Nature News, 12 October 2022 Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong — what’s next? A cellular version of computer game challenges assumptions about intelligence. Neurons growing in a dish coated with electrodes have been taught to play a version of the classic computer game Pong. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03229-y This is the most extraordinary thing I’ve seen in some time. Even as someone with a neurobiology background, and has cultured more dishes of neurons than I could possibly count, I’m amazed that you can push a monolayer of neurons to the extent that they “learn”. You might even make the argument that this system approaches (or achieves?) a definition of sentience (eg. a system that is responsive to sensory inputs through adapative internal processes). In brief, the DishBrain system is proposed to be the first real-time synthetic biological intelligence platform that demonstrates that biological neurons can adjust firing activity in a way that suggests the ability to learn to perform goal-oriented tasks when provided with simple electrophysiological sensory input and feedback while embodied in a game-world. Of course, this fits with our understanding of how the CNS develops. A massive excess of neuronal connectivity is laid down; the connections that are reinforced through experience are strengthened and retained whereas unused connections are not.
Whether the neurons were "taught" or "learnt"... i dont know... but it sure sounds like they had no choice but to begin hittin the ball.!!!
Very interesting. To me, this sounds a lot like a biological implementation of a neural network, like the ones used in various AI systems, for which the relevant networks are created in software. What a lot of AI seems to be doing these days is copying how biological neurons work. I am particularly impressed by the new text-to-image (and now text-to-video) AI generators that are becoming more available to the general public now. If you haven't seen any examples, search for them. They are amazing. To give you an idea, you could type a description like "A three-dimensional surrealistic image in the style of Salvador Dali showing a frog riding a horse through the clouds" and the AI will generate a never-before-seen high-res image depicting something that has all the elements in the text description which makes visual sense to us humans as art. It won't be long before we can all have AIs create cinema-quality movies from text descriptions. This really will be a game changer in a lot of ways, some good, some not so good. More generally, AI is advancing at an incredible rate right now. We should be excited ... and worried.
Taught - I would go with "someone taught" Learnt - I would go with " they did it by themselves" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How about designing a more efficient Japanese Subway system? Would have been better if had have been designed before the subway had been built But the only way that could happen would have been to pick from a number of design proposals put forward However whilst the slime mould might be great at picking efficiency of a route, humans would need to consider cost, time to construct, availability of workers / material and possibly other factors Don't expect to see slime mould at any opening ceremony soon https://youtube.com/shorts/0piVlnrT29E?feature=share Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The terms taught/learnt seems strange when applied to a neuron thus my uncertainty.!!! Mayb taught an learnt is exactly whats goin on wit these neurons.!!! However its labeled it does show a form of control over neurons.!!!
In the link I provided in the Post just before yours the control exerted over that slime mould is in the form of food. The slime mould soon after it found the food on a random search changes its route to the most efficient I would consider that set up to continue no teaching only learning on the part of the slime mould It might also be considered to be not to be learnt but the lesser aspect a purely reactionary response A pure reactionary contains no thinking about aspect Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Cellular networks do not need a brain to communicate with each other? Well, guess how they do that. Intra-cellular and inter-cellular communication is "thinking" by definition. It is also known as homeostasis. Communication is the key Abstract more ...... https://biosignaling.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-811X-1-3 It is not Artificial Intelligence, it is Living Intelligence Nature’s Living Intelligence By David Fideler Published in Spring | Summer 2015 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nature’s forms integrate sameness and difference through the use of proportional relationships. from left: Nautilus shell, Romanesco broccoli, Cross-section of cauliflower. more...... https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/natures-living-intelligence/ IMO, these universal transmutational mechanics are called "Abiogenesis". Abiogenesis is an ongoing quasi-intelligent process! Bye, bye, see you later.
No. The definition of "intra-cellular communication" doesn't mention "thinking". Nor does the definition of "thinking" mention intra-cellular communication. Maybe you need to find out what "by definition" means, by definition. No. Intra-cellular communication is not homeostasis. Thinking is not homeostasis. Some more definitions for you to look up. No. The definition of "abiogenesis" does not mention "transmutational mechanics". And vice versa. Your opinion is sadly misguided, again. Maybe time to buy a dictionary? That is a claim that you really ought to attempt to support with evidence. Hard to do that when you aren't aware of the meanings of the terms you're using, I understand.
Maybe it's time you climbed out of your narrow minded box. I have a dictionary in every room of my house. You just don't read but the first definition. I read yhem all including their synonyms. That is why you keep suspending me. You fail to understand the subtlety of "common denominators".
