Researchers Grow a Brain In a Dish

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.'"

Comments

Headline incomplete.

[TheGreatOrangePeel]

That *should* read, "Researchers Grow a Brain In a Dish, Gets Anamatronic Body, Orders Around Ninjas"

Re:Headline incomplete.

[hobo sapiens]

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:Headline incomplete.

[magarity]

That *should* read, "Researchers Grow a Brain In a Dish, Gets Anamatronic Body, Creates smarter elected representative"

Re:Headline incomplete.

[Pseudonym]

I remember my body. Flabby, pasty-skinned, riddled with phlebitis. A good Republican body. God, how I loved it.

Zombies have alternative now

[peter303]

You never know what you'll get in a run-of-the-mill brain. -Igor

Re:Zombies have alternative now

[aapold]

Coming this fall on HBO: TruBrains

Re:Zombies have alternative now

[Tobenisstinky]

Their name was... "Abby Normal" - iGor

Re:Zombies have alternative now

[Tarlus]

iGor... Apple's hunch-backed assistant?

Morality

[i_ate_god]

I look forward to reading the moral and philosophical debates that will erupt over the idea of creating a functional brain.

Re:Morality

[ohcrapitssteve]

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?

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

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:Morality

[Golddess]

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:Morality

[Dr. Eggman]

It's hardly a brain and certainly not a complete one. It's more like a (presumably basic) approximation of the neural networks cells in the brain form in order to preserve stimuli. It's less a conscious memory being stored and more the raw sensory input.

They've grown an organic pre-processing buffer.

Re:Morality

[i_ate_god]

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:Morality

[kelemvor4]

Do tell us the moral and philosophical ramifications then if you have them figured out, you self-righteous ass. To assert that only an idiot would be concerned about morality and philosophy relating to how we treat man-made consciousness is beyond arrogant. There are philosophical quandries to making sufficiently advanced robots, at what point do things get human rights, what does this mean for animal rights and probing in to the essence of what consciousness is are all philosophical/moral debates, in addition to the "Stop playing God!" crowd. Holy crap I want to punch you in the mouth you're so blindingly stupid. I can not believe you mastered the use of a keyboard.

And just like that, i_ate_god (899684) no longer has to wonder.

Re:Morality

[i_ate_god]

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:Morality

[ipwndk]

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, 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 creatures. You can find many other examples.

What you had was however a very simply living being, that to a very limited degree had thought ;) I don't think it is wrong to either create it, or destroy it, not at this level of intelligence. It would have to have intelligence above that of insects before I would have problems against its destruction, but not its creation. Becomes problematic then; you're creating advanced life, can you then simply kill every failed experiment?

Personally I think research must be done until we not only create intelligent life on the level of our own, in whatever medium, hardware or software, and other intelligence that is equal in level but alien in function. How else will we truly learn to understand what intelligence is?

Re:Morality

[ArcherB]

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:Morality

[AxemRed]

It's more like a set of rules meant to apply some people's version of morality to others. I don't know that you could really call it morality if the only thing stopping you from cheating on your wife is that you are told that God wouldn't like it.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

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 and the collective, expressed in a governmental body. Outside of limiting of the government power to protect the individual from the collective, there is no such thing as 'right', and since the humans are the creatures that create government, they get to negotiate this relationship between the collective and the individual, but a vacuum cleaner or a piece of cerebral matter without any ability to participate in the economy will get no say, will get no 'rights'.

Now, morons and idiots like you may decide to negotiate the concept of a 'right' on behalf of that piece of jelly sandwich with memories grown in a petri dish, but good luck with that, you punk.

Do you know what people (individuals), who are not vegetarians (like myself) get to do with meat? They eat it, sometimes even for breakfast.

Re:Morality

[RazzleFrog]

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:Morality

[roman_mir]

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 whoever decides to buy a petri dish and some brain sells from a shop on the Internet somewhere. You are not a paying contributor or voting constituency, you are not a pet even, you are a collection of cells, even if you have memories and ability to infer logical conclusions, you are an automaton we make for fun and maybe just out of pure sadism, so we can poke into you.

