hacker into my brain without having to go through as much of the actual memorization and pracice involved in becomming one the old fashioned way? Sounds awfully Matrix-y to me :P
............................................................
Wonder how much info you could handle though. Would it be possible to connect and browse networks while performing some other task simultaneously, or would they require more of your attention, as if you were sitting at some sort of console to begin with? Blah blah blah.
-- Posted by tomexe on 6:08 pm on Oct. 27, 2004
<>
They'd probably treat us better than we treat other animals though. Humans have a tendency to treat animals we can relate to (dogs, cats, dolphins,apes) better than more alien ones (chickens, lizards, fish). Hopefully any new intelligence will see humans as enough like them not to warrant total anihilation. This is assumming they think anything like the humans.
I'm not sure what kind of system they would use to determine whether or not a species was lower than them, but I don't understand why they wouldn't make some attempt at wiping out all life on the planet, as humans are as much a part of nature as anything else, despite how we attempt to distance ourselves from it.
This is a learned behavior you know. People are not going to start doing this just because they became a cyborg, they have to be taught to do this.
As long as the cyborg or bot does not LOOK strange people will accept it.
Thats why Japanese always try and make their robots look and act human.
-- Posted by Ajay on 2:42 am on Oct. 28, 2004
<>
I was thinking more along the lines of full robots. Cyborgs to me seem human enough to not cause too much uneasiness.
<>
Although cultural and social factors can influence fears and beliefs, a general disdain or lack of compassion for some with which we share little in common as compared to those with whom we share much seems pretty universal.
Bigotism doesn't seem to be taught as much as it is fostered and encouraged. You can probably have aggressive anti-bigot campaigns set up, but this probably wouldn't totally eleminate all feelings of uneasiness humans or human-like AI might experience when encountering something they consider different from them- especially if they can associated it with some kind of threat.
<>
Think he meant the AI computers not accepting humans.
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 7:16 am on Oct. 28, 2004
Cyborgs would have to be introduced in much the same way as our mechs may have to be. Civilian emergency services and military uses first. I can think of little that will win over the public's opinion like having a cyborg fire-fighter go into a fully involved house and pull a trapped family out. Or, having a cyborg cop (Robocop? *shudder*) break up an attempted murder or rape. Those are the kinds of things that will win the public trust. However, just one screw up, like missing a small child in the fire, would set public opinion against them for all time.
-- Posted by EdZ on 5:12 pm on Oct. 28, 2004
I see cyborgisation as a more gradual process. It's already strated with partial and total prosthesis of bones, limbs and organs. A very select (and lucky, in my opinion) people are now recieving devices that interface directly with the nervous system. 'Essential' technology (watches, phones, credit cards, ID, etc) will fairly soon become implantable. People will be able to interface directly with electronic devices as extra 'limbs'.
And at the same time, AIs will also be 'evolving'. Not as copies of human brains, because there would be no point (why create a human brain when you have one sitting right behind the eyeballs of several billion organisms?). Rather, AIs will form out of complex webs of linked data, and have entirely different 'personalities' and 'egos' than humans. And almost as certainly, they will evolve alongside us as companions, symbiotically. If an AI can crunch numbers effectively, and a HI (Human Intelligence) can perform reflexive tasks well, then why work against each other when thay can work together. Eventually that wearable computer will become part of that lump of metal in your head that attaches to your nerves, and eventually will become a part of you, like an extra brain hemisphere of your brain.
[/romanticvisionofthefuture]
-- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 5:43 pm on Oct. 28, 2004
So, essentially what you're saying is that humans will willing submit themselves to control of an AI? You realize what that idea is actually saying? However benevolent the intentions and directions, the human race will be the slaves of the AI. I pray to God that I am long dead and gone before that happens.
The major problem I have with this is rooted in the whole "techno-society" garbage that everyone is just waiting to usher in. I see all that implanted stuff as a problem simply because of these reasons. For your finances, all it would take is someone to decide that you are a threat in some manner, and they freeze them. Suddenly you can not buy or sell. Ever. They can then, since you are on the list of those to be tracked down, find and apprehend you by homing in on your unique electronic signature. After all, by this point there will be sensors everywhere to read those electronics- newspaper machines, door motion detectors, street lamp mounted emergency locators that are only "supposed" to be used in the event of an accident, etc.. Do I fear it? Absolutely. Is it coming, you bet. Will I submit to having anything electronic implanted in me that is not needed for me to keep breathing? Not a chance. I'll stick with cash and ID cards as long as possible so I can retain as much of my personal liberties as long as I can.
