Lamprey Cells Drive Robot

xmatt writes: "Eurekalert has a story posted from New Scientist about connecting neural material from a lamprey to light sensors and a cybernetic "body" made of two wheels and circuit board. Steve Grand, a expert in artificial life with Cyberlife Research in Somerset, describes the work as "laudably perverse" and likely to bring the world of cyborgs one step closer."

Comments

Something I found a bit peculiar....

[Manaz]

Most of you probably remember the robot insect that was made a few years ago now, it's actions were controlled by an artificial neural net.

This insect had been programmed with basic functions - and in reaction to certain stimuli, it would act in a particular way.

One thing it was programmed to do was to run away from light, and to hide in dark places. Without re-programming, it would ALWAYS run away from a light source...

Why does this new robot have 2 different reactions to light? In one instance, it runs away from the light, in another it follows it - to me, that's peculiar - and sounds more like programming than simple basic reactions to a stimuli....

Re:Something I found a bit peculiar....

[Steeltoe]

A "simple reaction to stimuli" is probably defined as more than just a simple IF-ELSE. Neural nets are perfectly capable of being conditioned to much more complex reaction-patterns. Although, the most sophisticated use of just one neural net is probably that -- pattern matching. However, you can build a logical network of neural nets helped by actual code to reach higher goals. This is extremely difficult and unprediactable though, since neural nets have to be configured in a specific way to do specific jobs done at all. IOW, there's no guarantee that a neural net will converge just by "setting one or a dozen up", without thought.

Another thing is that with a neural net, it can constantly "improve itself" if you wish. Or unlearn things once your program discovers that feature was not wanted anyway. All this can be automated, but it's not easy to work with classical neural nets. And it's expensive CPU-wise if you're not relying on AI-hardware.

- Steeltoe

Interesting...

[chuckw]

I find this very interesting especially from the standpoint of the animal's reaction to increased abilities. It has long been shown that animals react differently when pulled out of their native habitat. Perhaps you could turn a non-agressive animal into an agressive one if it suddenly "realized" that it no longer had to be afraid of what once were it's natural enemies. Instincts run deep though.

I suppose the true reason for doing something like this is to augment the natural abilities of a naturally occuring animal. Are there any special abilities a Lamprey has that would be useful if augmented?

-Chuck

--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support

Re:Interesting...

[radja]

> Are there any special abilities a Lamprey has that would be useful if augmented?

not really I think.. The lamprey is one of the most primitive species of fish, they're older than sharks if I remember correctly. they don't do much, except squiggle around, eating dead stuff. Still this probably worked because the things are so primitive. unfortunately the story itself seems slashdotted at the moment.. :(

//rdj

Re:Interesting...

[GypC]

Actually, lampreys attach themselves to live fish and suck on them until they're dead.

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Re:Interesting...

[GypC]

They suck really good.

I suppose there is a market for ahem that kind of robot.

You set me up, you bitch.

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Re:Interesting...

[radja]

It shouldn't. Lampreys have proved to be a stable life-form for millions of years...

//rdj

Re:Interesting...

[Ralph Wiggam]

It's either lampreys or hagfish that bite a hole in larger fish, squiggle inside their guts and eat the live prey from the inside. That's the kind of gentle creature we really need to give cybernetic enhancements to.

-B

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

What really matters is not that the lamprey was connected to some electronics, but whether or not this robot exhibited lamprey-like behavior. That is, did it have the same kind of response it would have to light? Or is there a major malfunction in the 'wiring' (for lack of a better term) between the Müller cells and the machine.

For all we know, the lamprey's Müller cells are firing frantically for no reason, and the scientists are studying nothing but behavior brought about by random, non-systematic firings of detached brain cells.

Re:But...

[Spasemunki]

I would have liked to have seen some information about what triggered the different behaviours in response to the light. It is a little odd to respond to the same stimuli three different ways, especially with such a small selection of nerve tissue. What was the frequency of response, and in which manner? Without that sort of information, the sophisticated behaviour could be nothing more than a neuron misfiring, the cybernetic equivalent of a post-mortem twitch. I've seen fish swim with their heads cut off and their guts and sides removed; the tailfin moves in the same complex manner it does to move a whole fish. Doesn't mean that the fish's remaining nerve cells are responding in a complex way, just that they are firing in the same manner that they usually do, and it is being interpreted by the muscalature of the fish. The same way, the lamprey cells could be random firing in response to the stimuli, and the robot body, programmed to translate the nerve impulses into motion, responds in a predetermined way. A lot more info would make this story much more useful for evaluation. Still, whatever the details, it is interesting as a sort of "proof of concept".

