New brain, sir?

Underemployed · 12th March 2003, 12:30 PM

The world's first brain prosthesis - an artificial hippocampus - is about to be tested in California. Unlike devices like cochlear implants, which merely stimulate brain activity, this silicon chip implant will perform the same processes as the damaged part of the brain it is replacing.

The prosthesis will first be tested on tissue from rats' brains, and then on live animals. If all goes well, it will then be tested as a way to help people who have suffered brain damage due to stroke, epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease.

My first response to this was

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

But then I thought about it some more and went

AAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGHHHHHHHHH!

12th March 2003, 12:42 PM

Help, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to live in the future any more!

garys_2k · 12th March 2003, 12:47 PM

Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily...

Cool research, though!

LeFevre · 12th March 2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by garys_2k
Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily...

Cool research, though!

hell yeah that is cool. Soon we can start getting Cyberware implants, Data Jacks, Boosted Reflexes, all that cool crap.

Maybe eventually we will replace a whole brain!

12th March 2003, 12:55 PM

On the other hand, I know a couple of people for whom ANY such prosthesis would be an improvement.

arcticpenguin · 12th March 2003, 01:48 PM

I'm wondering, is this scheduled to appear in hte April issue of New Scientist?

LucyR · 12th March 2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by garys_2k
Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily...

Judging by your style, I assume you believe that the concept of animal "rights" is less meaningful than that of human "rights". If so, would you mind explaining why?

garys_2k · 12th March 2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LucyR

Judging by your style, I assume you believe that the concept of animal "rights" is less meaningful than that of human "rights". If so, would you mind explaining why?

Not really, there'd be no point. Go ahead and tell us why this is another example of institutionalized torture and get it off your chest. You'll feel much better then, having enlightened us all.

12th March 2003, 05:13 PM

Are we actually surpassing Star Trek-level technology? I mean, all those nuts who talk about becoming "post-humans" may have a point after all.

garys_2k · 12th March 2003, 07:50 PM

I'm sure this will lead to revolutionary treatments for many brain injuries and diseases, perhaps even allow spine-damaged people to regain the use of their limbs.

This may be one of those things people will read about in a hundred years, recognizing it (like mapping the genome) as truly the dawn of a new era. I'm amazed.

espritch · 12th March 2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

The work was funded by the US National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense?

The Fool · 12th March 2003, 09:48 PM

"I'm sorry sir but jobs are not available to people with your brain version, you will need to be upgraded"

great...everyone will have to pay Bill Gates great grandson for a brain upgrade every 2 years.......

12th March 2003, 10:21 PM

This sounds ambitious - I won't hold my breath on the outcome.

Stimpson J. Cat · 13th March 2003, 01:48 AM

esprich,

Quote:

Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense?

Not at all. The ONR is one of the largest funders of pure scientific research in the US. They fund all sorts of stuff that does not have what would be considered "direct" military applications. Unlike most corporations, they realize that one can never estimate the potential benefit of "pure research".

Even so, the majority of their funding does go to stuff with direct military applications, but they recognize that any field of research, no matter how abstract it may seem, could lead to a major breakthrough.

Incidentally, my own PhD research, which primarily concerned with trying to understand how electrosensory receptors in marine life work, was funded by the ONR. I am sure you could try to find some tangential link with military applications there, but the same could be said for this work. Bottom line: They funded it because it seemed likely that it could give some insight into a fundamental aspect of nature.

Dr. Stupid

BillyJoe · 13th March 2003, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sundog
Help, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to live in the future any more!

Maybe you won't have a choice.

Some predict that, as a result of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity, we will all disappear in a flash within the next century.

garys_2k · 13th March 2003, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by espritch

Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense?

I can imagine a non-chilling direct military use for this type of technology: injury recovery. How many brain trauma victims can be saved from all sorts of injuries, or life in a vegetative state, with this type of technology?

I truly hope it works out and that progress can be made. I believe we are living in exciting times, and I mean that in a GOOD way!

Agammamon · 13th March 2003, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Maybe you won't have a choice.

