Flying By Brain

Garabito writes "Scientists at the University of Florida made a living 'brain' by extracting 25,000 neurons from a rat's brain and culturing them inside a glass dish. Then, the neurons began to extend lines to each other, creating a living neural network between them. The dish had a grid of 60 electrodes connected to a computer running a flight simulator. The scientists were able to train the 'brain' to control the plane in the simulator and to react to conditions of the plane. Are we getting closer to create an artificially made conscious being, or perhaps, a living computer?" AlphaJoe was one of several readers to add a link to Wired's article on the experiment.

Comments

One question...

[doublebackslash]

How did the clump of neurons know what they were trying to accomplish? More precicely, why didn't they try to crash the plane? What sort of positive/negative feedback did they use? I understand that this works, and vaugely how it works, but i can't wrap my poor little brain around what sort of feedback they used!

Re:One question...

[tyler_larson]

How did the clump of neurons know what they were trying to accomplish? More precicely, why didn't they try to crash the plane?

I think it's significant that they chose a flight simulator instead of a more traditional "game" to teach the newly formed brain.

Here's a couple of points to remember:

The difference between the makeup, function, and behavior of a given type of cells between one species and another is so insignificant (remember, we're talking on a cellular level) that they can generally be ignored. You can almost always assume that a given cell type in one organism will behave identically to a parallel cell in another. The species that the cell came from is all but insignificant.

Brain cells, (in humans and in other species) are amazingly versatile. While capable of specializing (vision centers, speech centers, etc.), these cells seem to be capable of taking on any function necessary for the benefit of the organism. For example, humans brains in which a specific part has been damaged (such as the vision center) have actually re-mapped other cell groups to take over that function. They do what they have to to survive.

Brain cells are cooperative in nature: if placed in proximity to eachother, they'll work together for their common good (read: survival). They'll "instinctively" form a structure similar to how they're pre-designed to work. They'll form a brain--as fully functional as the situation permits. It doesn't necessarily matter how you arrange them, the brain cells can sort those details out--somehow.

Brains look for order. We've known that for ages. Finding order is how a brain learns, it's how the brain separates relevant details from the background noise. The ability to identify order is the whole basis of intelligence. Every sense, every stimulus, every aspect of the brain has order-seeking overtones. This feature of brains is so absolutely universal that it must be deeply ingrained into the neurons themselves.

Put those details together, and you end up with the following scenario: if you take neurons out of an organism and place them together, they'll form a brain. Probably not as complex or capable a brain as you started with, but a brain none the less. Actually this is the ideal brain to study, as you're starting "from scratch": there's no evolutionary specialization involved. Each cell will attempt to make sense of its neighbors, and as a result, the organism as a whole will attempt to make sense of its environment (brain processes are the ultimate in emergent algorithms). The brain will follow this behavior as if it were necessary to the brain's survival.

Which brings us to the flight simulator. If you instead had the brain play with a chessboard or a clock, the results would probably be unimpressive. But a flight simulator--that's really the perfect environment. There's the potential for the brain to actually order its environment: there are equilibrium points that the brain will eventually find where it has greater control over its inputs. Assuming that flying too hight or too low creates a more chaotic state, you can likely expect the brain to learn to avoid it.

In fact, I'd be very much surprised if you didn't actually see the brain cells start to specialize. Some cells will become responsibe for directly manipulating the flight controls based on the inputs from the brain. Some will attempt to maintain aircraft equilibrium in absence of any other input from the brain. Others will control the aircraft as a whole, their location in the network giving them a better overall picture of the situation than, say, the cells near the controls. Furthermore, I fully expect some cells to not participate at all: cells that are "out of the loop", so to speak, will proably cease most activity to avoid disturbing the overall process.

I, personally, have been waiting to see this very experiment conducted and see the results. I think this is very exciting science.

Re:One question...

[Illserve]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's hard to tell because these guys specifically avoid using the technical terminology of the LTP (Long Term Potentiation) literature, probably because they know they aren't getting it and don't want to step into that minefield.

As near as I can tell from their paper at:
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/groups/potter/papers/D agstuhlAIBakkumpreprint.pdf

the network is not "learning". Rather, they are setting up the system so that the inherent properties of the neurons cause the correct response to the feedback it receives from the environment.

The real knowledge about the task is built into the systems that interface with the neurons.

As an analogy, the neuron is behaving like a spring in a mechanical system, it has some basic fundamental properties that are statistically predictable, and the system around the spring expects it to behave thusly. But because it's a complex system it may take time for the system to settle into the stable state, hence it looks as if the network "learns", when really it's a system of springs settling into an equilibrium.

Not to understate their technical accomplishments. They've done amazing things with cultured neurons. But this is not about reward and punishment, the network is far too simple for such words to have any meaning. It may not even be about learning in the sense of permanently modifying synaptic connections. I can't tell from my first read through, and that's what really sets off the alarm bells.