Fishbots

[Samedi1971]

What I'm wondering is how soon can I get a copy of the new Lego Mindstorms "Lamprey" kit, and will I have to supply my own fish nerves?

Re:This is a disgrace

[Black Parrot]

> you, like many others have been brainwashed by the atheistic cult that controls education

Actually, I went through a school system that was rife with prayers and other attempts to brainwash us toward an irrational system of beliefs.

> However, surely even you can see the truth of what I am saying?

Frankly, I think the truth is that you're trolling. (Yes, I've read the Trolls Guide to Slashdot, and your post follows the advice to a 't'.) But I'm always more than happy to go along with a troll for the sake of a joke.

--

This Could Be Bad..

[FraggleMI]

Now we just need to add cells from bill gates and watch them asexually spawm demons from hell and take over the earth! Then again, we can just continue the cloning of Natalie Portman.

Moral implications

[streetlawyer]

Are the gains to science from this really so large as to justify the cutting up of a living animal? I don't really find anything "laudably perverse" in taking a knife to the living tissue of another creature. You might say I'm over-reacting, and that it's "only" a lamprey. But there's something about this story that doesn't make me want to trust these people. "Laudably perverse", as a judgement on the death of a creature doesn't suggest much respect for life, does it? Children who torture flies grow up to torture dogs, and later, people. How long will it be before these people decide that for their research they need a cat? a monkey? a baby? I just don't want to trust them unless they are strictly regulated, and unless they are subject ot democratic control including the power for elected representatives to close down all research in this field forever

Oh go on then, flame away. But there are millions of us "trolls" who care about animal cruelty, and if you want to maintain a freindly climate toward scientists, you'll need to respect us.

Re:Moral implications

[Shadox Tsurien]

You know, we kill way more fish every year to eat, and we sacrifice far more animals to science. This really is insignificant in terms of deaths; one fishing trip and I can do better. And monkeys can and have been used for much nastier research than this before.

And as for torture, the lamprey was under full anesthesia.

When it comes to preventing death or pain, you could focus on all the human tragedies going on in third world countries (Sierra Leon(sp?) for an example.) Worrying about one fish is, quite frankly, overreacting.

Re:Moral implications

[streetlawyer]

We ARE mother nature, nature made us and we must do what we are impelled to do

As a defence of scientific research, this suffers from the fairly serious flaw that it also works as a defence of banning scientific research if that's what we feel "impelled to do"

Re:Moral implications

[ansa]

I think that if you lost an arm or a leg after an accident, you'd appreciate any effort made to connect neurons to electronic devices to create fully functional prosthesis, no matter how many lampreys were harmed to reach this goal...

--
"The crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe(*)" - FZ

Re:Moral implications

[Ella the Cat]

My post is anecdotal because I don't know how it got into my mind or where it came from and i can't give a reference, I'd appreciate it if anyone knows more.

It seems that operations to cure a squint in children used to be done several months or years after birth, until someone did an experiment on some kittens (shudder). Point is, they proved that it really was essential to fix the squint almost straight after birth and many children benefit.

I'm agreeing with you btw, just thought I'd lob this story in as an example of where the border between good and evil lies - for me. If I've unwittingly perpetuated a myth, I'm sorry.

Re:Moral implications

[Kintanon]

Are the gains to science from this really so large as to justify the cutting up of a living animal? I don't really find anything "laudably perverse" in taking a knife to the living tissue of another creature. You might say I'm over-reacting, and that it's "only" a lamprey. But there's something about this story that doesn't make me want to trust these people. "Laudably perverse", as a judgement on the death of a creature doesn't suggest much respect for life, does it? Children who torture flies grow up to torture dogs, and later, people. How long will it be before these people decide that for their research they need a cat? a monkey? a baby? I just don't want to trust them unless they are strictly regulated, and unless they are subject ot democratic control including the power for elected representatives to close down all research in this field forever
Oh go on then, flame away. But there are millions of us "trolls" who care about animal cruelty, and if you want to maintain a freindly climate toward scientists, you'll need to respect us.


