Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Technology

Hardware Implants Mimic Brain Cells 230

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the memory-upgrade dept.
An anonymous reader writes "PopSci is reporting that Ted Berger, a USC scientist, has been working to engineer a brain implant the mimics the functions of neurons. Early tests on rat brain cells have shown promise, and if successful, Berger's implant could remedy everything from Alzheimer's to absent-mindedness — and reduce memory loss to nothing more than a computer glitch"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hardware Implants Mimic Brain Cells

Comments Filter:
  • by Darth Hubris (26923) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:09PM (#18607783)
    Press earlobe-eyeball-nose to continue
    • Good god a BSOD could be bad.

      There is a treatment for Essential Tremor that involves electrical stimulation of the hypothalamus. You can only treat one side of an individual else they may lose the ability to speak. While I would hope this would improve treatment options (seeing as I have a moderate case), I would be fearful of the cpu latching up in some way or another.
      -nB
  • Java? (Score:4, Funny)

    by HaeMaker (221642) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:10PM (#18607829) Homepage
    Does it run Java?

    1.4? 1.5? Colombian?
    • Re:Java? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@gmail.cFREEBSDom minus bsd> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:23PM (#18608057) Homepage Journal
      Does the main bus of your computer run Java? Does it run x86 instructions? Does it run anything of the sort?

      This technology appears to be mainly about routing signals, not generating or processing them. It assists with memory by properly storing and retrieving those signals, but it does not interpret them. (As evidenced by his comment, "I don't need to understand music to repair a CD Player.")

      The article is correct, however, in that this technology will bring us one step closer to understanding how the brain functions. Since these neurons are artificial, the signals passing through can be sampled and stored on an external device. This would allow researchers to reverse engineer many signals in parallel rather than trying to trace one or two signals through the brain as they've been doing.

      Unfortunately, I doubt this technology will outright unlock the secrets of conciousness. Remember how neural networks were intended to be an invaluable research tool into self-awareness? Well, the resulting networks ended up working in a similar but fundamentally different way from the organic brain. That fundamental difference prevented the networks from fully simulating the human brain.

      So we'll take the next step forward, and learn where our previous mistakes were. Not to mention, uncover thousands of new questions. :)

    • IIRC the Java spec requires a 32-bit von Neumann architecture supported by a filesystem that can support long filenames. If you're smart enough, in principle you can (inefficiently) simulate all these features yourself with a pencil, lots of scrap paper, the information in library JAR files, and the JVM spec. So if the artificial neurons can implement the functionality of the natural ones in intelligent people, you get Java support "for free" and you can avoid "reinventing the wheel" (investors love to hear
    • by Ced_Ex (789138)
      Cuban. But it's not open-source just yet.
  • by davidwr (791652) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:10PM (#18607837) Homepage Journal
    Methinks it's high time to make a generic borg [slashdot.org] icon for cyborg-tech stories.
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:10PM (#18607841)
    Is "PopSci" the old Popular Science mag? The one with the futuristic scramjets and flying cars on the cover and pages filled with useless gadgets? (I think half its readers went to Wired and the other half went to SlashDot.)
    • by Yetihehe (971185)
      Yes, but it's actually updated once a week (so like in real magazine, there are 4 mediocre articles a month (no, i didn't RTFM))
    • by spun (1352)
      Don't forget the exciting new military advertis... errr, technology stories in every issue. And the "build your own hovercraft" ads in the back.
  • Then it becomes, "I do not recall" this and "I don't remember" that...
  • It will run windows and the TOS will say MS owns all your thoughts and you can't think bad things about MS.
  • Engineered humans? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Checkmait (1062974) <byron&phareware,com> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:14PM (#18607891)

    I am torn over this idea because clearly it represents a potential major advance in science and a cure to several insidious, incurable (as of today) diseases. We could probably extend the life expectancy of humans by a decade or so.

    However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by D4rk Fx (862399)

      feel-no-pain specimen....

