Researchers Grow a Brain In a Dish 235
Hugh Pickens writes "Dr. Jeffrey H. Toney writes that a team of biomedical engineers at the University of Pittsburgh led by Henry Zeringue have managed to grow an active brain in a dish, complete with memories by culturing brain cells capable of forming networks, complete with biological signals. To produce the models, the Pitt team stamped adhesive proteins onto silicon discs. Once the proteins were cultured and dried, cultured hippocampus cells from embryonic rats were fused to the proteins and then given time to grow and connect to form a natural network. The researchers disabled the cells' inhibitory response and excited the neurons with an electrical pulse which were then able to sustain the resulting burst of network activity for up to what in neuronal time is 12 long seconds compared to the natural duration of .25 seconds. The ability of the brain to hold information 'online' long after an initiating stimulus is a hallmark of brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex. The team will next work to understand the underlying factors that govern network communication and stimulation, such as the various electrical pathways between cells and the genetic makeup of individual cells. 'This is amazing,' writes Toney. 'I wonder what the "memory" could be — could be a good subject for a science fiction story.'"
Zombies have alternative now (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their name was... "Abby Normal" - iGor
Re: (Score:2)
iGor... Apple's hunch-backed assistant?
Morality (Score:3)
I look forward to reading the moral and philosophical debates that will erupt over the idea of creating a functional brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Morality (Score:4, Insightful)
They've grown an organic pre-processing buffer.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's less a conscious memory being stored and more the raw sensory input."
You mean they've created Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, geez, I'm usually Captain Science and Progress before all things Religious, but I wonder if this "brain" was in any way "conscious" for that short period of time? Or am I misunderstanding what was achieved here?
Religion isn't the owner of morality. It's merely a definition of morality.
Re: (Score:2)
More like religion is a set of rules about morality that allow a chosen few to control and profit off the lemming majority while themselves completely ignoring the rules.
Strange. Gandhi didn't seem to profit all that much.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand what Gandhi is I think. One of his most famous quotes is "I am a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Jew". He believed in a brotherhood of man - not the dominance of one particular religion over another. That is very different from being a religious leader and forcing your doctrine on others.
Re: (Score:2)
No I have a correct view of the difference between faith, spirituality and religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is too simple to have had a consciousness. The article reads that it contained only 40-60 neurons.
Have a look at the animals here [wikipedia.org], to get an idea of the number of neurons required for various levels of intelligence.
The definition of conscience is as far as I'm also vague as to whether that is intelligence like a humans, an intelligence on the level of a human, or an intelligence on the level of animals. I mean for example that several animals like for example Elephants are self-aware and emotional crea
Re: (Score:2)
The brain had just enough time for a single thought: "fuck!"
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to reading the moral and philosophical debates that will erupt over the idea of creating a functional brain.
- well, yes, all of those debates will be started by those, who are in possession of non-functional brains.
Re: (Score:2)
well, yes, all of those debates will be started by those, who are in possession of non-functional brains.
I think that's a little unfair. Personally, if I just so happened to be a brain grown in a lab, I don't think I'd like someone poking around in me.
Sure, it's science fiction now. But is the idea of growing in a lab a fully functioning and conscious human brain, complete with its own distinct memories, really so far outside the realm of possibility that anyone debating how we should treat such a brain must be an idiot?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a little unfair. Personally, if I just so happened to be a brain grown in a lab, I don't think I'd like someone poking around in me.
- and?
Rights are there to establish what a government (the collective) can do to you and what cannot be done to you by the government. If you are some brain matter grown in a petri dish - good luck negotiating the terms of the government either leaving your alone there, and not using you for some purpose, such as a piece of functional equipment to fly ICBMs with nuclear bombs on them for more precise targeting, or getting some sort of gov't protection, so you can't legally be grown and pocked into by whoev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
huh? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or making pun or what. Creating artificial life definitely has moral and philosophical implications that are probably impossible to resolve, but a lot of people enjoy debating them.
Re: (Score:2)
read this thread again, you'll get the idea. It's not 'impossible to resolve' - there is nothing to resolve, it's a non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, rights are far more esoteric than just some governmental construct.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't know what you are even saying. There is nothing esoteric about rights, they are very specific:
You have all the rights and government has only the rights that are given to it by the agreement between separate entities that make up the government.
