Flying By Brain

Abby someone by Alien+Being · 2004-10-23 13:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein : Igor, would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in?
Igor : And you won't be angry?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein : I will NOT be angry.
Igor : Abby someone.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein : Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor : Abby Normal.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein : Abby Normal?
Igor : I'm almost sure that was the name.

What's next.. by KinkifyTheNation · 2004-10-23 13:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Are we getting closer to create an artificially made conscious being, or perhaps, a living computer?

Or better yet, self-controlled flying lawnmowers!

Does this......? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 13:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does this freak the shit out of anyone else?

ObSimpsons.... by Elminst · 2004-10-23 13:07 · Score: 5, Funny

I for one welcome our new plane-flying rat-brain overlords...

--
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

One question... by doublebackslash · 2004-10-23 13:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

--
md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz

Re:One question... by ajna · 2004-10-23 13:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

The parent post is simplistic and misinformed. Here's why:

Point 1: This isn't a brain we're talking about, it's 25,000 neurons in a dish that has a grid of electrodes on the bottom, so whatever structure has come to being is unlikely to resemble that of a brain except that it's made up of neurons which synapse on other neurons.

Point 2: Pleasure and pain are not localized in the brain. You can feel many different kinds of pain (visceral via sympathetic nervous system vs. somatic, for instance) and can feel each of these kinds of pain at different regions in the body (and thus different groups of neurons in the brain). I imagine the same holds true for pleasure, with different neurotransmitter pathways involved for each.

About the grandparent, that's exactly what I wondered too, and I couldn't find any pertinent info in the two articles either. The two following paragraphs are what I find to be very handwavy and suspect:

"Initially when we hook up this brain to a flight simulator, it doesn't know how to control the aircraft," DeMarse said.

"So you hook it up and the aircraft simply drifts randomly. And as the data comes in, it slowly modifies the (neural) network so over time, the network gradually learns to fly the aircraft."
Re:One question... by starm_ · 2004-10-23 14:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Well I took a course about artificial neural net (not the biological ones like here). But we learn that biologocal neurons learn by repetition and correlation. When a neuron sees a pattern it tries to repeat it. They probably ran the simulator under different conditions. While giving input to the neurons they forced the output signals. (with simple voltages) The neurons learned these output signals. Afterwards, they just had to give the inputs signals and the neural net would automatically give the output signals it got used to.

basically the net learns an unlinear function or the inputs. outputi = fi(input1,input2,input3,input4 ...) and these are all voltage pulses (caused by chemical reactions and input signal from the computer)in the neural net.
Re:One question... by Quantum+Jim · 2004-10-23 16:02 · Score: 5, Informative

why didn't they try to crash the plane? What sort of positive/negative feedback did they use?

The second article stated that neurons were given information on the tilt of the airplane:

To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane's controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system.

It seems that this experiment builds on earier research by DeMarse, Wagenaar, Blau, and Potter in 2001 called the the animat. It wondered in a box without goal-specific behavior. However, it also tended to specific patterns and states. That is a very readable article - I highly suggest you read it.

But why did the neurons want to stablize the aircraft? I couldn't find a paper on the aircraft experiment, but a second paper, "Removing some 'A' from AI: Embodied Cultured Networks" (by Bakkum, Shkolnik, Ben-Ary, Gamblen, DeMarse, and Potter, 2004) summarized another experiment where neurons were trained to keep a set distance from an object. The paper is the first article on the same page of publications as the first paper. It seems that the neural network responded nonlinearly - that is, it changed state from one behavior to another one - when the input stimulus frequency was adjusted (correct me if I'm wrong). So by changing the input stimulus frequency, they were able to train the network. I gather that the new experiment simply uses when certain "level = good, nonlevel = bad" stimuli. It's a long way off from Robocop II, but it is a start.

--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Re:One question... by tyler_larson · 2004-10-23 17:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Re:One question... by Illserve · 2004-10-23 23:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

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:One question... by NeuroHx0r · 2004-10-24 04:09 · Score: 5, Informative

We did not report LTP because it is NOT LTP. In fact, we are using and effect reported by Eytan, D., Brenner, N., and Marom, S., Selective Adaptation in Networks of Cortical Neurons. Journal of Neuroscience, 2003. 23(28): p. 9349-9356 in which "high" frequency stimulations (once every second) was reported to depress the response of the network while "low" frequency stimulations resulted in an enhanced response. For our system we tied the network's response to the control surfaces, dedicating stimulations on one channel for pitch, and a second for roll control. Each channel is stimulated separately, and the response (PSTH) is recorded. Control movements are proportional to the current error from straight and level by mapping the error (0 to 180 degrees) to the interval 0 to 100 ms of the PSTH and integrating the difference in response before training, to the current or enhanced or depressed levels. The more error, the more the control surface is moved. The networks only gradually control the aircraft since the Marom effect requires over 15 minutes to develop. The two frequencies are then used to adjust these weights (i.e. number of spikes in the PSTH) to produce optimal flight. The neurons/network don't seek optimal flight in the classic sense. Instead, we adjust the weights (using high and low Freq. stims) in the network to produce that result. It is a very simple system and our only interest in it is in terms of those changes within the network and the possibility to extend it to more of the network than just two or three different channels. Hope that helps.. Tom DeMarse

obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 13:08 · Score: 5, Funny

(in drone-like monotone)
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things.