      Well, I hope that they do leave the pain part out. Otherwise there will be a bunch of robots running around screaming:
      'Why was I programmed to feel pain!'
      • by x2A (858210)
        "Why was I programmed to feel... shame?"

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jfdawes (254678)
        Uhm, maybe because pain is the body's way of telling you that something you're doing to it is causing damage?

        Without a pain analog, you get robots that are unable to respond to damage that they did not detect with whatever other senses they have available.

        i.e. Just because you didn't feel yourself get shot in the back, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      >However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen..

      Or imagine someone local and maybe you know creating a device that takes you out and then they rob you or even better cause the chip to kill you.
    • by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:22PM (#18608047)
      A decade? That's much to short sighted. Something like this could eventually enable immortality. Think about it - if you replace enough neurons, pretty soon most of who you are would live inside the machine. At that point, who's to say where your consciousness lives? Whats to stop you from transferring to a completely electronic brain and living on as long as you have juice? Of course, there's a lot of metaphysics around this - would "you" still be "you", what if you made a copy, etc. etc. Fascinating stuff. Of course, we're a long ways off from it, but if you look where transistors and such were 50 years ago, its not such a stretch to think this will be a possibility in the next few centuries.
      • Is that you?

        What Are Little Girls Made Of? [memory-alpha.org]

      • by x2A (858210)
        "would "you" still be "you""

        Sounds very philosophical, but it isn't really... it's a language question: what do you define the word "you" to mean?

        • by EllisDees (268037)
          I don't believe he's talking about the word "you", unless you think he's asking whether the word is the same as itself. He's asking whether the experience you have as an individual would be different after you've had a significant number of your natural neurons replaced with artificial ones.

          Postmodernism aside, it is an interesting question.
          • by x2A (858210)
            If the artificial neurons worked the same as the original ones (result wise anyway) then you'd feel no difference... if you did, then they're obviously inperfect simulations of the actual neurons, as we're not aware of our structure in an individual neuron manner, only the overall effect.

            • by snilloc (470200)
              Additionally, if your identity = "U", and you develop Alzheimer's disease, you are going to be identical to "U - a". An implant would make you "U - a + i". Either way, you're starting with "U-a" at the get-go. So IMO this has few implications for identity or ethics if it is used only to treat diseased or incapacitated individuals.
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              Actually, you've stumbled onto the primary problem and philosophical question about AI.

              You've duplicated the information-crunching aspect of a neuron. Ok, fair enough.

              Now how in god's name does the subjective perceptual conscious experience arise out of that? You didn't simulate that whatsoever.

              Searle pointed out that, since consciousness is a physical phenomena, it must arise out in the real world somehow. But merely duplicating the information pushing (probably) isn't enough. It can't just arise out o
    • by Mr Europe (657225)
      Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....

      That's why we must immediately start creating patriotic, eight-foot, feel-no-pain fighters !
    • The "software" of the mind isn't the sort of thing you can sit down and code any more than our genes code for basketball skill. I'm sure they could teach people with hardware brains to be all sorts of things, but that's nothing new [amazon.com]. The brain may be suitable for Von Neumann implementation, but the mind can't be written in C++. Or LISP, for that matter.

      Minds have to write themselves [ed.ac.uk], or they don't work.
      • by EllisDees (268037)
        We aren't talking about coding a mind, only replacing neurons with their functional equivalents.
    • "Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen...."

      Unfortunately Al Qaeda didn't need this kind of technology in order to "program" their followers, they did a horribly effective job using traditional methods.
    • >Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen.... Or imagine some corrupt manipulative entity use it to control the population instead like let's say... the government!
    • by Wingnut64 (446382)

      However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....

      Heh, the same type of organization that has cost-effective suicide bombers as it's backbone? To be sure, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see 'cyberbrain hacking' a la Ghost in the Shell within my lifetime, but the idea of some terrorist group with 1/100,000th the budget of their enemies making an army of invincible nuclear mutants is just laughable. Besides, it's already possible to 'program' humans to a degree; parents and religions (among others) have been doing it for most of our history.