Some predict that, as a result of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity, we will all disappear in a flash within the next century.

It's not so much that their predicting Humanity will disappear but rather that the ever increasing pace of technological change will draw the prediction horizon closer, not to say that in the future people won't disappear or be transformed into something else.

Most predictions expect to reach the singularity in 30 to 50 years.

Not that I'm holding my breath in anticipation, but I am content to see what happens.

The predictions are based on superimposing a series of S curves describing the appearance, rapid mastery of, and saturation of a given technology. If you superimpose a series of S curves you end up with an asymptotic curve reaching toward infinity at an ever increasing rate.

Dragonrock · 13th March 2003, 07:14 AM

This reminds me of the Michael Chriton novel The Terminal Man. In it, the hero had a chip implanted to fix a brain problem, I think it was dyslexia or stuttering rather than brain damage, and certain unsavory people used this chip to control him and make him kill people.

The important thing with this new chip is make sure there's no antennae sticking out of your head to allow people to run you through remote control.

Mark · 13th March 2003, 07:23 AM

I have one question: will there be "pop-ups?"

garys_2k · 13th March 2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark
I have one question: will there be "pop-ups?"

No, that's from a different kind of implant.

Alaric · 13th March 2003, 10:46 AM

Im sorry but could you explain what was meant about Knowledge/humanity going towards a singularity? Im lost.

Agammamon · 13th March 2003, 12:35 PM

A better graphical metaphor is the spike. If you look at an asymptotic curve it starts off relatively flat, but over time curves upward sharply, eventually rising straight up like a spike. The curve measures our technological level over time. As you follow the curve from time1 to time2 you increase in tech level by (oh lets say) X. However from t2 to t3 ( the same interval as 1 to t2) you increase by 2x. and from t3 to t4 you increase by 4x. The gist is that (theoretically) over a given time the rate of increase of technology increases exponentially, eventually reaching infinity within a finite time frame.

Now before the screaming starts, let me say that yes, there could be an unknown factor that limits technological growth. But that is the essence of prediction. You take what you know and extrapolate into the future. The reason the singularity prevents this is that tech change is eventually happening in the order of months, days, even minutes. By the time you have completed a prediction, thing can change so much to render your prediction invalid.

BillyJoe · 14th March 2003, 02:58 AM

Agammamon,

I was referring to the "empty planet syndrome".

The idea is that a combination of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity could make it possible that a machine could evolve that could grant your every wish - just by thinking about it. Considering the nature of our hidden desires, this could lead to total annihilation of our planet within a single night. We could never hope to control these machines because, in order for them to reach the singularity, they would necessarily have to evolve far beyond our capacity to understand them.

Runaway technology at its most nightmarish.

Graham · 14th March 2003, 04:13 AM

I have a question for y'all about the part where it says:

Quote:

While trials on monkeys will tell us a lot about the prosthesis's performance, there are some questions that will not be answered. For example, it is unclear whether we have any control over what we remember. If we do, would brain implants of the future force some people to remember things they would rather forget?

I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible and thus a person with an artificial brain would be forced to remember everything.

Thinking about it though, there are two factors that prevent us from remembering things:

1) Age & decay of our brains (or brain damage from, say, an accident)

2) Deliberate suppression of unpleasant memories

I would say that (1) is a physiological function which would be eliminated by the artificial brain (and that would be a good thing, IMO) but (2) is a psychological function which would not necessarily be affected.

Does anyone see a counter-argument to this or a flaw in my logic?

Graham

garys_2k · 14th March 2003, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graham
I have a question for y'all about the part where it says:

I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible and thus a person with an artificial brain would be forced to remember everything.

Thinking about it though, there are two factors that prevent us from remembering things:

1) Age & decay of our brains (or brain damage from, say, an accident)

2) Deliberate suppression of unpleasant memories

I would say that (1) is a physiological function which would be eliminated by the artificial brain (and that would be a good thing, IMO) but (2) is a psychological function which would not necessarily be affected.

Does anyone see a counter-argument to this or a flaw in my logic?