Re:obligatory by mark-t · 2004-10-23 13:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Actually, since it's a living brain, it may even be able to imagine itself.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Great now im going to lose my job by XST1 · 2004-10-23 13:09 · Score: 5, Funny

As an airline pilot for American, its nice to see my job being outsourced by rats in the future.

Re:teh living computer by thorndt · 2004-10-23 13:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

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".

--
- The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -

Do you have to think in Russian? by Omega1045 · 2004-10-23 13:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Do you have to think in Russian?

--

Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

Re:Do you have to think in Russian? by mchinand · 2004-10-23 14:02 · Score: 5, Informative

I assume you're referring to this

Re:Human neurons... by reporter · 2004-10-23 13:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Anyone know how it knows what is "good" and "ba by nucal · 2004-10-23 13:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Steve Potter, the former mentor of the UF researcher has a pretty thorough description of it. http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/groups/potter/animat.h tml

Re:working backwards by Shinglor · 2004-10-23 13:30 · Score: 5, Informative

A brain is a neural network. Artificial neural networks were created to simulate them using mathematical models.

Re:Brain bags! by RedCard · 2004-10-23 13:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Soon we will all be augmented by our extra brain bags! Organic computers in a purse that we either wear or have implanted in our abdomens

To quote the work of Scott Adams...

Dogbert: (Talking to PHB at the office) The dogbert consulting company will plot a new course for your business

Dogbert: My consultants are so smart that their brains don't fit in their heads. They have to strap the extra brains to their torsos.

Ratbert: (Later at home) Why do I need a piece of liver strapped to my torso?

Dogbert: I got a little carried away at the pitch meeting.

Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"? by pclminion · 2004-10-23 13:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

This is your brain... by Eric+Giguere · 2004-10-23 13:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Adds a whole new dimension to the commercial, doesn't it?

This is your brain...
This is your brain on drugs...
This is your brain on drugs flying a plane without you...

Eric
Why Vioxx is Prozac for lawyers

Ladies and gentlemen, from the flight deck by HangingChad · 2004-10-23 13:41 · Score: 5, Funny

This is your captain, Rat Brain 4023, integrated neural network and my first officer, Rat Brain 4024. We'll be flying at an altitude of 30,000 feet and are expecting a nice smooth ride-- HOLY SHIT CHEESE!!! LOOK OVER THERE IT'S CHEESE!!! Ooop, sorry about that, false alarm. We're expecting nice weather in HEY THERE"s A F*ING CAT IN THE CARGO HOLD!!! Eject! Eject! Eject!

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

neurogenesis by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 13:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, neurons are living cells... ...and therefore they can reproduce. This is called neurogenesis...and as I understand it can be stimulated by appropriate amounts of neurotrophin and other chemicals.

However, with all animal brains, there comes a point in the creature's development where the death rate is greater than the birth rate. In humans it happens at about three years, if memory serves (heh). If we could manage to find the correct chemical balance to maintain an average cell count indefinately, then perhaps we could devise a dietary supplement that would have the same (or better) effect on humans...

Of course, giving a person a lot of neurons doesn't mean that person will make use of them...

Something is wrong here by felonius+maximus · 2004-10-23 14:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Despite finding this technology exciting, I also find myself feeling quite disturbed by it.

There are certainly some amazing opportunities here to learn about how brains work, and no doubt this could help us in building better interfaces for cybernetic implants.

I just feel very uncomfortable with this kind of experimentation. It is my understanding that given enough complexity, any system has the potential to become self-aware. This plate has 25,000 neurons in a roughly two-dimensonal matrix (from the Wired article), so it's probably not even as smart as a bug so far (I am just guessing about this, does anyone have figures to compare this to?), but given enough space and time, might it not become sentient?

This reminds me of a similar experiment involving a fish brain controlling a robot. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1043001.stm

Then again - maybe I am being squeamish for no reason. After all, if your entire existence was flying imaginary planes, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

Bigger Problem is Growth of Novel Germs by reporter · 2004-10-23 14:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is a reputable article about the use of pig brain cells in human brains. There is always the problem of an immune system reaction, but the bigger problem is the development of super germs that cross the species barrier.