They also avoid the obvious experiment that should be done if they think long term plasticity is involved. (ie, can it still navigate the next day?)

Re:teh living computer

[thorndt]

Am I the only one disturbed by this stuff? I know it's only a rat, but...imagine a world where your brain (sliced and diced) is worth more outside your body than inside. For some reason this kind of reminds me of Larry Niven's classic "Patchwork Girl".

Living 'eh?

[macaulay805]

Bring a whole new meaning of a computer virus ...

Anyone know how it knows what is "good" and "bad?"

[Hollinger]

So, how is this thing reacting to good and bad?

Did they create a neural net that falls through a given search space to a local or global minimum, or what?

Is "good" a total lack of input, i.e. the plane is flying straight with no lateral or vertical drift, and is degree of input dependent on the amount of lateral motion, etc.?

As I type this, it makes sense that this might be so, but I wonder why the network created a negative feedback system, and not a positive feedback system.

~ Mike

Human neurons...

[zors]

I wonder if human neurons would be more effective? Or are all neurons created equal, and only the structure of a brain makes it more or less intelligent? Could we grow rat neurons into a human brain? Maybe we could customize brains for certain abilities, by growing them along certain structures. I don't have alot of personal knowledge here, so i'm just putting out some questions that this brought up for me.

Re:Human neurons...

[reporter]

Could we grow rat neurons into a human brain?

The answer is "yes".

Currently, one of the experimental treatments for Parkinson's disease is to insert brain cells from pigs into human brains. The patients have responded well, and the pig cells do thrive within the human brain.

sea slugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I know of similar work with sea slugs in an off-campus lab funded partly by UF (the Whitney Lab). I'm not _too_ familiar with it, so this may not be entirely accurate. Basically, they found that neurons in the brain of the seaslugs are always in the same positions as other animals of the same species. They then started training animals, much like pavlov's dogs, to close their siphon whenever they were electrically shocked on their tail (by touching the siphon whenever they were shocked so the animal would relate the 2 stimuli). They then could isolate the neurons in the brain and train then individually. Two neurons in a petri dish would gradually connect and then share information. At the moment the group is working on identifying which genes control what part of the brain, or something like that..

Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?

[pclminion]

If we conducted a similar experiment with a human brain, would the artifical brain now be separate and distinct from the human victim who surrendered the brain cells for the artificial brain? Have we created 2 "souls"?

Does the question even mean anything?

Years ago, patients with extreme cases of epilepsy were treated by severing the connection between the left and right halves of the brain. The theory was that this would prevent the "electrical storm" of the seizure from propagating from one side of the brain to the other. This would supposedly reduce the frequency and severity of the seizures.

As a result, these individuals had, in their skulls, two independent brains with no communication link between them (a simplification, but mostly accurate). These patients would report strange experiences, such as getting up out of a chair and walking to another room, without having any idea why they were doing it. Essentially, the two halves of their brains were functioning independently, and sometimes "fought" over what the body was going to do.

It's a very interesting question -- did the "person" go into the left half of the brain, or the right? If it went into the left side, for example, what happened to the right side? Is it now a soulless automaton? How can a single person exist in two conscious modes simultaneously? Yet these people live normal lives, for the most part.

Sadly, you are trolling. But you raise an interesting point.

Re:teh living computer

[WhiteDeath]

It's not too difficult to find a source of brains - visit your local abbatoir.

Wouldn't want to use the sheep brains though.... Imagine a "mob" of aircraft playing follow the leader...

Seriously, you would want to use something with a life span of more than a few years - besides, how do you do backups? how do you transfer existing knowledge to the new, untrained brain? (I mean more efficiently than us humans manage to using our existing I/O ports).

This is interesting

[brunes69]

...because I think (although I am talking out my ass here) neurons are exempt from the auto-immune response, so rejection of donor cells is a non-issue.

If you know, is this true?

Eat at Milliways

[Rui del-Negro]

Just because a lettuce can't scream that doesn't mean it can't feel. Think about that next time you have a salad. At least some cows want to be eaten.

Re:neurogenesis

[parvati]

The parent certainly wasn't modded "5" for accuracy. Neurons are terminally differentiated and therefore CANNOT divide (or "reproduce," as the parent called it). In fact, if you stimulate an adult neuron with "divide" signals, you often get an apoptotic neuron. Neural STEM CELLS can divide, and some of them hang out near the ventricles in the adult brain and continue to produce neurons throughout life--newly born neurons have even been observed in damaged areas of Alzheimers' brains.

As far as the Wired article is concerned, this sounds pretty cool, but I never trust the popular press for scientific accuracy. The peer-reviewed paper will be worth reading.

Re:Something is wrong here

[sonicattack]

What scares me quite a bit about creating artificial neural networks, is how consciousness and the experience of pain comes into the equation.

