From Wired's site (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,65438,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1)

Somewhere in Florida, 25,000 disembodied rat neurons are thinking about flying an F-22.

To me, that seems like a very big deal.

What do you think?

Are there ethical problems with it? What if they want to try it with human brain cells?

Regardless, talk about a brave new world. And it's just the tip of the iceburg do you think? I do. What a trip.

I wonder which stock one could buy to get a piece of that action. ;)

Why wouldn't it be ethical?

another article : http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/braindish.htm

-----
to me it also seems like a very big and a bit scary deal
what if they become insane?

Wes,

Are there ethical problems with it?

I think you misunderstood the point of the study. It's purpose is not to create a brain for an airplane, it's to give these neurons a body so that they can study the network better. This isn't about creating cyborgs, it's about attempting to understanding how it is that neurons do what they do.

And, it's only a start. The interface is primitive at best. Electrodes it says. What is needed is some kind of a synaptic interface with the neurons. A chemical transfer of information rather than electrical.

I'd like to see some glial cells added to the network as well.

Also, I wonder what type of feedback mechanisms they use to enhance the network over time.
"To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane’s controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system."
Now that certainly doesn't say much. The feedback mechanism must be exceedingly primitive. I can't imagine it even being at the level of a pseudoeye. To me, this stinks of just putting the neurons on a plate and seeing what they do. There is no real control over the experiment. They are just hoping that the neurons figure out what to do and how to act under the circumstances.

It has a long way to go to get any real use out of this. But, observing the actions of the neurons should be a learning experience and the system can be refined over time.

What if they want to try it with human brain cells?

I'd love to see this done with human brain cells. I wonder how differently human neurons are to rat neurons in a dish. We all know that the brain structure is vastly more complex but what about the actions of neurons in an unfamiliar environment? I've never actually seen any comparisons between the two in this regard.

Avatar,

what if they become insane?

It will need to become far more advanced than it is now for a state of insanity to occur. We're not dealing with a brain. We're dealing with a bunch of neurons.

Wes,

I think you misunderstood the point of the study.

A smidge presumptuous of you. Maybe you misunderstood the reason for my question.

It's purpose is not to create a brain for an airplane, it's to give these neurons a body so that they can study the network better. This isn't about creating cyborgs, it's about attempting to understanding how it is that neurons do what they do.

Yeah, as is obvious by the text. My point is, if you start using rat brain cells for this and human brain cells for that, and the things are learning, is that then for instance, part of the identity of the person from which the cells came... maybe it isn't, but shouldn't the question be asked?

And, it's only a start. The interface is primitive at best. Electrodes it says. What is needed is some kind of a synaptic interface with the neurons. A chemical transfer of information rather than electrical.

Of course.

I'd like to see some glial cells added to the network as well.

I'm sure they're anxiously awaiting your e-mail.

Also, I wonder what type of feedback mechanisms they use to enhance the network over time.
"To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane’s controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system."

Me too actually. How does it know it did something bad? Is it "aware"? (I doubt this thing is, but regardless, it begs the question). Where's the line you're not supposed to cross?

Yeah, as is obvious by the text. My point is, if you start using rat brain cells for this and human brain cells for that, and the things are learning, is that then for instance, part of the identity of the person from which the cells came... maybe it isn't, but shouldn't the question be asked?

The old question on where memory lies within the neuronal net. Is it carried within the nerve cells themselves somehow in a chemical manner? Or is it carried in the shape of the network?

Personally, I think that human memory is too complex to be conveyed be a single cell as is the case with the planaria experiments. Once the neurons are removed from the brain they are no longer part of us. Any new net that they will become a part of will be just that, a new net. Perhaps there will be cellular memories of its old environment that would have it attempt to form a new network on similar lines, but the chances of such happening are slim to none.

I'm sure they're anxiously awaiting your e-mail.

Already sent and they've responded. Glial cells to be added next week. Stop.

Asshole.

Me too actually. How does it know it did something bad? Is it "aware"? (I doubt this thing is, but regardless, it begs the question). Where's the line you're not supposed to cross?

Is it aware is a tough question. I doubt if it could be. Not because of the mass of brain cells exactly. Insects are aware. And so are other animals with exceedingly simple brains and ganglia. (Not talking about self-awareness.) But, the sensory inputs must be far to vague for any type of real awareness to take place. It seems to be just some type of electroshock treatment.