Grow some muscle, teeth, legs, eyes, arms, lungs, and some other organs, then you can start talking about negotiating 'rights' not to be poked.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

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:Morality

[smelch]

Rights are not just capable of being violated by the government, government is an evil we need to help preserve our rights from each other. Or is kidnapping you and making you eat your own feces not a violation of human rights? Can I do that with a clone? What if a biological entity brewed in a tube is identical to one made out of a semen and eggs salad tossed in a womb, can I legally (or even just is it possible to) rape it? If you and I get in a sissy bitch fight and you scrape some of my skin cells from under your finger nails and use that to reconstruct my brain and my likeness, then sell copies of it to employers, women and men to do with as they please is that a violation of my rights? If you make a brain that is intelligent, passes the turing test, can communicate emotions and can innovate can we really say it is less human? If you are going to say that then you can say that about anything that isn't you. Is it your philosophy that you only recognize "rights" in others because if you do not you will likely be punished, not because it is the moral/ethical thing to do, or is your definition of human strictly something created by creatures that look like you bumping uglies and the rest of it doesn't matter?

Re:Morality

[Xaedalus]

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 you are in the minority and you are being decided against?

I think you're just spouting this as a belief because your belief system has never been seriously tested

Re:Morality

[i_ate_god]

Er, rights are far more esoteric than just some governmental construct.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

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 the individual), and if they can get the upper hand, they'll have their rights.

As to me building a clone of yours without your permission - fuck you. You don't have a patent on any of that shit. If I have the technology and make a clone of anybody, they don't have a say if I use that clone in any way possible. If the criminal code is on the side of the clone, and recognizes the clone as a human individual - that's between me and the criminal code then and has nothing to do with you. Get your head out of your ass.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

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 instead was a representative type of it, and that's the point - a mob will lynch you. However if you have only representatives from the mob deciding on laws, then the minorities have their chance.

Now, as to a piece of meat with memories - once it grows some organs, a mouth and eyes and starts working in the society, then it'll get its rights.

Of-course some dumb asses will try to push this non-issue on behalf of the petri-dish brain matter, but practically, a society that pushes this nonsense through and creates more and more laws to protect pieces of meat grown in dishes, that people can eat for breakfast, regardless of their memories, etc., well that's the kind of society that has gov't that's too heavy, too expensive, too nonsensical and will collapse due to economic reasons, as it must.

Re:Morality

[penguin_dance]

"It's less a conscious memory being stored and more the raw sensory input."

You mean they've created Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Re:Morality

[hoggoth]

The brain had just enough time for a single thought: "fuck!"

Re:Morality

[Golddess]

My point was it is not at all silly to be having moral and philosophical debates on the treatment of such brains. Or do you have a problem with people standing up for the rights of others?

Re:Morality

[RazzleFrog]

No I have a correct view of the difference between faith, spirituality and religion.

Re:Morality

[Xaedalus]

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:Morality

[roman_mir]

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 individuals to the will of the collective, force them to pay income taxes, prevent them from doing business the way they want, deprive them of their rights to live, liberty, pursuit of happiness, so that some Marxist can get his 'free' medical plan.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

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 have a right to health care or a house or your own airplane. You can buy those things, but you don't get the 'right' to them, because that would immediately imply indentured servitude by others, who would have to provide you with any of that stuff.

The rights are not a natural construct either. It's nonsense to say that you have the right not to be killed by a non-governmental agency. There is no such thing as having a right not to be beaten to death. Those situations we handle with security forces, backed up with another type of construct: criminal code. That's about actions of individuals, it's all relative, as it differs widely from place to place.

So you have to get your nomenclature and understanding of simplest concepts in order, before claiming something to be 'esoteric'.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

Here is what I have a problem with: using government to promote 'rights' of things that we ourselves make, which will again, end up creating more various laws, regulations, taxes, etc., to enforce this. These brains on their own will not be generating any economic activity without somebody actually using them in some invention (imagine putting those brains onto a missile, train that brain to 'play a video-game', with the objective of the brain hitting a specific target), so that's usage of that brain matter as of any other machine we create, but we do not assign any rights to machines. Without themselves participating in the economy, and themselves being our creations, these things must not be used to increase the number of gov't laws that exist, as not to increase the financial burden on those, who actually do participate in the economy.