    • "However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today."

      Not with the current architecture. The easiest* way to program a neural network is trough experience, what we already do and are (mostly) able to perceive.

      Now, future architectures may be succeptible to that... We'll have quite a new use for firewalls then.

      *By 'easiest' I mean the only way that doesn't need a cumputer several orders of magnitude faster tha

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lord Ender (156273)

      However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today.

      We already have this. It's called "religion," "nationalism," or "racism," depending on the form.

      Note: If this seems offensive to you, and you have no doubts (faith) that your religion is the the one true religion, and your country is the best, surely you must admit that those other people over there have been "programmed" into falsely thinking that their religion

    • by db32 (862117)
      Not that I disagree with the idea presented, but I suspect that you have already been programmed by the media to make the evil terrorist association. Fact of the matter is the US and Russia and I imagine China and quite possibly a few others have gone MUCH MUCH farther towards this end than any evil boogeyman terrorist organization. Look up some of the freak science shit the US and Russia were doing during the cold war. Makes strapping a bomb to your chest seem rather stone age.

      That aside, I suspect it w
      • by mdielmann (514750)

        Its like buying a Mercedes to go to the demolition derby, it just doesn't make sense.

        I was thinking more of a hacking expedition myself. Hijack someone through their hardware, program them to do what you want (which may not be what they want) and you don't need to use the prospect of 70 virgins in the afterlife for people to do your dirty work. Just a few hours of downtime with the right person...

        And here's [webscription.net] a book that starts on that premise.

    • I really doubt it. It takes far more neurons to make us who we are then could ever be replaced and 're-programmed'.

      Its much easier and effective to just brainwash or blackmail someone into doing your bidding.
  • by StefanJ (88986) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:16PM (#18607935) Homepage Journal
    Let's build DRM into those artificial neurons, so that the Man of the Future loses bladder control and convulsively vomits if he tries to access pirated media.
  • by LordPhantom (763327) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:19PM (#18607983)
    I, for one, welcome our new hyper-intelligent engineered-brain rat overlords! I've also invested in cheese futures.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:19PM (#18607987) Homepage Journal
    or is it just part of being human, and more importantly, a part of who you are as a person? I exhibit all the signs of adult ADD(lets not go into the debate of whether it is really a disease or not) but I refuse to take personality altering drugs. I may wind up more successful etc. but I lose a fundamental part of who I am. I won't take anti-depressents for the same reason. So I personally fail to see how absent mindedness is something different. Its part of who you are, embrace it!
    • by Shados (741919)
      Yeah, I agree with you (and I'm about as far from ADD as it gets, so I'm not biaised). The thing really, is that most mental "issues" are simply defined as "Problem XYZ, when XYZ starts being problematic in the person's everyday life". Very, very vague, with no black or white, just an ocean of gray area.

      Really, someone with ADD is just someone normal, whom's "Uniqueness" (for lack of better word) is incompatible with sociaty as it is now. The drugs and stuff can be useful, but only in extreme scenarios (in
    • by qwijibo (101731)
      Any quirk's need to be "cured" depends on its impact on the individual. If you have a bunch of symptoms that don't impact you severely enough to be willing to try the drugs, you don't need it. Other people could have more or less severe symptoms, but have a much more negative impact on their lives.

      If your absentmindedness can be compensated for by checking several times if you locked the door, turned the water off, etc, it's not a big deal. If you are driving, go to change the radio station and get so ca
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Having seen Alzheimer's in my family, I can tell you that anything that might cure that would be worth it for me. It is the most horrible tragedy to see someone lose a lifetime of memories, it is unthinkable until you see it for yourself how devastating it really is.
    • by mutterc (828335)

      refuse to take personality altering drugs

      Before I started therapy (for the usual bitterness / depression that afflicts folks like us), my wife actually said "I hope this doesn't change your personality." I reminded her "that's kind of the whole point."