As to the line, it would be far, far away. Self-awareness is a thing that requires far more complexity than a few neurons in a petri dish are able to provide. There must be all the automatic functions of the brain that dish up and serve sensory and associative computations to the consciousness. This isn't going to happen by accident. Not in a single lifetime anyway.

The question once more comes down to cellular memory. Is it possible for neurons removed from their native environment to form into a functioning brain? I seriously doubt it. Each would try to form the part of the network it was in before. To get a complete brain you'd need neurons from each part of the brain. Or the whole brain. In which case the network would already be preformed.

do the neurons in different parts of the brain have different structure or the difference comes just from their possition in the whole network system?

not sure how they managed to program neurons, anyone know

It sounds to me like they are making it out to be much more than it really is.
Every claim they made was vague enough to not really "say" anything meaningful.

"It's as if the neurons control the stick in the aircraft, they can move it back and forth and left and right," said Thomas DeMarse, a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida who has been working on the project for more than a year. "The electrodes allow us to record the activity from the neurons and stimulate them so we can listen to the conversation among the neurons and also input information back into the neural network."
Back and forth and left and right resulting from purposeful stimulation with that intention?
Not likely, or they would have said that. More likely simple electrostatic feedback that holds no significant meaning whatsoever.
Input information back into the neural network? Come on! They are making it sound like it is a well-defined processor and memory bank.
I picyire it more like, "Hey, look what happens on the oscilloscope ehan you poke it here."

Maybe I'm just cynical, but if that had anything that even approached significance, there would be at least minor details.

I'll wait until the findings come out.

i do not think you are cynical; it is vauge to say the least.
But, lets not forget that it has potential. It might be vauge today, but 50 years from now we may look back and see this as one of the most crucial discoveries.

one_raven, in your quote Thomas DeMarse said that it was AS IF the neurons controlled the stick. What does that mean? That they did not really control the stick but they either thought Forward, Backwards, Left or Right and someone did it and then they got the feedback or what ?

Seems to me though that any successful nueronal/electronic interface is proof of concept of something much much larger.

do the neurons in different parts of the brain have different structure or the difference comes just from their possition in the whole network system?

You know. I'm not entirely certain, come to think of it. But, it almost has to. I haven't read anything specific about base neuronal organization in different areas of the brain, but they have to be different.

For instance, in the cortex it is only the surface of the cortex where the neurons dwell and do their thing. Beneath this grey matter is the white matter which is axonal connections.

Beneath this in the limbic system and in the cerebellum and the other areas of the brain, I can't imagine that they are organized in the same manner as the cortex.

We've got a new brain expert in town, maybe she'll poke her head in here and clue us in.


Input information back into the neural network? Come on! They are making it sound like it is a well-defined processor and memory bank.
I picyire it more like, "Hey, look what happens on the oscilloscope ehan you poke it here."

That's how I read it to.

not sure how they managed to program neurons, anyone know

They're not. They're letting the neurons program themselves. Hoping something good will happen. The article mentions a feedback system, but I think that this is another exageration.

Seems to me though that any successful nueronal/electronic interface is proof of concept of something much much larger.

It's a starts. But, I wonder if they wouldn't be better off by giving the neurons a virtual worm to control or something else equally simple.

You know. I'm not entirely certain, come to think of it. But, it almost has to. I haven't read anything specific about base neuronal organization in different areas of the brain, but they have to be different.

For instance, in the cortex it is only the surface of the cortex where the neurons dwell and do their thing. Beneath this grey matter is the white matter which is axonal connections.

Beneath this in the limbic system and in the cerebellum and the other areas of the brain, I can't imagine that they are organized in the same manner as the cortex.