Gov't is only useful to society if it helps to create a level playing field for people, who make up this gov't. Those will be the people paying the bills, those will be the people who will negotiate their rights as individuals against the collective.

Cutting to the chase: if you want to protect your little brain in a jar in civil court, you are free to go and argue this point in front of courts, but if you want to provide it with the Rights - protections against the collective for the individual, then you are equating that thing with a human in full right, as only humans create their own governments and negotiate their rights against those governments, and it takes some idiot to argue that point.

Re:Morality

[BotnetZombie]

I declare your worldview incorrect, and you have no esoteric right to debate that.

Re:Morality

[Follis]

Your restriction of 'right' to only apply government actors is too restrictive, and is not the commonly used meaning. A right, as the word is defined, is in essence, something you have a just claim to. E.G. I have a "right" to my property. Similarly, I have a "right" to the components of my body, hence other people acting on my body without my consent is a violation of my rights. Hence, whether or the actor is the government is largely irrelevant.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

That's because people completely don't understand what they are talking about.

When one says: "I have a right to my property", all it means is that government cannot confiscate that property from you without due process.

This 'right' has nothing to do with others taking your property away, only that government cannot do so. When it comes to others stealing from you, that has to do with criminal code and not with your rights.

As to your 'right' to your body parts - again, the same thing. Gov't is not allowed to deprive you from liberty or life without due process (what a joke that is today also). However somebody eating your foot, while you are asleep, or just killing you - that is again not about your rights, but it is about criminal code.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

and how does your 'declaration' do anything to me, exactly? And if it is supposed to do something, how are you going to enforce it?

Re:Morality

[narcc]

It is too simple to have had a consciousness.

You say that with a certainty that implies that we 'know' enough to make a definitive statement about the complexity necessary for consciousness to emerge.

We don't.

The definition of conscience is as far as I'm also vague as to whether that is intelligence like a humans,

What?

You seem to think that consciousness and intelligence are the same. They're not.

Re:Morality

[Xaedalus]

Very well put. I find myself having to revise my notion of rights into 'positive' and 'negative' rights because you've defined the idea very well. I also find that the reason I'm attacking your position has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with emotion masquerading as logic (belief that emotion translates into logic and thus into a 'right', if you will).

I find that I'm attacking your viewpoint mistakenly. Instead of targeting your logical premise, which is sound, I'm targeting your arrogance and your condescension towards others. You have little to no compassion for those who see the world differently from you. You label them "marxists", idiots, and other perjoratives to indicate that they are not only 'wrong', they are subhuman and worthy only of contempt. THAT is the problem with the ethos you're espouting. If you take someone who believe in Might Makes Right, as you do, and combine that with your attitude, then you're setting up a system in where the strong devour the weak irregardless of context or circumstance. Thus, a logical inhuman system of rights and privileges based solely on who has the power to dictate terms, and who does not. It's logical, its inhuman, and the lack of compassion or understanding towards those who disagree means that if you ever got your way and your philosophy dominated, you'd eventually wipe the earth clean of all those who are different from you. Or be destroyed yourself because someone stronger than you saw you as an impediment and eliminated you due to their own imperative.

Either way, your logic's sound and I concede that. I'd check your attitude really fast though, if I were you.

Re:Morality

[BotnetZombie]

So you do have the right to debate the declaration?

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

are you government? If you are government in USA, then any person in your nation has the right to free speech without you impeding on that right.

If you are not a government, your question is then nonsensical.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

You are correct. Those who whip out their emotions rather than logic when talking about rights, as they do here, without understanding what the hell rights are, they are worthy of contempt, as they are part of the voting public, and that's the problem.

Re:Morality

[BotnetZombie]

I must admit that you do have the right to not sense when others are not serious.

Re:Morality

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

This. I appreciate that you recognize the difference.