Well, guess what, I don't really care if they do try it out on humans. Once they get it working reliably on a Lamprey they SHOULD move up to something more complex, ideally they should replicate the natural body of the creature as best as possible. And once they've figured it out to a sufficiently advanced level they can try it on me. I've always wanted an Immortal Robot Body to hang out in....
Animal Cruelty takes a back seat to pretty much everything in my mind. If it serves a purpose then go for it. Animal cruelty for personal amusement I disapprove of. This isn't a flame, it's a different point of view, and you aren't a troll, you just happen to have a view that is counter to a lot of other slashdotters.

Kintanon

Re:Moral implications

[drinkypoo]

And as for torture, the lamprey was under full anesthesia.

I'm just trying to picture them putting a little mask on a lamprey while it's squirming around. "Don't take my brain! Don't take my brain!"

When it comes to preventing death or pain, you could focus on all the human tragedies going on in third world countries (Sierra Leon(sp?) for an example.) Worrying about one fish is, quite frankly, overreacting.

Well, remember, to some people, all life is sacred, unless it's a plant, in which case since it has no brain, it's okay to eat it.

...and he brought me into a vast farm land of our own midwest
And as we descended cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand NAY, a million voices full of fear, and terror possessed me then.
And I begged, angel of the lord, what are these tortured screams
And the angel said unto me, THESE ARE THE CRIES OF THE CARROTS.
You SEE Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day, and to them IT IS THE HOLOCAUST

In any case, I didn't come here to start a fight. My point was that to some people, anything living that isn't a plant is sacred. Mind you, if someone actually eats animals, I don't want to hear anything out of them about the cruelty of using animals as test subjects. Is it more wrong to kill an animal and consume its dead flesh, or to kill an animal in the process of making the world safer for humanity? You could go either way on that one, but I think they're basically at the same level -- both of them are animals dying for human welfare.

Of course, you CAN get all necessary nutrition out of plant matter, provided you eat the right stuff, and take supplments (or eat your weight in veggies every day, bleah. Vegetarian is an ancient word for "Lousy Hunter".) So actually, eating animal flesh is just animals dying for our pleasure.

I think I'll go to outback for dinner and have a 20oz. porterhouse.

Re:Moral implications

[ralphclark]

Children who torture flies grow up to torture
dogs, and later, people.</i>
<p>
Bullshit, you're making this up. I used to pull the legs off of bugs when I was a toddler. But except for two occasions when I've had to kill a mortally injured cat to end its suffering, I've never hurt an animal. And I don't torture people either. I think this is rather more typical than the scenario you suggest.

Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction

Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[robbo42]

Chapter 37: The Star Gate, plundered from 2001: A Space Odyssey:

...And now, out among the stars, evolution was driving towards new goals. The first explorers of Earth had long since come to the limits of flesh and blood; as soon as their machines were better than their bodies, it was time to move. First their brain, then their thoughts alone, they transferred into shining new homes of metal and plastic.
In these, they roamed among the stars. They no longer built spaceships. They were spaceships.

Not to be too evangelical about this; I don't for a moment believe that this is a Good Thing (tm). Just interesting to note that once again, A.C.C. manages to semi-predict the future.

As horrid as the thought is (to me anyway), I believe that it is a matter of time before we discard these bodies of flesh for "shining new homes of metal and plastic".

I, for one, am not religious, and quite frankly would rather not get caught up in any religious debates... so don't confuse me as being a religious zealot. Would you trust a machine with your brain? Not me.

This is a good topic for a discussion on ethics. Sure, a body better than the one I have would be nice for some things - but we're playing $DEITY in a big way here; I think that we have to be very careful what we do. Science, I feel, is becoming too advanced for it's own good.

My $0.02...

Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[Blancmange]

robbo42 wrote:

As horrid as the thought is (to me anyway), I believe that it is a matter of time before we discard these bodies of flesh for "shining new homes of metal and plastic"

I think any artificial body for which sex is not its primary function is doomed to be a marketing failure.

Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[thantos]

"... too advanced for its own good."