We've got a new brain expert in town, maybe she'll poke her head in here and clue us in.
maybe you can point her/him to this thread...

so .. the white stuff, etc. isn't it just different environment? :confused:
anyways I don't know about this and it would be great to hear the/a brain expert


It's a starts. But, I wonder if they wouldn't be better off by giving the neurons a virtual worm to control or something else equally simple. maybe a virtual tank? :D
maybe the military need an ( a not so) artificial intelligence to pilot their unmanned craft..

anyways.. I agree that a snake game would be a better option in terms of understanding how it works, but controlling an aircraft certainly shows that this opens far wider possibilities than artificial worm control

I really think that (if true) this is one of the greatest achievements of science, the first baby step of something more grand to emerge
p.s. and this is scary too
now we do not have to design from scratch an artificial intelligence, we can just grow one :eek:

Seems to me though that any successful nueronal/electronic interface is proof of concept of something much much larger.

I agree. But this is where ethics does come into play surely!
We start off with something simple, we get excited by our progress, we seek more and more parts of biology to fuse to machines. We gain a greater understanding of how to make biological cells perform greater and greater tasks. You know what, I reckon by the end of the process we will have created a whole human being out of bits of another human being! Then guess what - we can get the created beings hands to actually fly the aeroplane! What a buzz that would be. What shall we call the being? Who's his daddy? Who cares right? Wrong. Big no no - start again! :rolleyes:

This is so flawed it makes me laugh. But let the 'intelligent' have their fun - whatever!

The thing is: How the shit do they set the goal? I mean, whassup? How does it know "don't crash"? How does it know what its supposed to be doing? I don't get it. How do you "learn" when there is no goal? If there IS a goal, how do the nuerons know? Is it just negative feedback? If so, in what form? Shock I guess? Why do random nuerons care if they get shocked?

The thing is: How the shit do they set the goal? I mean, whassup? How does it know "don't crash"? How does it know what its supposed to be doing? I don't get it. How do you "learn" when there is no goal? If there IS a goal, how do the nuerons know? Is it just negative feedback? If so, in what form? Shock I guess? Why do random nuerons care if they get shocked?


It's like an orgasm for them. They love it. You know they do ;)

I'm guessing that in the future citizenship will be given to intelligences not people.
Like the Swiss citizenship to an A.I. in Neuromancer.
Just because there will be no more clear line between a human and a machine.
A citizenship and rights given to whatever form of an intelligence requests it or is given it. (Opens possibilites for dolphins*, dogs, etc ;))

*
“Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons.”
--Douglas Adams

Why do random nuerons care if they get shocked?
maybe because they are not random any more?
I mean.. if they have created a network by themselves, then there is some drive behind it, and stopping the drive (their network expansion, functionality, whatever) annoys the network

maybe you can point her/him to this thread...

Her name is Hypatia. You can ask her if you want. I generally don't like to go bothering strangers.

anyways.. I agree that a snake game would be a better option in terms of understanding how it works, but controlling an aircraft certainly shows that this opens far wider possibilities than artificial worm control

But, that's the thing. This isn't about what possibilities there are for application of this in a technological world. It's about understanding how the neurons function. This is why the article so overdramatized it.

I imagine that this is the exact purpose of connecting it to a flight simulator. The journalistic value of it. Hoping for investment.

That and the difficulties in designing new software rather than some off the shelf simulator. But, surely a worm simulator couldn't be that difficult. But, the way that the ganglia of a worm connect to the worm would still be far more complicated than is possible in this electrode method. I would imagine. That and planaria neurons lack axons and dendrites, being a whole 'nother critter.

But, still. Something simpler would be better.

The thing is: How the shit do they set the goal? I mean, whassup? How does it know "don't crash"? How does it know what its supposed to be doing? I don't get it. How do you "learn" when there is no goal? If there IS a goal, how do the nuerons know? Is it just negative feedback? If so, in what form? Shock I guess? Why do random nuerons care if they get shocked?

Exactly. It's random. There must be an emotional system to make the 'brain' prefer one situation over another. Blue sky above, for instance. It seems that they're just hooking it up and hoping that it works.

And, the thing about shocking neurons is that it halts their behavior. If you shock an area of the brain containing a certain word, for instance, you don't say that word. You forget it.