There is nothing else about rights, but only this: it's about establishing the boundary of what the government can do to you and how you are protected from it.
There is nothing else at all that rights can mean. You cannot have a right to something. You can't
Re: (Score:2)
yes, only an idiot would be concerned about morality and philosophy relating to how we treat man-made consciousness, just like only an idiot is concerned about robot 'rights'. AFAIC, the concept of rights is also completely misunderstood by these very idiots, who don't see that the only context, in which 'rights' make sense is how the individual right is protected against government intrusion upon those ideas, nothing else.
The only context, in which 'rights' make sense is the stand between the individual a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
preserve our rights from each other
- nonsense.
Rights can only be violated by government.
All other nonsense you are spewing here is about criminal code, but has nothing to do with rights.
A right is not to have government kill you for no reason.
If your neighbor does it, though, he is not in violation of your human rights, he is in violation of criminal code (whatever the local code is).
--
As to all the other shit, growing clones, etc. Once they can participate in a debate and negotiate their 'rights' with the government body (the collective vs
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very materialistic/empiricist view to take towards a definition of rights. I'd interpret your position as "Might makes right" essentially. So let me ask you this: how far are you willing to take that worldview? Are you willing to espouse it up until you end up on the wrong side of a gun?
Or maybe a gun is a little extreme. How about this: how strongly will you cling to your conviction that rights only matter in terms of the individual vs the collective when debating governmental permissions, when
Re: (Score:2)
Right is only between the individual and the collective. All these small headed dumb asses here are mixing up the rights vs the criminal code, and the criminal code can be different from place to place, there is competition at least based on what criminal code says about various 'criminal' acts, it's all relative morality.
As to being in a minority while negotiating with the government - at least this was understood during the time US Constitution was established, since USA was never a direct democracy, but
Re: (Score:2)
so if I understand you correctly, then rights are merely enforceable agreements 'not' to do something entered into by two or more distinct parties, and only occur when both parties have enough power to be able to state and hold their position (but one party is distinctly less powerful than the other and therefore must rely on the mercy, largess, or discinclination of the more powerful party to expend resources towards extermination and domination). Am I getting the general gist?
Re: (Score:2)
There are only negative rights.
The government is not allowed to deprive you of live, liberty, property, ability to do business, any of that at least without due process.
All this notion of positive rights: where you get the right to eat or to own a house or to get an education, guaranteed by the government, it's all nonsense. Those rights turn others into slaves of the system, not necessarily in the exact manner that Rand Paul expressed - forcing doctors to do their work, but instead by forcing the individua
Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy Whale (Score:2)
Finally! A way to distract the zombies! (Score:2)
I no longer fear the zombie apocalypse. I just need a few "brains in a can" that I can open the pop-top and throw at the zombies whilst I make my getaway! yay science!
Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies! (Score:4, Funny)
Zombies won't eat genetically modified brain when they can choose bio-friendly products.
Re: (Score:2)
Zombies won't eat genetically modified brain when they can choose bio-friendly products.
So Americans would be safe then.
(*auch*)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Seattle zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Seattle zombies.
They always want their brains to be frappied or run through a cat first.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Just my luck. The Zombie Apocalypse comes and I'm well stocked with lots of Brain-In-A-Jars and the zombies that come for me prefer organic, free-range brains.
The memory! Better be conservative here... (Score:2)
'I wonder what the "memory" could be...
I, for one, welcome our new Brains-in-a-dish Overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's a mix of brains and silicon, aren't these Borg?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like a smart stripper to me.
And a little bit closer (Score:5, Insightful)
The disturbing part... (Score:2)
It's sort of like Marie Curie experimenting with radioactivity before she understood it fully - and it wound up eventually killing her.
Why so cautious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me the real, fundamental reason (ethics aside) it wouldn't be just as valid a scientific endeavor to forge ahead all at once without trying to understand every step and the implications of every signal. "we don't understand this yet" is not a reason to say we have a long way to go. All it would take is understanding of how to keep these cells alive and connecting, a large number of rat embryos, a clean room, and a scientist who doesn't care about his reputation to make a large working brain-in-a-lab and I think we have all of that.