      Drugs (for ADD and depression) and therapy have in fact altered my personality. Most importantly, into an employable one. It's now been over 2 years since I berated anyone at work for being dedicated ("dude, do you really think doing the deathmarch thing to get this out on time is going to save y

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mdielmann (514750)
        Seconded. Before I started taking my little white pills, I had more difficulty managing stress, and losing control if stress got too high. I'd been managing this for years without medication, with little success. I was doing things that I didn't want to do. Then the stress point would pass, I'd feel bad, redouble my efforts, and it would happen again sooner or later. Now, I lose control a lot less, when I lose control it's not as bad, and it doesn't last as long. So, depending on how you define it, my
    • by x2A (858210)
      Your brain, thus who you are, changes every single day (every hour, every minute, every second...), it's part of being alive. What's important is whether you consider those changes a good or bad thing, whether the resulting person is someone you like more or less. Whether it's chemicals, hardware, or good old fasioned "experiences" that causes your changes, doesn't really make much difference.

    • Blood sugar levels have dramatic affects on personality. Does that mean that you don't eat, because it changes "a part of who you are as a person?"

      Your memories define who you are. Every time you make a choice, you change who you are. Personally, I will always chose to improve myself, rather than stagnate. Perhaps, as technology provides us with more options for self-improvement, the human race will diverge. People with your philosophy toward "self" would eventually die off, or live only at the mercy of the
    • by jma05 (897351)
      I am like you. I never touched alcohol or nicotine or other recreational agents. I even avoided drinking coffee for pleasure (rather than say, before an exam or such) all my life because I did not want to make a habit of it. I just wanted to be what I was. But after 3 years of a recent exacerbation of ADD (I believe I had such episodes throughout my life), after utterly failing with behavioral modifications (wasn't diagnosed at this point), I just started with medication since a couple of months. The differ
    • by vertinox (846076)
      So I personally fail to see how absent mindedness is something different. Its part of who you are, embrace it!

      See my sig. It is a reference to a conversation between the Puppet Master AI program and Major Kusanagi (the female Ghost in the Shell cyborg)

      Simply accepting and desiring to remain the same is what truly limits us.

      Whether this is being trying to educate yourself so you are not illiterate or exercising so you are not out of shape. If we are afraid to improve, then we'll never be more than our limits
  • by Orange Crush (934731) * on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:23PM (#18608059)
    I find the philosophical issues especially interesting. How much of the brain can be replaced before the original "self" no longer exists? I guess it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things so long as the pattern is replicated . . . I guess our brains are constantly gradually replaced throughout our lives--the molecules we were born with aren't necessarily the molecules we're currently made out of.
    • by Tipa (881911) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:27PM (#18608129) Homepage
      It's that old thought experiment -- if you have an axe and you get a new head for it and then later replace the handle, is it the same axe?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by brunascle (994197)
        it's more than that, it's also a question of when/if someone loses their sentience/conscious self/soul/whatever you want to call it.
        • Why would we ever suspect that we might eventually lose such a thing by replacing a biological machine with a electromechanical one? Answer that, and you've probably started toward outlining the answer to the original question.
          • by dsanfte (443781)
            The human mind is the software, not the hardware. You are not the same person you were ten years ago. We lose ourselves to slow changes over time.

            I believe a slow, incremental transfer would preserve the essence of "self". It's not where the instructions are being executed, it's what they're doing.
    • However, the philosophical answer to the question in part depends upon what parts of the brain can be replaced and what parts cannot. There may in fact be a "wall" that cannot be replaced, in terms of the human brain, and if you attempt to replace that "wall" then the individual is lost. So while you maybe be able to twiddle with some parts of the brain (i.e. senses) other parts of the brain might resist the same twiddling.
  • See: The Great Mambo Chicken [amazon.com] explores this somewhat.

    At what point are you more machine than person?
    • by ciaohound (118419) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:47PM (#18608493)
      At what point are you more machine than person?