Graham

It would depend on how #2 happens. If it's a form of self-imposed deterioration, perhaps it would have to be specifically allowed for. I'd imagine that any "sanity preservation" system would have to permit a certain amount of memory suppression.

BillyJoe · 15th March 2003, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graham
I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible

No.

An artificial brain must necessarily be based on heuristic algorithms and, as such, would be as fallible as our own brains regardless of whether or not it had one hundred percent reliable memory.
The only alternative is "brute strength" algorithms and they cannot run in "real time'.

neutrino_cannon · 15th March 2003, 05:38 PM

Fun! Cybernetics... and all the associated advantages.

I suppose, inversely, it might be interesting to make a computer out of neurons.

Agammamon · 17th March 2003, 06:37 AM

You've already got one in your head.

Dragonrock · 17th March 2003, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Fun! Cybernetics... and all the associated advantages.

I suppose, inversely, it might be interesting to make a computer out of neurons.

Or, we could build a holographic computer using the patterning of a human brain, maybe we could use an executed criminal for our donor.

12th March 2003, 12:30 PM	#1
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	New brain, sir? The world's first brain prosthesis - an artificial hippocampus - is about to be tested in California. Unlike devices like cochlear implants, which merely stimulate brain activity, this silicon chip implant will perform the same processes as the damaged part of the brain it is replacing. The prosthesis will first be tested on tissue from rats' brains, and then on live animals. If all goes well, it will then be tested as a way to help people who have suffered brain damage due to stroke, epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease. My first response to this was AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! But then I thought about it some more and went AAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGHHHHHHHHH!
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.

12th March 2003, 12:47 PM	#3
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily... Cool research, though!
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	__________________ - Gary

12th March 2003, 12:54 PM	#4
LeFevre Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: JREF knows and I drink kool-aid Posts: 1,719	Quote: Originally posted by garys_2k Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily... Cool research, though! hell yeah that is cool. Soon we can start getting Cyberware implants, Data Jacks, Boosted Reflexes, all that cool crap. Maybe eventually we will replace a whole brain!
	__________________ U.S.L.S. (1997-2009) Ask me about Skinnematics! I won't participate, but I'll eat copporn, and watch. - TobiasTheCommie Taisetsu na mono protect my balls!

12th March 2003, 12:55 PM	#5
Kiri Guest Posts: n/a	Stapling machine, Mrs. Robinson! On the other hand, I know a couple of people for whom ANY such prosthesis would be an improvement.
Kiri Guest Posts: n/a

12th March 2003, 01:48 PM	#6
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	I'm wondering, is this scheduled to appear in hte April issue of New Scientist?
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

12th March 2003, 12:42 PM	#2
Guest Posts: n/a	Help, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to live in the future any more!
Guest Posts: n/a

12th March 2003, 02:41 PM	#7
LucyR Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,086	Quote: Originally posted by garys_2k Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily... Judging by your style, I assume you believe that the concept of animal "rights" is less meaningful than that of human "rights". If so, would you mind explaining why?
LucyR Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,086

12th March 2003, 03:39 PM	#8
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	Quote: Originally posted by LucyR Judging by your style, I assume you believe that the concept of animal "rights" is less meaningful than that of human "rights". If so, would you mind explaining why? Not really, there'd be no point. Go ahead and tell us why this is another example of institutionalized torture and get it off your chest. You'll feel much better then, having enlightened us all.
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	__________________ - Gary

12th March 2003, 05:13 PM	#9
rwald Guest Posts: n/a	Are we actually surpassing Star Trek-level technology? I mean, all those nuts who talk about becoming "post-humans" may have a point after all.
rwald Guest Posts: n/a

12th March 2003, 07:50 PM	#10
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	I'm sure this will lead to revolutionary treatments for many brain injuries and diseases, perhaps even allow spine-damaged people to regain the use of their limbs. This may be one of those things people will read about in a hundred years, recognizing it (like mapping the genome) as truly the dawn of a new era. I'm amazed.
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	__________________ - Gary