We don't know enough to even try this. You can't just stick a lot of brain cells together like that. They would need blood vessels to supply them with oxygen, and would need glial cells to provide physical support, and if you had a random mishmash of brain cells, it is unlikely to do anything.
BSOD (Score:2)
This gives Blue Screen of Death a totally new meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, this research shows that we have a long way to go before we get to that point, in that there's a lot happening with these cells that was unexpected and adds to the long list of things about the brain and neurons that we don't understand.
Exactly.
I think it's pretty funny seeing studies which talk about which areas of the brain being having more blood flow under certain conditions (using fMRI to measure), then the authors of the study trying to made grand statements about what is happening using just that information, when they really have very little clue what is happening. It's like judging a computer by saying "look, now this area is drawing more power!". You might be able to figure out that one part does graphics, one does sound, one doe
Re: (Score:2)
being having = have*
My fault for going back and changing the wording of my sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like trying to cure mental problems by giving someone a bunch of electric shocks rather than actually dealing with the root problem. Pretty barbaric.
Actually Electroconvulsive therapy isn't anything like the images conjured up by popular culture, where most people have their image of the procedure based entirely on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It is useful and helps many people live far more normal and happier lives than they would have otherwise faced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it doesn't help sometimes, but it's still pretty barbaric/crude/simplistic. As the page you link to says: "its mode of action is unknown". It's kind of like the generic IT fix - have you tried turning it off and on again? It might fix the problem, but it would be nice to know what the original cause was to make sure it won't happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I had assumed by the term barbaric you had meant either the first general definition: savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
So, by your estimation, every new thing we learn about how the brain works gets us "further" from understanding it?
I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking that a step further, just think where we were with computers and communications only 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago and think of the possibilities something like this could spark in the next 20 years.
At the very least, it will be good for conversations like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess (Score:5, Funny)
'I wonder what the "memory" could be â" could be a good subject for a science fiction story.'
Considering that they had just jolted it with a pulse of electricity, my guess would be, "OMFGTURNITOFFTURNITOFF!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't find that in the results at all. I think you're stretching the truth in order to make the point that you are really bad at looking up information.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where they jolted it. Pick just the right spot and it would be "OMFGGIVEMEMOREGIVEMEMOREGIVEMEMORE!"
Re: (Score:2)
The entirety of it's existence.
This just proves... (Score:3)
This just proves that you can make a dish smarter.
Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
This just proves that you can make a dish smarter. Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smart.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
This just proves that you can make a dish smarter. Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smarter.
Just upgrade it to ice-cream sandwich.
Brain Thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
According to the brain, "The first ten minutes were the worst, and the second ten minutes, they were the worst too. The third ten minutes I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline." Apparently, the best conversation he'd had was over 40 minutes ago, and that was with a coffee machine.
Re: (Score:2)
What was he doing by the coffee machine?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the new Marvin :(
And the new Zaphod :(
Re: (Score:2)
They're only "new" in the movie.
They're completely untouched in the books and old series.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, that's what I meant. I don't like the Marvin in the film and I find Zaphod in the film really annoying :(
Although, in the recent continuation of the radio series, Stephen Moore could not recreate the Marvin voice quite the same which I found a weenie bit... well, not annoying, it just got to me a bit. I guess it's hard when your vocal chords are that much older :) - or they lost the parameters for the old hardware that modified his voice...
But that was nothing compared to losing Peter Jones as the b
Re: (Score:2)
Marvin I can agree with you, his attitude is close enough that it still feels genuine and the 'futuristic' body plan and color had the dual payoff of being more modern and throwing his depression into contrast.
Zaphod... no. Just... no.
Alas, poor Brain (Score:2)
I wonder what the "memory" could be — could be a good subject for a science fiction story.