Well, I have a theory how you can arrange possitive/negative feedback
I thought of this just now when comparing it to some basic single celled organisms
they also are not intelligent, but they get and understand feedback from the outer world (basic photosynthesis for instance => light is good, no light is bad)
so in our braindish case we can simulate it
they must get some kind of energy to sustain, grow themselves, right?
so we hook up an additional (be it visable light) sensor and for instance when the brain crashes the plane, we minimize the food source and also lessen the light on the sensor (double feedback. plane crash = no light = no food // light = food // plane flies = food + light)
so even the most simplistic life-form understands (and we have life here) that in order to keep alive, sustain itself (basic instinct, property of all the life) it needs to fly the plane and not crash it

But, that's the thing. This isn't about what possibilities there are for application of this in a technological world. It's about understanding how the neurons function. This is why the article so overdramatized it.

First we created an atomic bomb, only later a nuclear power plant.

First we created an atomic bomb, only later a nuclear power plant.

Yes. But having a few neurons in a dish flying a plane is more similar to cold fusion than either a bomb or nuclear power plant. Before we can harness the power of neurons, we must first understand them on the simplest level.

And we didn't make the atomic bomb by throwing a bunch of uranium on a dish and applying current hoping that it would the job itself.

I understand what you're saying but a lot of harm could be done to the science if they try to jump ahead too far too fast. We must begin simply and work our way up. That's the purpose of the experiment. But, they're not starting simply enough. They're starting simply on the neuronal side, but the output is too complex.

Well.. maybe they really needed the funds, so they had to start with a bang. Now there is attention and maybe also funding, so now they can step back a few steps.

well if I'm not mistaken they did start simpler. something in that article mentioned how he got the idea from a similar, simpler experiment. i'd imagine one of the reasons they want this somewhat more complicated example is exactly to invoke complicated stimulous. then using what they know from prior experiments they may be able to discern more value from the more complicated doodad.

they do not even have a stone-age brain and you are allready talking about harnessing human power ?!
It is not controlled, it has a long way to go before it even becomes a stone-age man (similar intelligence) and even then it will not be a very effective "killer". At the moment i do not see this particular AI as any direct danger. Nor do i believe that i will in 20 years from now.

First make it controlled, then teach it. Then you might consider killing humans :)

people in the stone age didn't have a different brain than we do have now
at least so I was told by Discovery Channel
what makes us different is the cupped up knowledge that we pass to the next generations. take it away and we have a pre-stone age animal.
(for instance those few reported cases of children that have grown up in forests with no parents, etc)

actually all animals on this planet have the same brain more or less. All animals have the same "standard" values. For most animals these only feature basic reflexes, such as survival instincts. Humans on the other hand have come a long way, but back on the stone age we were not as "civil" as we are today. Not sure if you can call it civil (just look at the world today), but we at least believe that we are more civil.

A stone-age man is really stupid in today's eyes. What created "today's eyes" was evolution. Evolution took time, a very long time. The neurons as we are talking about in this thread are not a human brain. They are simply a few neurons forming a connection. This connection is the neural net. So, why do you believe that this particular neural net, that is way, way inferior to human brains will arise from the ashes in a matter of seconds and become the smartest creation on this planet and decide to kill every man? That is probably the most preposterous nonsense that i have heard.

AI is supposed to be a science. But your hopes and endless glorification of the small advances is turning it more into a religion. You might want to consider starting a cult.
In perhaps 50 years time you may have something real to worship.

what is 50 years? just another day in our history, a glimpse

I am not saying that we should not research in it. I am saying that there might be other alternatives that will take lesser time. And i am saying that some of you should not believe that it is going to kill us today, when it is not finished until tomorrow.

This is sooo funny. At best you could create a machine that was controlled by biological tissue. To what end? If the biological tissue was sentient i.e it had the power to 'control' then you have to give it a name and tell it who its master is - to not do so would be very dangerous indeed because you would not be taking responsibility for that which you have created! Nothing short of the most evil kind of slavery I could think of for that sentient being who was not even given the grace of a normal body.
If the biological tissue was not sentient then you have no control, just a mass of cells responding to external stimulae, in other words the external stimulae is its master which cannot be the object of the exercise.
I cannot believe that these ideas are considered to be at the pinnacle of human science - they should be scrapped immediately!

