Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by youngbiologist, Jan 31, 2003.
Out of curiousity, what is leading you to suspect that?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
who are you talking to?
Re: Re: Re: thx cog
i said they are done evolving because they haven't evolved any further since millions of years.
Ever increasing technological demand may be pushing the limits of the human brain... that and cybernetics is going to do for us in a few decades what natural evolution could not in a many eons!
>> I say we start engineering neurons that use electrical impulse
>> instead of ionic.
>> i said they are done evolving because they haven't evolved
>> any further since millions of years.
Our neurons may or may not have evolved in the past few million years, we have no way to tell. But as we progress through the information age, we will be subject to more knowledge and will require more neural 'bandwidth' than ever before. Biological need is what spurs evolution, and it wasn't until the present day that we actually NEED greater bandwidth.
Because of our current need for more processing power -- the societal situation isn't getting any better for us puny humans, so we will need long term adaptations.
>> cybernetics is going to do for us in a few decades what
>> natural evolution could not in a many eons!
Speaking of cybernetics:
"A HALF CENTURY OF ARTIFICIAL-SIGHT RESEARCH HAS SUCCEEDED. AND NOW THIS BLIND MAN CAN SEE."
Agree, except short term modification would be quicker and better.
-Bandwidth refers to a range of connection or how much can be procesed at once.
-Speed of processing is a sub-unit of bandwidth
-Faster neurons would mean quicker response times and faster thoughts, but not necessarily more storage capacity or enlightenment.
maybe you have no way to tell, but I have...if two distinct species have the same nearons it is likely that their ancestor had them. Then look at when they separated and voila...you have an answer. Science is simple isn't it.
hmm, some nice posts out there. Yeah, using an electrical signal instead of the action potential of a neural signal would be better. However it would require metalic atoms, and only recently was an animal observed with the ability to manipulate large amounts of metal. Some small insect was found about a year ago to have jaws hardened by copper, this is really insteresting. Having a copper based system for sending signals would be quicker, but you would be more prone to electromagnetic radiation. Right now we can aim a HUGE magnet and manipulate the neurons, but if your neural system is largely made out of copper your more sensitive. However, the increased sensitivity could be much smaller, I just don't know. Now that I think about it...long coiled coil filaments of alpha helix covered with extensive amounts of copper ions at the center....hmm. Yeah, our current tranmission speed is WAY slower then what simple wiring would do.
The biggest thing holding back our mental evolution is women. Well, specificially the size of their hip bone. Right now our big brain has alot of difficutly getting through the birth canal, and thus is limited in size. However...cesarian sections are becoming more popular so this might have an effect...While natural selection doesn't really have a role in human society, there are still sexual preferances. Guys/Girls with brains are usually considered better suitors, so this explains the continued evolutionary pressure for more intelligence.
Yes but the instinct to F|_|[K the pretty is still much stronger. Braun still bets brains in getting women in bed with you.
If we engineer the skeleton to be made of a biologically assembled metal alloy then the skull will be a metal case that would easily deflect all EMW. We would still need ionic neurons for motor control though because of them being unshielded.
since when did doing the dirty MEAN having offspring. With birth control it doesn't, as such when women want to commit they try to find the best suitor.
My brief idea was to have the new flexible copper filaments to be within the neural axon, the axon potential would just start an electrical signal that transfered faster down the copper filaments. You would still have the normal neural synapses among other things...
>> if two distinct species have the same nearons it is likely that
>> their ancestor had them. Then look at when they separated
>> and voila
It may be likely that their ancestors had the same type of neurons, but that is not proof, it is evidence.
Is it not possible that the two different species developed strikingly similar neurons simply because those neurons are most efficent for their enviornment?
You never saw that show on TLC (or was it discover) about the surprisingly high rate of cheating among women. A women may marry a rich, successful and intelligent guy but that does not mean she is not f|_|[king the good looking milk man.
Separate names with a comma.