Dear oh dear. Where to start? I'm not the guy who only ever wants to talk about three topics*: microtubules, Tegmark's "mathematical universe" and Bohm's notion of "implicate order". I'm not the guy who tries to steer every conversation back to one of those three topics. I'm not the guy for whom a "chat roulette" wheel with 6-8 segments can pretty much nail whatever topic you're going to introduce next. I feel confident that something about pots and kettles is going to apply if we're going to discuss narrow minded boxes and the people who are in them. You keep getting yourself suspended because you can't absorb the message that your three pet topics are not welcome in threads where they are off-topic (which pretty much covers all threads, except the ones that are specifically dedicated to those three pet topics). You can't control yourself when it comes to fighting the urge to bring every discussion around to one of your three fixations, so somebody else has to step in and control you. The alternative would be to allow you to spread your detritus all over the forum, more or less at random. Asking you not to do did not prove effective, so I thought it best to step things up a little, for the sake of our other members. sciforums is not your blog. On the matter of dictionaries, my first piece of advice is: read less superficially. If you want to really understand a technical topic or term, a standard dictionary will not give you that deep understanding. Usually, a standard dictionary will give you an introduction to how people (especially non-experts) might use the term. A more comprehensive (multi-volume) version of the dictionary might give more detail on the technical usage. But even that won't delve into the nuances of how experts use the term. My second piece of advice is: if you're going to have a technical discussion about something, make sure you know the technical meanings of the words you're using, especially if you are talking with an expert who does know the technical meanings. Also (third piece of advice), listen to experts when they explain how technical words are used. They are experts for a reason; that reason is not that they can use a dictionary better than you can. --- * Yes, it might be 6 or 8 topics and I've momentarily lost interest in what the other 3 or 5 topics are. The point is: this is not a broad conversational repertoire. I apologise for sounding mean, but you accused me first.
No, it is just an often-overlooked application of the term. Abiogenesis is by one of its many definitions the transmutation from purely chemical to dynamic bio-chemical behaviors. Mitosis is an abiogenetic process. If I were to explain the process, you would ban me, because you would refuse to see the "connections" and "common denominators" in every post I make. You just want to rip it all apart into little bits and pieces until no one knows what is being discussed at all and the thread inevitable degenerates into a name calling ad hominem slug fest. I tell you what. I'll take you up on your threat to ban me permanently. I am taking a vacation from your narrow minded view of my contributions. by rights every one on this forum should be banned as not thread ever actually develops into an interesting expanded scientific discussion of universally related processes. You think you know the definition of transmutation? Well, here is the expanded list; Transmutation, noun
I do not steer every conversation to Tegmark or Bohm except when there is sufficient cause to cite these eminent scientists, cecause they introduced a different (and valid) perspective on many scientific "problematic" and as yet unresolved interpretations of universal properties. Nobody complains about mentioning Einstein in just about every conversation, because he is one of the "untouchables". In the thread on "universal NOWS" how many times have you cited "relativity" and "observers", where that is not at all pertinent to the actual OP question., huh? Is Einstein your divine inspiration? Do you worship at the altar of "GR" ? You reigious zealotry is really annoying sometimes. And your uninformed prejudicial attitude against me almost spoil the many productive and mentally entertaining (look up the definitions) discussions I have had with several other members. I'm done with you. See you next year . Maybe you will have made some positive NY resolutions . Over and out....click
Your reply is addressed to something Sarkus wrote, but it sounds like you're responding as if Sarkus is me. I promise: I will never ban you because I refuse to see a connection or common denominator. In case you missed it, please read my post #13, above. The problem is that I see your common denominators far too often. When I put obvious questions about your claims to you, or raise reasonable objections to your claims based on my own understanding of relevant science, you tend to avoid or ignore them. I think it's because, at some level, you realise that you don't really understand what you're talking about. You're worried that this will quickly become obvious if you engage. So, you try to interpose other people's words, in the hope that they will do the hard lifting required to prop up your arguments. You provide quotes from articles and papers (and, yes, dictionary definitions), but usually they do not address the specific and focused questions or objections that have been put to you. Look. It's great that you're interested in science; it really is. If you just love Tegmark's ideas, that's just fine as well. But try not to get so defensive. They aren't your ideas. If you can't defend them, don't pretend you can. Leave it to Tegmark (or whoever) to respond to objections. By all means, take all the time you need. You've never tried starting a thread on "universally related processes". (I wonder what those might be?) Yes, I think I'm aware of what that word means. If I have made any error regarding that term, I will be happy to be informed, of course. Nobody's perfect. I'm always willing to learn new things.
The proof is in the pudding. He tends to comes up most often in conversations to which the theory of relativity is relevant, or more generally in discussions about physics, a field in which he made a number of important contributions. In a forum dedicated to discussions of physics, you can expect to see mentions of Einstein. His theories are actually quite important in modern physics, you know. As for being "untouchable", that's nonsense. Physics isn't a religion. There is no dogma. Einstein made mistakes like the rest of us. He isn't some infallible God of Physics. Lots of physicists are doing their darndest to disprove Einstein's most celebrated theories, right now as you read this. There will be at least one Nobel prize in the offing if (when?) anybody cracks that wallnut. Never, when it is not at all pertinent. I try to keep my responses relevant. See above. Answers: "No" and "No". I do, however, understand why a monumentally important and powerful theory like General Relativity has earned the respect that it has among physicists. ?? Uninformed? *raises eyebrow* Prejudicial? *raises other eyebrow* Thank you for your kind wishes. I expect you'll be back here before that, though.
Abiogenesis is a transmutation, but not all transmutations are abiogenesis, and you haven't provided any such example of such that is. To wit, the fact that life might utilise a chemical pattern, such that the pattern is evident across numerous forms of life, is NOT an example of anything other than something that is already alive being influenced by a chemical pattern. Abiogenesis is the lack of that bio-chemistry (or "life") arising out of only chemistry, not the utilisation of a certain chemistry by an already "living" entity. Your example seems to be no more abiogenesis than the fact that lots of animals have two eyes. Or that all animals are carbon-based. Your argument regard the definition of transmutation is a red-herring, as it misses the point of the criticism. And as JamesR has recognised: you have replied to me as if I am someone else (presumably him). I can not ban you, for example, no matter what I think of your posts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