      Well, if Obi-Wan is any authority on this, I guess it's when you have both arms and legs cut off and you can't live without a breath mask and respirator.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Orange Crush (934731) *
      This makes me wonder how they'll address the chemical interactions in our brains. What'll happen when large portions of bio-brain have been replaced or augmented by hardware that doesn't respond to or produce neurotransmitters like seratonin or hormones? No sense bolting on silicon if it just turns us into bipolar schizophrenics.
  • "I have a lot of great memories about my place (presses button) and now they're gone."
  • by Azathfeld (725855) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:41PM (#18608369)
    YES! Time to go back off the wagon!
  • by Giometrix (932993) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:41PM (#18608375) Homepage
    At what point are we no longer human? Our thoughts stem from the firing of neurons. If half of those neurons are computer chips, was it a human thought or a computer generated though. I'm all for finding cures to Alzheimer's disease, but I do not want to be a glorified computer case. I did not read the article (yet), and I realize that the part of the brain discussed in the article is probably different than the creative parts of the brain, but I still think its a valid question; at what point do we stop being human (as we know it)?
    • do you define yourself by your fleshy overcoating, or by the thoughts, emotions, and actions you experience and provoke? "human" can be considered purely biological, a species classification, or as the root of philosophical definitions like humanism and humanity (adj). i think there is a problem with your question, though - there is a very big difference between computer generated and stored.
    • I'm all for finding cures to Alzheimer's disease, but I do not want to be a glorified computer case.


      If you would be that with artificial neurons, why are you anything else with natural ones?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dj_tla (1048764)
      Our thoughts stem from the firing of neurons. If half of those neurons are computer chips, was it a human thought or a computer generated though.

      Is there really a difference? Our brains are incredibly complicated, but just because they are biological doesn't mean they're not just computing devices. It may be unsettling to some to believe, but this idea of 'free will,' that we're in control of our minds and can freely choose to do whatever we want is an illusion created by the very brain that tells us w
      • "This also brings up something interesting I remember from classes about computability theory. The halting problem can be expressed as: if a turing machine is given a turing machine as an input, can it determine if the input will finish running? Keeping in mind that a turing machine can simulate another turing machine. If one considers the brain a computing device, like a turing machine, then extending the halting problem metaphor, will we ever be able to reverse-engineer the brain to the point that we can

      • by Lorkki (863577)

        It may be unsettling to some to believe, but this idea of 'free will,' that we're in control of our minds and can freely choose to do whatever we want is an illusion created by the very brain that tells us what to do.

        I'm not exactly sure what people mean by free will in any case, but I think "incredibly complicated" is a key part. Supposing one could transcend to a point where you are aware of and can track every variable in the universe, it would be a simple thing to go on and say, "Hah! I knew that wou

  • by KokorHekkus (986906) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:42PM (#18608411)
    I don't thing this could be useful for any Alzheimers treatement in a very long time if ever (and we've probably solved it in another way even if it ever gets there).

    As I understand it Alzheimers is basically a case of protein misfolding creating amyloid plaques on the neurons and that really screws up the functions (perhaps some with actual medical/biological knowledge can expand on that). Anyway, it's not just one part that you can hot-swap to use a computer term... it's happening all over the affected area. So you're not going to just plop in a new frontal lobe and call that a cure are you?

    And yet the researcher goes on and makes a big point of this:

    Today an estimated 4.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's, at an annual cost of some $100 billion, according to the Alzheimer's Association and the National Institute on Aging. "And those figures are just going to climb as my generation gets older," says Berger, who can rattle off the grim statistics from Alzheimer's and other brain disorders that disturb memory. Another 5.3 million Americans are victims of traumatic brain injuries
    I do belive that this technology could have many many wonderful uses but that Alzheimers isn't one of them... and by using on of the scariest biggest diseases just to flag down some interest he's doing not only himself but the whole research area a disfavour.
    • I wouldn't say that. The sort of people who are willing to sink big money into pie-in-the-sky Alzheimer's research are probably going to forget what they did with that money after a few years, anyway.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      We already have a substance which helps prevent Alzheimers, marijuana... As you've stated Alzheimers is a plaque build-up on the brain. The binding and releasing of cannaboid to cannaboid brain receptors literally keeps the pipes clean....
  • Suppose you add artificial neurons to a brain, and remove natural neurons as they die. Eventually, you end up with your mind running entirely on artificial neurons. Is your mind now effectively immortal?