While it might amuse you to know that I suspect the watchers while fire was first harnessed were thinking the same thing, I'd counter that, if anything, such a Luddite attitude is actually pretty insulting to at least some of us out here working to try and make human existance better, healthier, and more whole. Perhaps science is moving too fast for your ability (or even the masses' ability) to readily forcast new developments' impacts. Perhaps the act of research is creating new methods and approaches, entire suites of understanding, that require humanity to develop new social structures and mores. Perhaps, just perhaps, the flaw is not in science moving too swiftly, but in individuals being too foolish and reactionary to follow suit.

One of the primary motivations and goals of science is the pressure it places on society to grow, adapt, and change to accomodate eternally new situations and events. Without that, you might as well live in Imperial China, where scientific innovation could have gotten you beheaded (though society was 'protected' for thousands of years at a stretch). Perhaps you are willing to exchange a little safety for the liberty afforded by new ideas, new ways of thinking, new perceptions which we are granted by the strenuous efforts of thousands of scientists. The Internet, for example, is not an inherently safe thing, but a medium of facilitation unmatched in human history (save by the telegraph, or before that, speech).

Given the opportunity, I'd more than happily upload my personality and move into an immortal world of silver and silicon, leaving behind my useless arms, my insufficient sight, and the slowness of meat-memory. Give me a single opportunity and I'll happily exchange my left eye for an implant, my right arm for cybernetics, and my blood for nanotech-enhanced immunity to disease and wounds.

Bring to me the future!

In the end, it comes down to a simple axiom: Those who do not partake of the new fruits of the vine will suffer, wither, and die, while those who do, who move, who evolve, transmutate, transcend, will not. In the end, its that simple.

I choose life.

Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[Hard_Code]

One of the primary motivations and goals of science is the pressure it places on society to grow, adapt, and change to accomodate eternally new situations and events.

That is an interesting statement. It seems to me that pressure on society is a *consequence*, not a *motivation* of science. Scientists don't sit around thinking "How can I put pressure on society?". Science is basically problem solving. Some people solve problems for specific applications (applied science). Some people solve problems out of curiosity (pure science). But I don't think anybody solves problems just *because* the solution will exert pressure on society. Pressure is a side-effect and consequence.

Given the opportunity, I'd more than happily upload my personality and move into an immortal world of silver and silicon, leaving behind my useless arms, my insufficient sight, and the slowness of meat-memory. Give me a single opportunity and I'll happily exchange my left eye for an implant, my right arm for cybernetics, and my blood for nanotech-enhanced immunity to disease and wounds.

Transhumanist? I was once allured by that philosophy, but after a while found it arrogant and sterile. I am a human, not a borg. Thank you, but I think I'll remain human...for whatever meat-based flaws that means I'll have to endure (oh the humanity).

In the end, it comes down to a simple axiom: Those who do not partake of the new fruits of the vine will suffer, wither, and die, while those who do, who move, who evolve, transmutate, transcend, will not. In the end, its that simple.

...and they also used to sell cocaine tinctures as magic panacea elixers. Technology != progress. The two might be correlated but they are not the same. The same technology that keeps us warm and cozy, keeps us in a tense state of nuclear stalemate. The same technology that cures diseases, can wipe out just as many people.

I choose life, but my definition of "life" is not just "living".

Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[Hard_Code]

Science, I feel, is becoming too advanced for it's own good.

Well, I think technology might be moving a bit fast. We are generating solutions for problems we don't even HAVE. I mean, REALLY, *who* needs to be a cyborg? Huh? Besides the *gee-whiz* factor, who really needs to be a cyborg? Sure, I can see perhaps giving sight to the blind, or creating better prosthetics, but is there any real reason we NEED to be wiring hardware to ourselves? So technology is moving fast, and the market is convincing us we need all this crap we really don't. How the hell many people REALLY need a pager, a cell phone, and a palm pilot? What the hell are you doing with all your time, except for *organizing* it! I mean, come on...

I think the people creating this stuff (us) have to be careful that there is a reason to. You know, I like the computer industry. You know why? Because it is entirely self-sufficient! We create our own problems (bugs, imaginary needs) and then solve them for the pure joy of it! It's wonderful.

Well, I have to go now because I have to debug an Apache and JServ build on AIX - so that we can write servlets - so that the HR department can write custom jsp pages - so that people can look up their employee information online (instead of, say, picking up a phone and calling a human. woohoo!).

Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[mOdQuArK!]

Besides the *gee-whiz* factor, who really needs to be a cyborg?