Does any complex enough system have a consciousness, just as we do? Is that "equilibrium" the system is trying to accomplish experienced as something similar to a person trying to keep their balance on their feet? As a person trying to keep their body away from a surrounding fire?

What if there is a sharp feeling of discomfort in such an artificial system when its input parameters are not within "specifications" (plane flying level)?

Can the experience of pain / discomfort always be measured from outside? Should we continue creating artificial neural networks if we can't answer that question?

Then again - maybe I am being squeamish for no reason.

Certainly not. I think these questions should be seriously considered, since we may eventually (if we haven't already) be creating a real conscious being, perhaps with no way ever of telling the outside world that it experiences a constant feeling of pain....

After all, if your entire existence was flying imaginary planes, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

... or even boredom.

Re:Ethical concerns not just for the religious

[polyp2000]

An interesting post - too bad we dont have more discussions like this on slashdot.

Ethical issues are certainly something to be considered - but this does not neccesarily just apply to biological neural networks. I dont see any reason why we shouldnt apply the same concerns to neural networks in software or silicon. Although instinct suggests to me that a biological network is going to be the most similar to the real thing and therefore more likely to offer closer similarities.

My personal take on conciousness is that it is an emergent behaviour. For example imagine a brain that is kept alive- but has never received any sensory input. Its fairly likely that it couldnt be concious - because conciousness requires processes based on accumulated knowledge. Whether that is learned by cause and effect - as a baby learns quickly what actions to get a feed. The more choices we have , the more knowledge we have and the more we are able use these things to effect the world around us or to enjoy the things in the world around us.

It is also important to consider more lowly lifeforms which exhibit conciousness. One of my favorite examples is the "Bower Bird". The bower bird exhibits true creativity. The male bower bird attracts females by collecting colorful petals, butterfly wings and other items. And by arranging these items in a specific way create a beautiful display. (experiments were performed whereby a scientist rearranged pieces - the birds would put them in the correct spot again)
Female birds then select a prospective mate by selecting the nest it finds most appealing.

What this shows is that these birds can be considered truly creative in that they can both create a work whilst also being able to appreciate the work of others.

To me this example highlights the fact that we should not make the mistake of thinking that it is only the larger - higher level animals that exhibit a complex conciousness.

Anyone interested in these kinds of issues and discussions should look at some of the work by Daniel C Dennet

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/biblio.htm

In particular his book

"Conciousness Explained"

Nick...

Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?

[Bitsy Boffin]

The Corpus Callosum is simply the connecting point between the hemispheres, it transfers signals from one hemisphere to the other.

The brain is fully functional even when sliced in two, however it does lead to some really fascinating side effects brought about by the differing functions of the two sides.

In effect, we all have two brains, they do different things but by communication we end up with a single whole brain, once you cut the CC you're back to two brains, with different capabilities. Most of the time you won't notice the difference because the brains compensate adequately, but in certain situations you can expose some truely bizarre features.

When a picture was flashed to the right side of the split-brain patient, he could easily tell what was in the picture (keys, a pipe, a banana, whatever) just like a normal, unoperated person. This is because speech is located in the left brain. When pictures were flashed to the left side of the patient, going to the right brain, he kept saying, "I can't see a picture." When the experimenters then asked the patient (who just said he couldn't see the picture) to reach behind a screen and reach into a box with several items such as a key, pipe, glasses, he would always, that is always, pick out the item which had been flashed to his right brain.

So what was going on? It turns out that the right brain did see the picture and understood what was in the picture. But, the right brain does not have a speech center, and so it couldn't tell the experimenters what was in the picture. When the patient said he didn't see it, it was his left brain which was talking! And his left brain did not see the picture because it was shown exclusively the right brain. Although the right brain couldn't speak, it could answer the question with its hand, much like mute people do.

In later experiments, these patients were shown photographs of famous people. Again when they were shown to the left brains, the patient's could identify the person in the picture and verbally report that to the experimenters. This is just like what an ordinary person would do. But, when the picture was shown to the right brain, the mute brain, the person could not verbally report what he saw. The experimenters decided to have the patient use a thumbs up or down signal with their left hand when the pictures were shown exclusively to their mute right brains. The first picture got a thumbs up, the second a thumbs down, and the third a thumbs horizontal. The first was a picture of Johnny Carson, the second, Hitler, and the third Nixon.

What this means is that the experimenters were in effect able to have two separate conversations, one with each hemisphere, left and right. Note that the mute right hemisphere has an intact mind separate from the verbal left sided mind. The right sided mind can't speak, but it does understand English, knows how to follow the experimenters' instructions, and even holds political opinions.

(http://www.schiffermd.com/dualbrain.html)

Here's another interesting link with details about one case which through having an unusual development of language in both sides of the brain the experimenters were able to discover that the two brains (after separation) were vastly different in thier ideas, rigt down to what job the person would like to lead (race car driver vs draghtsman!).

http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/S pl it_Brain/Split_Brain_Consciousness.html