    And is it still you? Or a copy of you running on the artificial brain? If it is a copy, when does it cease to be you?

    • by x2A (858210)
      It would still be your mind, thus your brain, but not your original brain.

      As to whether it's still "you"... well that depends on whether your definition of the word "you" (or "me") includes the original brain... if it does, then it breaks the definition and so is no longer you, and if it doesn't, then the definition isn't broken so it is still you.

    • by EllisDees (268037)
      I really like this thought experiment, because it makes it very difficult for the people who say that a computer will never be able to think like a human. After all, if you can replace every single neuron in your brain without "you" noticing, you can also simulate the whole process on a computer.

      The beauty is that we don't even have to understand how it all works. We don't have to program the "virtual brain" at all. It works simply because the original configuration works. Hell, at that point, we can start
  • by PotatoHead (12771) <doug@openge[ ]org ['ek.' in gap]> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:05PM (#18608813) Homepage Journal
    then, we've got an interesting interface here. Sprinkle a few of these into the motor cortex, then have the person work with feedback systems to learn to differentiate those controls from the natural ones. From there, all sorts of potential exists for communication.

    Instead of the computer being an active part of the brain, it becomes more like a PDA that you don't have to carry. Motor feedback signals, generated from the neurons would then become something like morse code.

    Would be damn nice to be in a job interview, using Google in real time, while answering the questions with ordinary speech!

  • I'm wet-wired for 80 gigs.

    I'm tired of /., Cowboy Neal and all...this! *I want ROOM SERVICE*! I want the club sandwich, I want the cold Mexican beer, I want a $10,000-a-night hooker! I want my shirts laundered... like they do... at the Imperial Hotel... in Tokyo.

  • Interesting Timing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfdawes (254678) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:28PM (#18609291)
    This guy is making chips that can "talk" to the brain in signals the brain can understand, even if he doesn't know what the signals mean. Pure mimicry.

    Oddly enough, the people mentioned in Hacking Our Five Senses (Apr-03-2007) [slashdot.org] are using similarly arbitrary but mechanical means to also send signals to the brain (admitedly using existing pathways).

    Would it be possible to combine these two techniques, as well as a few miniturization techniques (and perhaps standard "ports") to enable people to not just replace storage capacity but indeed "add" senses?

    Instead of using a belt to buzz "north", use implants to send one of a set of predetermined signals. It won't matter what the signals would originally mean (if anything) - because if Hacking Our Five Senses is any indication, the brain is capable of creating maps for the the new signals anyway.

    Borg indeed.
  • Quick, install one in a politician, I can nominate a few!
  • If we were to create a "backup" of a human mind, this would be were I would start. We liken information to bits in memory or magnetic storage. The [human] brain doesn't really seem to operate on the concepts of stored and retrieved information. The brain actually seems to operate under a concept of recalled processes and pathways. So it's not the content that is as important as the path to getting there if that makes any sense. So in order to backup a brain, you would have to record the configuration
  • As others have pointed out alzheimers is just a money grab here. Alzheimers is a systemic problem, requiring a pervasive solution rather than a localized one. Besides, who cares about Alzheimers? When am I going to be able to get my damned datajack? I'll deal with the black and grey ICE, but man am I ever tired of using a mouse and keyboard.
  • Your eyes will glaze over and you'll go fetal in the floor quietly going



    "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..."



    RS

  • "and reduce memory loss to nothing more than a computer glitch"

    What type of computer running what interface would our brains mimic? Can I get an MS Bob style implant? Or how about a WinME one?

  • Does grain alcohol dissolve them by the thousands?

  • These days thats too damned common for my taste.

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...