A vague collection of TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
It's an old story (Score:5, Interesting)
Goethe, wrote the Faust story most of us are familiar with. He also wrote a second part. In part 2 there is a homunculus, which is basically a mind that floats around in a test tube. He spends a lot of time wondering why he exists and if, indeed, he should exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust:_The_Second_Part_of_the_Tragedy [wikipedia.org]
I am guessing that, if we do create conscious minds in a test tube, those minds will suffer a lot of angst. Maybe even the majority of our thinking processes are moderated by our physical limitations and by our hormones. Could we live in a test tube without going insane?
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno. I try to stay clear of the people who apparently do live in test tubes.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Pre-Test tubes? Like test tubes, but they don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's an old story (Score:5, Interesting)
I am guessing that, if we do create conscious minds in a test tube, those minds will suffer a lot of angst. Maybe even the majority of our thinking processes are moderated by our physical limitations and by our hormones. Could we live in a test tube without going insane?
If we could precisely replicate a human brain and grow it in a jar and didn't somehow give it an artificial world to inhabit -- a robotic body, the Matrix, anything -- it would be profoundly non-functional. Angst wouldn't come into it, insanity wouldn't come into it. It wouldn't become nearly clever enough to go insane. Consider what happens with a so-called "feral" child, usually a kid raised in profound isolation, like being locked in a closet or something. That child at least has sensory inputs, has some control of a body, has experienced eating and breathing, and on and on. And yet even when given good care later in life they very rarely learn to walk correctly, become toilet trained, understand basic human expressions, and so on. They barely function as humans. Now imagine a brain with no sensory inputs at all, maybe at most nervous sensations of whatever growth fluid it is suspended in, along with the occasional jolts of electricity sent by the researchers. Would it even be able to think in a way we'd remotely call human? It would have no purchase on anything with which to build a concept of the world, of anything, even of how to go about the process of thinking. It would be a hunk of meat with a few interesting capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until Fry, who immune to their Brain drain powers manages to save New New York, and all of Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
SMAC had some really great quotes on possible future technologies.
Quantum Leap - this already *was* used in sci-fi! (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Quantum_Leap
The memory? (Score:2, Funny)
It is a being with no functional understanding of the real world...only internalized ideals of what it thinks the world should be.
It has no history, no knowledge of what went before. It lives in the now, with choices driven entirely by impulse.
It is a being of pure ego, with the only thing it cares about being its own needs.
I don't know what it is, but I'm pretty certain it would vote Democrat.
Donovan, I assume... (Score:2)
...is what the lab techs called the thing in the dish.
Re: (Score:2)
Old slang (Score:5, Funny)
"Dish" is old school slang. Nowadays we call them blonds.
And I'm skeptical about some scientists claim to grow brains in them.
Cool (Score:2)
And yet it is creepy as hell
Can they port (Score:2)
Grow a brain? (Score:2)
Why do researchers have to take things so literally? Next, they'll all go jump in lake?
If only.... (Score:2)
Congratulations (Score:2)
I see that the research into getting Sarah Palin a brain transplant is going well.
brain-in-a-dish rates it's favorite movie: (Score:2)
the matrix
"so i was bored and decided to check out a flick i hadn't seen but a lot of neurons were raving about, and let me just say, HOLY SHIT IT'S REALITY"
for everyone wondering what it was 'thinking'... (Score:3)
it had no sensory input, no history, nothing. If any actual 'thoughts' went on in the rat brain cells they would resemble nothing like what we think of as thought.
And In An Unrelated News Story... (Score:2)
new food supply? (Score:2)
What the brain thought (Score:2)
Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of brains had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.
a real step forward... (Score:2)
Better headline: (Score:2)
"Brad Pitt's brain was grown in a dish."
Re: (Score:2)
Did you post to the wrong story or something?
Re: (Score:2)
I and others have noted that sometimes stories end up in the wrong place. I personally have had it happen when I've not had multiple tabs open to confuse issues. If only I could economically record my screen in a loop.
Re: (Score:2)
The silicon can run Linux, sure. All you need then is an iron whisker to let you pass signals between the silicon and the brain.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how the body has like two levers to control all body functions. You know, so the brain can grab them with its... hands?
Re: (Score:2)
That *should* read, "Researchers Grow a Brain In a Dish, Gets Anamatronic Body, Creates smarter elected representative"