Well, if the ppl who are trying to come up with ways of "growing" artificial intelligence progress as fast as the cyborgians (apologies to English majors), then it will become necessary to use cyborg technology just so we can be evolutionarily competitive with our artificial intelligence creations.

And for those people who don't adapt themselves to the new technology? Well, they probably won't be around in a couple of generations, except maybe as "pets", or as examples of "primitive" humans.

I would like to point out that adopting cyborg technology does NOT require that society become like the dark visions of the Borg, or any of the other common science fiction themes that everyone will become like machines - cold & emotionless - as long as our brain structures still provide support for emotion, then we'll still experience it.

Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[Hard_Code]

You have a point...robots might just be our future

Re:Sign me up!

[Alex Belits]

We thought, you are moving your company to Canada, not UK...

First step toward cell phones wired to the brain?

[Shadox Tsurien]

Cool! Telepathy!

But I don't think I'd like to see this through the current phone companies. "Your bill is 2 months overdue. Pain centers in brain are being activated now."

Heh...now here's a touchy subject...

[Vagatech]

I'm quite honestly at a loss of how to think of this one.

On the one hand you have to potentialy stagering possability for advances in the fields of artificial limbs, etc. that has a great potential to benifit humanity as a whole. The successes in creation of arificial replacment limbs has for all intents and purposes been stagnent for the last 100 years. The average artificial leg is little better then the wooden pegs used a century ago and even the state of the art is nothing more then a couple if hinges and springs. As for arms/hands there little better then a hook with the general high tech version having a closable "thumb" controlled be a cable running to a single muscle or tenden.

On the other hand you have the huge potential for abuse of a viable technology that could be derived from this research. How long until we have people getting "jacked up" in the style of Shadowrun or Johnny Mnomonic. Can you say "Super Soldier"?

--

Re:This is a disgrace

[Darchmare]

Sometimes I have faith in our society - when a right-wing religious zealot (whether a joke or not) is labeled 'Funny'.

This is much preferrable to running from said zealot as he tries to strap you to a poll and light you on fire, or throws rocks at you.

If you are a troll - Good job! If not ... Good show!

Now, what about about those RMS clones...?

:>

(feeling myself being moderated to oblivian, which is okay - one must have fun you know)


- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

Mobile phones?

[Eradicat5]

"More realistic, he says, is connecting electronic devices such as mobile phones directly into our brains."

For god's sake lads... enough with the mobile phones! Playstations, Toasters, Fridges, watches. I have a mobile phone, but only because I am running from the phone company (long story) and it was the only phone I could get without an ID (hooray, that should generate some flames). And while it is handy, yes... It is also the bane of my existence. I have a friend who is obsessed with her phone who will actually talk to her boyfriend long distance on the way to the movie theater, totally ignoring anyone she is with, and almost getting hit by cars/other pedestrians in her little phone trance.

This is a bit of a ramble, yeah.. but does anyone else think the whole connectivity thing is going a bit far? I mean, would anyone actually want a frickin mobile phone in their head? Like I don't have enough distractions in my brain without suddenly sensing 'neural rhythms inspired by the uk's top dj's'

IMHO, a mobile phone should be just that... a mobile phone that I can ignore/turn off/leave home/smash into a million pieces if I want to. If someone called you and you didn't want to talk to them and it was like wired into your brain, you couldn't exactly tell them 'oh sorry.. didn't get your call, my phone was dead'

Re:Mobile phones?

[panda]

Exactly!!!

Who wants a fscking phone in their head? I don't even answer the phones I have now unless someone tells me they're going to call at a certain time. If a call is unexpected, I let the voice mail get it. I hate telephone calls. They are annoying intruders into an already chaotic life. You want to communicate with me, try email.

I don't think that I'd want to have my body "enhanced," though I am not opposed to getting cybernetic replacements for failing, damaged or destroyed body parts. Frankly, I'd prefer having organic replacements grown (cloned?) from my own cells. There have been some interesting strides made in that area recently. (Sorry, no references handy.) :-(

Re:Mobile phones?

[eyeball]

It is also the bane of my existence. I have a friend who is obsessed with her phone who will actually talk to her boyfriend long distance on the way to the movie theater, totally ignoring anyone she is with, and almost getting hit by cars/other pedestrians in her little phone trance.