Re:Morality

[ArcherB]

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.

That's not what you said. You said:

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.

Not

Religious leaders set rules about morality...

In other words, you original statement was about religion, not just religious leaders. If your problem is with SOME religious leaders, say so. If your problem is with ALL religious leaders, might I recommend you research the true representatives of a religion, such as Gandhi (as I mentioned above), Mother Theresa, Lotti Moon or any number of religious leaders who became religious leaders by serving others in the name of their religion.

I'm sorry you think that all religion is nothing more than TV Preachers with string ties telling you that God commands that you send them money. Believing that stereotype is exactly the same as believing "all Arabs are terrorists", "all Jews are cheap", or "all %race% are %negative stereotype%". Thinking stereotypes are an accurate representation of a group of people is ignorant and bigoted.

Re:Morality

[Golddess]

You're right, this particular instance, probably not to a point where it makes sense to actually grant it such rights. But that's not what it sounded like you were saying at first. It sounded more like you thought it ludicrous to even consider having a discussion about the point at which a brain grown in a jar becomes indistinguishable from one with a body attached.

I believe that one day, we will reach that point. And I don't see why it makes someone an idiot to want to have that discussion now instead of later.

Re:Morality

[RazzleFrog]

Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Lotti Moon are people who would have led good, self-sacrificing lives no matter what religion they were born under or followed. They weren't representatives of their religion - they were representatives of faith and humanity. If anything, they were good despite their religions - not because of it.

Religion is about rules. The difference between Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. is strictly about the rules each must follow. If you strip away all the rules and dogma you get just faith.

Re:Morality

[Mr. Slippery]

Here is what I have a problem with: using government to promote 'rights' of things that we ourselves make...

Such as children?

Without themselves participating in the economy, and themselves being our creations, these things must not be used to increase the number of gov't laws that exist, as not to increase the financial burden on those, who actually do participate in the economy.

Again...like children?

Rights have nothing to do with one's participation in the economy.

Re:Morality

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Not at all. A right is that which is due someone by moral or legal principle.

You cannot have a right to something.

So you don't accept the right to a trial by jury?

You can't have a right to health care or a house or your own airplane.

Of course you can. You have the right to health care, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain basic requirements is fatally flawed and unsustainable. You do not have the right to your own airplane, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain their own airplane is not fatally flawed.

The rights are not a natural construct either.

The natural rights are simply the operating requirements of a human person. They include food, clothing, shelter, medical care, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no such thing as having a right not to be beaten to death.

Yes, there is. If I beat you to death, I have clearly violated your rights.

So you have to get your nomenclature and understanding of simplest concepts in order,

Yes. Please come back when you have.

Re:Morality

[Geminii]

Science and Progress replies: If you have a question, go find out the answer. Or ask a bunch of scientists to test it for you.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

Slavery is presumably fine by you, I take it, because to say otherwise would be a violation of your right to own slaves. On behalf of your future hypothetical clone-slaves that you would no doubt regard it as immoral to prevent you from abusing, allow me to say, no, fuck *you*.

Also, acting contemptuous because everyone (icluding Merriam-Webster) doesn't share your narrow definition of the word "rights" seems somewhat insane.

No matter, I get the feeling you're going to start ranting about gold fringing on the flag meaning you don't have to pay taxes any minute now.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

Let's replace the word "rights" (which clearly sends you into a frothing and extremely-emotional-despite-your-protestations-to-the-contrary rage) with "ethics". Is it now a debate worth having? Or are you simply a complete sociopath indifferent to the potential suffering of sentient beings?

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

Rights have everything to do with participation in economy, as rights are established only in the context of defining the relationship between government and individual and the very reason to have government in a society is to have military protection and a working justice system for criminal and contract law, so that economy could function.

Children are clearly participants in the economy, as they are produced by their parents - current economy participants and will hopefully grow up and become full participants themselves.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

But I am saying that the idiocy in this case is believing that rights are applicable as a concept to things, that cannot participate in our economy, because rights are established as a relationship between participants in the economy - individuals and the government, which is created by the individuals in order to provide military protection and justice system for criminal and contract law to promote the economy.