c20H25N3o: This is sooo funny. At best you could create a machine that was controlled by biological tissue. To what end?
*************
M*W: No, this is not funny. It's very serious bioscience. The machine science is trying to create through cells grown in a petri dish is the regeneration of damaged tissue. We can grow all kinds of stem cells in a petri dish, and the neurons that are being grown are for transplantation via a small catheter that can be roto-rootered through the vasculature toward the human brain to regenerate and rejuvenate brain tissue suffering from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's diseases, or even epileptic seizures.
*************
c20H25No: If the biological tissue was sentient i.e it had the power to 'control' then you have to give it a name and tell it who its master is - to not do so would be very dangerous indeed because you would not be taking responsibility for that which you have created!
*************
M*W: Tissue created to have 'power to control' others is yet science fiction. But that's where science starts -- at the fiction level until it's proven. As far as I've read, science still cannot create Frankenstein's monster. All science can do is manipulate damaged tissue to kick-in and regrow healthy tissue.
*************
c20H25No: Nothing short of the most evil kind of slavery I could think of for that sentient being who was not even given the grace of a normal body. If the biological tissue was not sentient then you have no control, just a mass of cells responding to external stimulae, in other words the external stimulae is its master which cannot be the object of the exercise.
*************
M*W: You're imagination is running away with you. This has nothing to do with 'slavery' except for the cellular level. I suppose you could look at it that the damaged neurons would become slaves to the healthy neurons, if you need a metaphoric answer.
*************
c20H25No: I cannot believe that these ideas are considered to be at the pinnacle of human science - they should be scrapped immediately!
*************
M*W: Lame is as lame does. The pinnacle of human bioscience is to heal the sick and cure disease. At worst, we could achieve greater longevity than we could deal with. At best, we could improve the physical damage to our bodies. No babies will be killed to achieve this advancement in science, and we are not that far out from 'reprogramming' damaged brain function with the neurons grown in petri dishes.

Why would anyone want to artifically create a whole new human being, when diapers would still have to be changed.

To me, that seems like a very big deal.

It is. Especially to the question of "free will." Should another thread be started in the Philosophy area for this subtopic of your post?

Dilbert,

Very few people have ever inspired me to want to reach through this screen and throttle them. You, Dilbert, have succeeded in this. Your statements are assinine at best.

actually all animals on this planet have the same brain more or less.

Oh? All animals? Really? Where the fuck did you get that? You're saying that a rat's brain is the same as an elephant's brain except for size and a few minor differences? How about the fact that you can remove a rat's cortex and the rat will still function in a mostly ratlike manner? You're saying that a dog brain with HUGE olfactory bulbs is the same as a rabbit brain? You're saying that a reptile's brain is the same as a mammal's brain?

Brains are similar but saying that they are the same is a gross generalization.

All animals have the same "standard" values. For most animals these only feature basic reflexes, such as survival instincts.

Oh? The same standard 'values' eh? I'll agree that the very basic instincts are shared but do you think that a predator's system of 'values' is the same as a prey animal's?

Another gross generalization.

Humans on the other hand have come a long way, but back on the stone age we were not as "civil" as we are today. Not sure if you can call it civil (just look at the world today), but we at least believe that we are more civil.

A stone-age man is really stupid in today's eyes. What created "today's eyes" was evolution. Evolution took time, a very long time.

Oh? A long way, huh? You're saying that we're more evolved than other animals?

The point has already been made that the brain from a stone age man is the same as a modern human. Evolution led to the brain. Since that time evolution hasn't had much of a chance to do anything. One reason for this is that the stone age was yesterday evolutionarily speaking.

Was your point about "all animals having the same brain more or less" supposed to say something about the differences between stone age man and modern man? If so, then it's an even more idiotic comment. Homo sapiens in the stone age had the exact same brain as we modern humans have. Take a stone age baby and raise it in the modern era and you wouldn't know the difference.

Anyway, all this has nothing to do with a pile of neurons in a petri dish, does it?

The neurons as we are talking about in this thread are not a human brain. They are simply a few neurons forming a connection. This connection is the neural net.

No shit??!! Wow. I bet you you just amazed everyone here. We know it's a fucking neural net. And we know it's not a human brain. It'd be pretty tough for a few rat neurons to even try to make a human brain. I almost expected you to break out some terminater lingo. "It's a neural net processor. A learning computer." **Best Schwarzenegger imitation.**

So, why do you believe that this particular neural net, that is way, way inferior to human brains will arise from the ashes in a matter of seconds and become the smartest creation on this planet and decide to kill every man? That is probably the most preposterous nonsense that i have heard.