-- Posted by tomexe on 7:41 pm on Oct. 28, 2004
I was thinking more along the lines of full robots. Cyborgs to me seem human enough to not cause too much uneasiness.
A cyborg is both organic and inorganic, but it does not have to be born a human. It could be a robot with cloned human tissues making up part of its structur, either cloned cells in its computer or cloned tissues covering its frame like a terminator.
Think he meant the AI computers not accepting humans.
Why would they do that? They would have to learn that behavior. And why would all AI's act as one? And what would they be able to do about it? No one is going to give a single computer total control over all nuclear weapons a la Skynet. That isn't safe from outside attack much less from internal usurpation.
AI are also NOT going to be large. You don't need them to run large networks, but rather small units that need to be autonimous.
(Edited by tomexe at 4:55 pm on Oct. 28, 2004)
-- Posted by Ajay on 9:02 pm on Oct. 28, 2004
>A cyborg is both organic and inorganic, but it does not have to be born a human. It could be a robot with cloned human tissues making up part of its structur, either cloned cells in its computer or cloned tissues covering its frame like a terminator.
Okay, I was thinking more along the lines of a human with computer enhancements. However, being part biological and/or more similar to humans visually has the same implications compared to a completely inorganic robot, particularly if it lacks enough AI for people to relate to.
<<
<>
I suggested they wouldn't.
<>
In most sci-fi tales gone awry, it tends to be a logical conclusion reached by the AI itself. The AI doesn't tend to learn it istelf, but comes to such a conclusion based on obsevations. I suppose that could also be considered "learned" behavior.
<>
To make whatever plan they had more effective I'd think.
<>
If I wanted to kill alot of people, what could I do? The limits of what they can do probably depends on what they were built to do. Working in unison would be the key.
<>
I suppose it depends on what kind of future we're living in. In some people's visions of the future, simpler AI are used for functions deemed essential. In some, AI is comprable to human intellgence and is ever present in all human life-being closely tied to it.
In any case, most people have their toasters and refrigerators plugged into the internet now. It seems like a matter of time before some AI system gets hooked up to it ala Human cyborgs.
-- Posted by JRiv on 12:49 am on Oct. 29, 2004
First, if you have access to all the data bases then you could track a person and do stuff like change stop lights, drop crane loads etc then totally prevent emergency workers from getting to you or possibly give you the wrong prescription, for example: Your car is watched by a network of satelites so any one could know where you are and for a short time where you're going then the same person watching you can change a stop light and get you in a wreck, once the EMT get there the get to the hospital where you promptly die of a reaction with penicillian because somehow the database shows that you are perfectly fine for all types of antibiotics
Okay now think about this. a person could eventually copy their thoughts memories and brainwaves into and artifical body and the have the power and precision of the machine and the shelf life too.
-- Posted by Ajay on 3:08 am on Oct. 29, 2004
<>
Not all networks are connected though. With the exception of the internet and those directly connected, most are generally a series of linked computers in a building or restricted area.
To do what you suggested means the individual in question would need access to all the networks involved seperately, unless the stop lights, construction sites, EMT tracking services, and hospital records are all tied to the same accessible system or linked through other ways. Is it possible to access all this just from the internet?
Things like screwing up a bank's records could be performed by someone with actual access to the system to begin with, but not so easily by some random hacker. Pulling off stuff like skynet would more than likely involve multiple individuals working together.
However, if they have access to relatively simple systems like sattelite internet, GPS, or sattelite communications merely by thinking about it and can transfer large ammounts of information like streaming video, audio, maps, etc, via real time, it makes pulling off complex coordinated jobs MUCH easier than through more conventional methods.
-- Posted by tomexe on 3:45 am on Oct. 29, 2004
If AIs of human level intellignece- or even animal level if they WERE truly Independent and had no seperate controlling system- are treated badly they could go awry, just like people would. But we are talking Ghost in the Shell 2, or Blade Runner type running amok, not gaining control of nuclear weapons and causing WWIII.
But if they are treated well, they won't, nor would they look down at us as we are their creators, their parents if you will, and also its going to be a while before fully self repairing systems appear, they will not have even the limted self repair abilities that we humans have. AI is immortal ONLY so long as it can get spare parts, and while you could create a situation where machines design and build for machines, that is going to be a while off.
(Edited by tomexe at 12:49 am on Oct. 29, 2004)
-- Posted by EdZ on 4:07 am on Oct. 29, 2004
As I was saying before, why should an AI want to wipe out humans anyway. As long as we don't actively go aroung deleting AIs and zapping computer hardware, then there's really no reason for them to want to wipe us out on a whim. It would be a lot better for them to just to work with us. Not as overlords, but as a different, but friendly, race.