Cell phones are actually a new form of technological natural selection. Let's say people who talk on a cellphone while crossing the street run a higher risk of dieing. Now, as call phones are becoming more and more popular, they are being used by younger portions of the population. People in their 20's, College students, even high school students are using cellphones. Since they run the risk of having an accident before they actually breed, we now have a natural selection scenario. End result: we're (very slowly) breeding ourselves into a society of beings that can talk on the phone while dodging cars! Who wants to make a bet that this ends up being an olympic event by the end of the century!

Re:Mobile phones?

[mOdQuArK!]

I already have voices in my head - I don't need technological assistance.

*aside* what was that? No, I don't think they'd like that.

:)

I think I'm a little bit disturbed by this

[jht]

Extracting a brain and spinal cord from a living creature (even if it's "only" a lamprey) in order to harvest a few cells for an experiment bothers me more than I'd like it to. It's a fascinating study in robotics, and an interesting experiment, but what about when they start trying this with mammals? Mice, chimps, dogs, cats - it's easy to start drawing that line ever closer to humans or your own pet.

Mind you, I'm not some PETA fanatic who only wears Naugahide for leather (who cares about a few Naugas?), and I'm not inherently opposed to animal experimentation, but I think I wouldn't perform an experiment like this, regardless of how useful the information is. I wouldn't test cosmetics on animals, either - though there are definitely appropriate uses for testing drugs and other things.

Then again, I'm just not completely sure - am I way off base in being disturbed by this?

- -Josh Turiel

Re:I think I'm a little bit disturbed by this

[jht]

I remember the cat experiment - it was featured here on /. at the time. I was absolutely amazed that they did it (and I think I posted a suitably witty comment here at the time), but after I got to thinking about it a little bit more I was really bothered by that one. On the one hand, it taught us a tremendous amount about how the optic system works, but they had to slice into the living brain of a cat to do so. That just doesn't work for me.

I think, upon some reflection, that my dividing line falls somewhere in the "awareness + feeling" category. If a creature has the ability to feel pain or discomfort, then the guidelines for experimentation should be strict as hell (I would count on a code of ethics rather than regulation in a perfect world, which this most certainly is not). I would only perform experiments that have a direct relationship to saving lives, either of humans or more animals on animals that meet this criterion.

I would not restrict things done with cell samples or "cultured" tissue - so long as the sample is obtained without harming the animal (or human) involved.

I will still wear leather and eat meat. That, to me, gets directly into the traditional food chain, and humans were designed to be omnivorous - with (as far as I can tell), a diet of grains, fruits, and vegetables supplemented by occasional meat. Given that belief/assumption, leather is a byproduct of the process. If animals were not killed for food, I think I'd see the leather question somewhat differently.

- -Josh Turiel

Re:Lamprey with wheels

[/]

Never mind controling the tv. Lampreys are being used right now as we speak in the very same survey groups that are bringing you MTV's summer and fall lineups. It turns out they have similar brain capacities as the normal viewership but are cheaper to house and feed and only rarely eat their handlers.

Why hasn't anyone thought of doing this before?

[/]

Oh wait, Governments have for millennia tried countless times to suppress information and prohibit the advancement of knowledge, all for naught and causing much suffering in the process. The lesson to be learned is that we're much better off preparing for what will happen when such knowledge is inevitably acquired.

The example of evolution proves my point

[streetlawyer]

You have heard about evolution (or rather, the lack thereof) in Kansas, right?

Yes, absolutely. In Kansas, the locally elected representatives quite correctly decided to stop having evolution as a compulsory part of the syllabus, and allowed parents the choice. Meanwhile, a group of unelected self-styled "defenders of truth" demanded that every single pupil in Kansas be indoctrinated in their belief system. What part of "we the people" do you have a problem with?

Example

[Hard_Code]

"More realistic, he says, is connecting electronic devices such as mobile phones directly into our brains."

Hello, McFly, anybody in there? Why the hell do we need to connect cell phones directly to our brains. Is the cancer NOT enough? Man. Oh well, I guess whenever they do it I'll be the first to make some picoJava WAP application...

Yeah...

[Greyfox]

Unless you can really tell me that you never eat any sort of meat and let cockroaches, spiders and rats in your residence run free, I don't want to hear it. Yeah, it's fine to whine about some lamprey somewhere getting cut up. It's not in your house trying to suck your blood (Or whatever it is lampreys do.)