12th March 2003, 08:19 PM	#11
espritch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,380	Quote: The work was funded by the US National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense?
	__________________ "I'm the master of low expectations." - G. W. Bush

12th March 2003, 09:48 PM	#12
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	"I'm sorry sir but jobs are not available to people with your brain version, you will need to be upgraded" great...everyone will have to pay Bill Gates great grandson for a brain upgrade every 2 years.......
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

12th March 2003, 10:21 PM	#13
spoonhandler Guest Posts: n/a	This sounds ambitious - I won't hold my breath on the outcome.
spoonhandler Guest Posts: n/a

13th March 2003, 01:48 AM	#14
Stimpson J. Cat Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 1,833	esprich, Quote: Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense? Not at all. The ONR is one of the largest funders of pure scientific research in the US. They fund all sorts of stuff that does not have what would be considered "direct" military applications. Unlike most corporations, they realize that one can never estimate the potential benefit of "pure research". Even so, the majority of their funding does go to stuff with direct military applications, but they recognize that any field of research, no matter how abstract it may seem, could lead to a major breakthrough. Incidentally, my own PhD research, which primarily concerned with trying to understand how electrosensory receptors in marine life work, was funded by the ONR. I am sure you could try to find some tangential link with military applications there, but the same could be said for this work. Bottom line: They funded it because it seemed likely that it could give some insight into a fundamental aspect of nature. Dr. Stupid
	__________________ A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.

13th March 2003, 02:34 AM	#15
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Quote: Originally posted by sundog Help, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to live in the future any more! Maybe you won't have a choice. Some predict that, as a result of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity, we will all disappear in a flash within the next century.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

13th March 2003, 05:40 AM	#16
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	Quote: Originally posted by espritch Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense? I can imagine a non-chilling direct military use for this type of technology: injury recovery. How many brain trauma victims can be saved from all sorts of injuries, or life in a vegetative state, with this type of technology? I truly hope it works out and that progress can be made. I believe we are living in exciting times, and I mean that in a GOOD way!
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	__________________ - Gary

13th March 2003, 06:48 AM	#17
Agammamon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,385	Quote: Originally posted by BillyJoe Maybe you won't have a choice. Some predict that, as a result of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity, we will all disappear in a flash within the next century. It's not so much that their predicting Humanity will disappear but rather that the ever increasing pace of technological change will draw the prediction horizon closer, not to say that in the future people won't disappear or be transformed into something else. Most predictions expect to reach the singularity in 30 to 50 years. Not that I'm holding my breath in anticipation, but I am content to see what happens. The predictions are based on superimposing a series of S curves describing the appearance, rapid mastery of, and saturation of a given technology. If you superimpose a series of S curves you end up with an asymptotic curve reaching toward infinity at an ever increasing rate.
	__________________ It will be a great day when the US Air Force has all the bombs it needs and the NEA has to hold a bake sale in order to pay its lobbyists.

13th March 2003, 07:14 AM	#18
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	This reminds me of the Michael Chriton novel The Terminal Man. In it, the hero had a chip implanted to fix a brain problem, I think it was dyslexia or stuttering rather than brain damage, and certain unsavory people used this chip to control him and make him kill people. The important thing with this new chip is make sure there's no antennae sticking out of your head to allow people to run you through remote control.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

13th March 2003, 07:23 AM	#19
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	I have one question: will there be "pop-ups?"

13th March 2003, 07:39 AM	#20
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	Quote: Originally posted by Mark I have one question: will there be "pop-ups?" No, that's from a different kind of implant.
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	__________________ - Gary

13th March 2003, 10:46 AM	#21
Alaric Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 55	Im sorry but could you explain what was meant about Knowledge/humanity going towards a singularity? Im lost.
Alaric Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 55