-- Posted by tomexe on 4:23 am on Oct. 29, 2004
Quote: from EdZ on 1:07 am on Oct. 29, 2004
As I was saying before, why should an AI want to wipe out humans anyway. As long as we don't actively go aroung deleting AIs and zapping computer hardware, then there's really no reason for them to want to wipe us out on a whim. It would be a lot better for them to just to work with us. Not as overlords, but as a different, but friendly, race.
Well that is taking it a bit far. Different races of humans dont even get along togeather. And the religious freaks have already announced they consider such beings monsters- when they are still just a theoretical exercise. Imagine when the first prototypes appear.
One of the best things going for integration is the EXPENSE of the first generation, or maybe couple generations, of artificial organisms (either silicon or organic based). The cost will limit their number, AND pretty much insure that they are in the hands of people who care about them even if only because they are a big investment.
The cost will fall in the long run, and commonality will increase, but by the time there are potential problems the nature of the problem will have sorted themselves out.
Thing is though, how much of a market is there for human level AI? The fact is if you make human level AI- you just made a human, and you have to treat them like one. That makes them useless for exploitation- so where is the dollar value.
Machines and/or organic artificial beings with ANIMAL level intelligence I can see being built in numbers, but except as a learning tool for the integration of human and machine a totally artificial android is not a canidtate for mass production. What could it do that we could not and if we cannot do it why would we force it to do it?
-- Posted by EdZ on 6:00 am on Oct. 29, 2004
I don't think that AIs will work in the same way as human (or even animal) brains do, for the simple reason that there is no need for them to. AIs will be extremely useful for sorting through large amounts of data for specific information, so they will be 'bred' do do this well. I doubt that you will ever get an AI that you can talk to and think it is a human (like in the Turing test) as there is not really much point. If you want someone to talk to, just talk to a person. If you want to sift through many terabytes (or more likely petabytes) of data, you use an AI.
'self awareness' may not even bea conept an I can understnd, let alone wanting to wipe out humanity.
-- Posted by tomexe on 9:29 am on Nov. 4, 2004
Another discovery, this time out of Vanderbuilt University.
LIGHT may work better than electricity in communicating between the brain and machines..
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-10-28-3
Lasers Bring Brain Interfaces "Out of the Dark Ages"
Light beams said to stimulate and record nerves with greater precision and accuracy
By Liz Brown
Betterhumans Staff
10/28/2004 4:31 PM
Credit: Brian Stanback
Light reading: Lasers can precisely stimulate and record nerve activity, suggesting that fiber optic cables could one day link minds with machines
Lasers may allow brain-machine interfaces that far exceed the capabilities of existing devices, permitting people to control artificial limbs through brain-linked fiber optic cables.
So suggest researchers at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee who have used a low-intensity infrared laser light to successfully bring nerves to life in rats without touching actual nerve cells.
"This technique brings nerve stimulation out of the Dark Ages," says Anita Mahadevan-Jansen, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at Vanderbilt.
Beyond electricity
Currently, neural interfaces mainly stimulate nerves through electrodes wired to the brain. However, the researchers say, the electric method is not ideal as large areas around target neurons are also affected because of the way electricity travels through the tissue.
"Much work is going on around the world trying to make electric nerve stimulation better, but the technique is inherently limited," says Mahadevan-Jansen. "Using lasers instead, we can simultaneously excite and record the responses of nerve fibers with much greater precision, accuracy and effectiveness."
In the experiment, Mahadevan-Jansen and colleagues traced the movement of a nerve's natural electrical impulses through the brain using a special light. From there, they graduated to using a laser to stimulate the nerve and artificially create this activity.
They used the laser to stimulate the sciatic nerve of rats, controlling muscles in the animals' hind legs and individual toes. The method appeared much more accurate than electric stimulation.
Unlike electricity, the laser light could pick off single cells and didn't affect surrounding neurons.
Months from use?
Now that the laser process has proven to be effective, the researchers plan to study the mechanisms behind the stimulation.
The researchers also think it's only a matter of months before a machine could be created that helps neurosurgeons target nerves during rhizotomy, a procedure that frees frozen muscles.
At present, doctors must find affected neural regions by trial and error, striking nerves with an electric probe while patients are awake. Using laser light, the therapy could be less intrusive and more accurate.
Down the road, the researchers believe, a possible application could include an array of fiber optic threads that run from the brain to a prosthetic limb in an optical neural interface.
-- Posted by JRiv on 8:01 pm on Nov. 4, 2004
Very cool, I am trying to get my bachelor's in ME and possibly dual major in CE either way I hope to specilize BioMed and this S**t is way frickin cool
|