Saw this a few days ago... by jafiwam · 2004-10-23 14:12 · Score: 5, Funny

... and something is REALLY bugging me about it.

How do you motivate a slice of rat brain to fly a plane? Does it feal pain when it crashes? Get nutrients when it flys far? What?

All too soon we will see little USB plug ins with these things to help the rail-gun spawn-campers aim fast in UT2024; Ultimate.

[FuZZy1] Punched a hole in 3L1T3's cranium
[3L1T3>] NOOB!
[3L1T3]; Rat-bot camper!
[FuZZy1]; LOL!1 That why tehy call me Fuzzy1

The rodent-feline arms race has begun. by PinchDuck · 2004-10-23 14:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Rats are ugly and disgusting and already have claws and teeth and biological weapons capability...now we give them Sidewinders, air-to-ground missles and 20 MM cannon. That's disturbing.

I'm immediately going to deploy a network of cat-neuron controlled anti-aircraft missle batteries.

damned rats.

Different brain cells by Tablizer · 2004-10-23 14:43 · Score: 5, Funny

They tried brain cells from different individuals. Here is the result:

Osama's cells: Plane kept crashing into buildings.

PHB cells: Plane kept flying in circles until it ran out of gas.

Bill Gates cells: Plane kept locking up.

SCO lawyer cells: Plane kept crashing, but blaming other planes.

RMS cells: Plane wanted to call itself "GNU Plane".

G.W. Bush cells: Plane kept crashing into Saddam Hussein no matter what, even if Osama was placed right next to Saddam.

John Kerry cells: Plane would fly to the left, and then to the right, and then to the left....

Slashdot reader cells: Plane would try to fly without first reading the flying manual.

Steve Jobs cells: Plane transformed itself into a slick, modern, translucent jet, but priced itself too high.

Mike Melvill cells: Plane kept going up and up until we lost track of it.

Emacs coder cells: Plane became a boat, a car, a house, a lawn mower, and a finger-nail clipper.

--
Table-ized A.I.

I can't believe it by blamanj · 2004-10-23 15:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Nearly 200 responses and nobody has asked if it runs Linux.

Re:Just because we can? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

How do you define "consciousness". Is an atom conscious? Chemical compound? Chemical reactions? A cell? 10 connected cells? 25,000 connected cells?

Is it when something that can 'learn'? We have computer programs that can learn.
Is something suddenly conscious when it neurons are connected? You have neurons in your leg, is your leg conscious?

Is it something can react with the enviroment? Sperm can react with the enviroment, is it conscious?

Define what it is you are actually against. They got a bunch of cells, and made it send electrical signals in a certin way.

As you say "a wise society is one that can do something, yet chooses not to and offers their reasoning for others to contemplate." But you have offered not reasoning other than to say YOU can't ethically deal with a bunch of cells sending electrochemical reactions to a few other cells and a computer.

Personally I would happly give them 25,000 of my some 100 billion neurons (In my brain alone) if it means that in the future someone who has brain damage can have their brain repaired and have their life go back to normal.

No, because we want to. by Rui+del-Negro · 2004-10-23 16:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to put one person's heart inside another person's chest. If you want to give someone a working heart, fine, but grow one "from scratch". I "know" transplants are just "wrong".

I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to give one person the blood of another. If you need blood to save someone's life, then create blood "from scratch". I "know" transfusions are just "wrong".

I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to perform artificial insemination. If you want to help people who are trying to have children, you should er... create a child from scratch? Or maybe just pray for them (a lot)? Anyway, I "know" IVF is just "wrong".

Guess what, creating those things "from scratch" is very, very hard. And assuming someone put the time and effort into it and created them, what then? A neuron would still be a neuron, whether it came from a brain or from a test tube. And if your problem is with the (abstract) "mind", then how do you manage to turn off your PC? A modern computer, running a modern OS, displays more "intelligent" behaviour than many insects. Is a "mind" any less "sacred" if it's silicon-based, instead of carbon-based?

These experiments are very much right, and should have been done a long time ago. Modern medicine can do amazing things with muscle and bone and skin, but nearly all nervous and neural diseases are impossible to cure or even treat. A lot more research is needed.

Neurons are no more "sacred" than any other cell type (spermatozoons, for example). In fact, millions of both are wasted every second.

Re:working backwards by Shinmizu · 2004-10-23 16:40 · Score: 5, Funny

The egg came first. Why? Well, everything either tastes like chicken or is made from soy. Chicken isn't made from soy, so it can't possibly be a derivative of it. Likewise, soy doesn't taste like chicken.

The egg came first, it hatched out a soybean and a chicken. The soybean evolved into veggie burgers, dirt, and Chevy Avalanches. The chicken eventually evolved into numerous animals, possibly including humans.

34 of 636 comments (clear)