13th March 2003, 12:35 PM	#22
Agammamon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,385	A better graphical metaphor is the spike. If you look at an asymptotic curve it starts off relatively flat, but over time curves upward sharply, eventually rising straight up like a spike. The curve measures our technological level over time. As you follow the curve from time1 to time2 you increase in tech level by (oh lets say) X. However from t2 to t3 ( the same interval as 1 to t2) you increase by 2x. and from t3 to t4 you increase by 4x. The gist is that (theoretically) over a given time the rate of increase of technology increases exponentially, eventually reaching infinity within a finite time frame. Now before the screaming starts, let me say that yes, there could be an unknown factor that limits technological growth. But that is the essence of prediction. You take what you know and extrapolate into the future. The reason the singularity prevents this is that tech change is eventually happening in the order of months, days, even minutes. By the time you have completed a prediction, thing can change so much to render your prediction invalid.
	__________________ It will be a great day when the US Air Force has all the bombs it needs and the NEA has to hold a bake sale in order to pay its lobbyists.

14th March 2003, 02:58 AM	#23
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Agammamon, I was referring to the "empty planet syndrome". The idea is that a combination of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity could make it possible that a machine could evolve that could grant your every wish - just by thinking about it. Considering the nature of our hidden desires, this could lead to total annihilation of our planet within a single night. We could never hope to control these machines because, in order for them to reach the singularity, they would necessarily have to evolve far beyond our capacity to understand them. Runaway technology at its most nightmarish.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

14th March 2003, 04:13 AM	#24
Graham Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,465	I have a question for y'all about the part where it says: Quote: While trials on monkeys will tell us a lot about the prosthesis's performance, there are some questions that will not be answered. For example, it is unclear whether we have any control over what we remember. If we do, would brain implants of the future force some people to remember things they would rather forget? I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible and thus a person with an artificial brain would be forced to remember everything. Thinking about it though, there are two factors that prevent us from remembering things: 1) Age & decay of our brains (or brain damage from, say, an accident) 2) Deliberate suppression of unpleasant memories I would say that (1) is a physiological function which would be eliminated by the artificial brain (and that would be a good thing, IMO) but (2) is a psychological function which would not necessarily be affected. Does anyone see a counter-argument to this or a flaw in my logic? Graham
Graham Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,465

14th March 2003, 06:34 AM	#25
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	Quote: Originally posted by Graham I have a question for y'all about the part where it says: I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible and thus a person with an artificial brain would be forced to remember everything. Thinking about it though, there are two factors that prevent us from remembering things: 1) Age & decay of our brains (or brain damage from, say, an accident) 2) Deliberate suppression of unpleasant memories I would say that (1) is a physiological function which would be eliminated by the artificial brain (and that would be a good thing, IMO) but (2) is a psychological function which would not necessarily be affected. Does anyone see a counter-argument to this or a flaw in my logic? Graham It would depend on how #2 happens. If it's a form of self-imposed deterioration, perhaps it would have to be specifically allowed for. I'd imagine that any "sanity preservation" system would have to permit a certain amount of memory suppression.
garys_2k Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 756	__________________ - Gary

15th March 2003, 06:32 AM	#26
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Quote: Originally posted by Graham I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible No. An artificial brain must necessarily be based on heuristic algorithms and, as such, would be as fallible as our own brains regardless of whether or not it had one hundred percent reliable memory. The only alternative is "brute strength" algorithms and they cannot run in "real time'.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

15th March 2003, 05:38 PM	#27
neutrino_cannon Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seventh circle of limbo Posts: 2,571	Fun! Cybernetics... and all the associated advantages. I suppose, inversely, it might be interesting to make a computer out of neurons.
	__________________ "Man would have been too happy, if, limiting himself to the visible objects which interested him, he had employed, to perfect his real sciences, his laws, his morals, his education, one half-the efforts he has put into his researches on the Divinity" -Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism

17th March 2003, 06:37 AM	#28
Agammamon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,385	You've already got one in your head.
	__________________ It will be a great day when the US Air Force has all the bombs it needs and the NEA has to hold a bake sale in order to pay its lobbyists.

17th March 2003, 07:02 AM	#29
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	Quote: Originally posted by neutrino_cannon Fun! Cybernetics... and all the associated advantages. I suppose, inversely, it might be interesting to make a computer out of neurons. Or, we could build a holographic computer using the patterning of a human brain, maybe we could use an executed criminal for our donor.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.