And unless you live a life of total luddism, I might point out that the science you detest has made it possible to live to a ripe old age without having to fear a death by smallpox or the black death or any of a number of diseases that plagued humanity up until just recently.

But by all means, lets stop the science now. Never mind the potential to eventually cure paralysis, AIDS and potentially even grasp immortality. The lampreys are too important for that.

Paid for by the committee to save the endangered malaria mosquito.

Who wants to live forever

[Shotgun]

I'm only 33, and I can already tell you that I wouldn't want to live forever. As you get older, you begin to lose the highs and lows. It's not that I hate life, it's just that there isn't as much excitement when you have enough experience to know the outcome of a set of action.

Let's take a for instance. I have a young friend who is all tore up over his on-again/off-again relationship with a girlfriend. There is a lot of turmoil and excitement in his life over this relationship. My view on it is that he is being foolish and should just move on. I don't have any hope of the relationship working (she's too stupid). From my experience, I can see that all he's doing is riding a roller coaster. There's a lot of ups and downs, but no real chance of being seriously injured. The worst that will happen is that he'll feel a little nauseated at the end.

The thing that keeps life interesting is the idea that it will someday end. For me, it adds urgency. I've got to do what I've got to do, NOW.

Living a cyborg existence in a tin bucket for a million year would just have to suck. Besides, what would you do once Alzheimer's set in?

Re:Who wants to live forever

[sjames]

I'm only 33, and I can already tell you that I wouldn't want to live forever. As you get older, you begin to lose the highs and lows. It's not that I hate life, it's just that there isn't as much excitement when you have enough experience to know the outcome of a set of action.

Personally, I've found that the highs and lows just take different forms, and the excitement becomes more intellectual in nature.

Living a cyborg existence in a tin bucket for a million year would just have to suck.

It would open up a lot of very non-boring possabilities though. You could travel to other stars weather or not FTL travel ever becomes possable. What would 10,000 years mean anyway?

Besides, what would you do once Alzheimer's set in?

Technology that could allow a person to live a million years would probably include an artificial brain rather than preserving the one you're born with.

Artificial limbs vs. cybernetic sugmentation

[orpheus]

Two points:

In my early 20's (ca 1982), I did a lot of private work on improved artifical limbs - until a worried friend (a lawyer) did a search of the case law to show me what a liability minefield it was. [1]

However, if cybernetic augmentaion really rocks your boat, you need to keep up on the DARPA and other government RFPs.

First up on the sci-fi drooler's hit parade is: "Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation"-- a current active DARPA RFP, but if you miss the deadline, don't worry, there's similar RFPs every funding cycle.

I only wish they hadn't said ``DARPA is soliciting devices and machines that accomplish one or more of the following: ... 3) increase locomotive speed, 4) augment human strength, and 5) leap extraordinary heights and/or distances.''


In other words... faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound...

------------------------
[1] In her somewhat irreverent words: "People who lost limbs as adults (due to the nature of the interface I used) and can afford to pay for an experimental limb? Er - sounds like someone who just won multimillion dollar lawsuit, to me. Don't mess with them, they already have a legal team!"

The case law seemed to bear her out.

Re:This is a disgrace

[orpheus]

How can these so-called "scientists" live with themselves after creating something that is this much of a blasphemy against God and nature?

Yes, the ability to read is SUCH a curse...

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. {moveth: the Heb. is more like 'creepeth'}


There are roughly half a dozen similar passages in the OT and NT, and don't even get me started on the Koran and the various Talmuds -- they make the Christian Bible seem positively Luddite.

Re:Adaptation of normal behavior EXP BRIEF

[tburkhol]

I've seen these. They're cool preps.

Lampreys have a very simple system for keeping themselves vertical in the water, consisting of of a pair of sensors, a pair of neurons and a pair of muscles. In the beast, you can stimulate one of the sensors and activate the muscle on the other side. The lamprey uses the differential signal between sensors on left&right side to control activation of the muscles on the left & right side. Mussa-Ivaldi's group have plucked out the spinal cord, replaced the biological sensors with photodiodes and the biological muscles with motors, so this is a physical demonstration of totally normal neural control.

Re:[OT]Re:Arthur C. Clarke, you were right...

[ethereal]

Thanks for sparing me - I suppose I can guess a broad outline, but the details will still be fun I hope.