Now, this... THIS... is what really fucking irked me. Above and beyond all the other nonsense. This statement shows the depth of your idiocy.

You know what's even more preposterous than this nonsense "that you've heard"? You're the only one to bring up "killer" cyborgs. How fucking preposterous that you bring up a concept as if others here are saying it and have the fucking gall to pretend that you're outraged by 'hearing it."

AI is supposed to be a science. But your hopes and endless glorification of the small advances is turning it more into a religion. You might want to consider starting a cult.

And another idiotic statement from left field. Who's starting a fucking cult? I'll join it if we can lay you out on the altar and cut your fucking heart out.

Dilbert:
actually all animals on this planet have the same brain more or less. All animals have the same "standard" values. For most animals these only feature basic reflexes, such as survival instincts. Humans on the other hand have come a long way, but back on the stone age we were not as "civil" as we are today. Not sure if you can call it civil (just look at the world today), but we at least believe that we are more civil.
Predator and prey come equipped with hundreds of variables distinguising one from the other .

Intellect has appeared and transcended this, with the human brain being one of the most distinguishable objects on the planet- if you're going to say that cerebral tissue in vertebrates resemble each other in texture and matter than fine.
But to suggest that all brains- from the mole's to Mozart's are more or less same, you sir, are an idiot.

A stone-age man is really stupid in today's eyes. What created "today's eyes" was evolution. Evolution took time, a very long time. The neurons as we are talking about in this thread are not a human brain. They are simply a few neurons forming a connection.
This is true.
But the article does not claim these neurons can build empires or compose "Beau Soir"


AI is supposed to be a science. But your hopes and endless glorification of the small advances is turning it more into a religion. You might want to consider starting a cult.
In perhaps 50 years time you may have something real to worship.

Uh-oh.
You've just called honest speculation religion because .....you have nothing else to say.

Why wouldnt it be ethical? How would you like the sole purpose of your consious existence to be to get digital input from a computer to match up in a certain way so that a plane which you have no sensual experience of doesnt crash?

Something about this doesn't seem right. Our thinking process is partially emotionally motivated (we are seeking respect and recognition). Why would brain cells have any motivation to control an airplane? Maybe they are taking advantage of some kind of programmed instinct?

I was just thinking maybe they send it a little shock or something if it goes off course. I bet that's how they make it control the plane. Hmmm.

It would have to be something of the sort. Some type of negative feedback. Electric shock. Maybe even some type of chemical message but that would be rather complicated.

When neurons are zapped with electricity it doesn't act as a punishment, it effectively shuts them down temporarily. I wonder if, in a simple network such as this one, if shutting a neuron down temporarily won't cause a rewiring to occur that is more beneficial to the setup? But to do that, they'd have to target specific neurons. If they just had an electrode in a certain part of the dish then that neuron or group of neurons would be the ones to take the punishment for the whole group and I don't see how this would really provide proper feedback.

Hmm.
You know. Hate to say this, but Truthseeker posted more links in his thread. Maybe some of them go into more detail on this?

One thing for sure, there is no programmed instinct other than what you might call instinctive neuronal behavior to form networks. There are no emotions as there are no structures complex enough to regulate emotions.

Motivation would be a key factor to this experiment. THere must be a way to tell the neurons which actions are 'right' and which are 'wrong'.


*edit*
From one of TruthSeeker's links:

"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."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html

So. They have 60 nodes, basically, that they are able to receive information from and to send stimulation to.

They'd be better off with a chemical interface.

Hmm.. well, I'd imagine a chemical interface is goddamned tricky to pull off. I'm not sure if the rat synapse interface is as complex as a humans. Is it? I know they use rats because they're good models of parts of humans, but I'm not sure which parts. Regardless, there's a lot of chemical goodness apparently going un-noticed? Can they properly monitor the network's communications without monitoring the chemical happenings? Is there electrical evidence of all the chemical interactions? I think you're right they'd be better off with a chemical interface, but how to do it? Hmm. That's a head scratcher right there.

I guess they're just growing them randomly and letting themselves sot each other out among a set array of electrodes? just an idea, ya know, why do the wiring when you let the little rat cells do it for you?