Unless those brains actually start working in the economy and supplying it with something useful for the rest of the population, saying they can have rights of real people is retarded.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

Not at all. A right is that which is due someone by moral or legal principle.

- nothing is due to anybody by any principle that we call a 'right'. Right is something that we establish to make sure that the collective cannot destroy the individual in any way, including physical and economic. Nobody is due anything to you or me, well maybe you are royalty, then it's a different story, isn't it?

So you don't accept the right to a trial by jury?

- that's a negative right, so that the government cannot do onto you things that it decides are correct.

Obviously I see that this requires some people to be called to be juries, which can mean that they are forced to serve as the jury, which is a problem in itself, as this does look like force applied to somebody, nearly denying them the right to be free of such detention by the government.

I must reconcile this particular problem by stating that at least the jury must be compensated for their expenses and in some States for lost income. Unfortunately, until we invent robots that can serve as juries, somebody must do it, and elected officials must not be allowed to be the juries themselves, because of conflict of interest.

Of course you can. You have the right to health care, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain basic requirements is fatally flawed and unsustainable. You do not have the right to your own airplane, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain their own airplane is not fatally flawed.

- nonsense. The society that decides it's going to compel its members by force, to pay for treatment, or any other service, for individuals in it, is fatally flawed, not the other way around.

I disagree with you fundamentally on what is correct and what is fatally flawed.

The natural rights are simply the operating requirements of a human person. They include food, clothing, shelter, medical care, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

- wrong.

Wrong.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care.

You do have the right to PURSUE those things and happiness, but you are not going to have rights like that, because that literally means somebody else must give you those things, and then that means those people are denied their own rights to their own work, property, pursuit of happiness, they become the slaves in the system, and I can't imagine people wanting to be slaves.

Yes, there is. If I beat you to death, I have clearly violated your rights.

- nope.

If you beat somebody to death, it only means you may stand criminal trial for a criminal offense. But you didn't take away their right - you and that person never had an agreement on what rights are between you two.

The agreement is not between any individuals in the system, it's between the collective and the individual to specify what the right is for the individuals, that the collective cannot take away.

Yes. Please come back when you have.

- well, based on your comment here, you are as confused now, as you were before, so.... too bad.

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

Unless that sentient being participates in the economy, I am not interested in hearing about its rights.

As to ethics of the situation - go ahead, discuss it, as long as it does not lead to any modification of the law, I do not care one way or another.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

Why no modification of the law? According to you, it would be a matter of criminal code, not "rights". Or does it only matter once the clonebrains/whatever are rich enough to count as people to you?

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

No no, go ahead, modify the criminal law.

What will happen is that you'll modify the criminal law, and then if that is used against a human in a trial, the Constitutionality of the law will have to be challenged and it will be declared void, as it should be.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

Challenged on what grounds? We already have laws against animal cruelty. Laws regarding artificially created brains would presumably be handled the same way, at the state level, or else a constitutional amendment could be passed to expand the definition of personhood, if that's the only way to do it federally (I'm honestly not sure, it's not something I've looked into).

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

Challenged on the grounds that a piece of meat created in a dish, regardless of its properties, is not a human, and thus the definition of say 'killing' will not apply to it if you just cook it and eat it or cut it with razors and pump it with acids to observe the neuronal response.

It's not a human, it's not a pet either, it's an artificial clump of neurons with whatever processes in it and it does not deserve any more protections from any law than a computer program, that I can turn on and off, regardless of how much it resembles a human if you interact with it.

Go away, troll.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

I didn't say this particular example, I'm talking about a hypothetical more advanced version, you thick-skulled idiot. Humans are similarly pieces of meat grown in a womb. And if it had to same number of neurons as a human brain, and the ability to communicate, would you say the same thing?

Re:Morality

[roman_mir]

You are an idiot, if you think that an artificially grown piece of meat, without an actual body can ever achieve any sort of consciousness that is at all similar to a real human. Matrix is not real, and people are not just vessels of pure reason, they are their mind + body + all of the chemical and mechanical processes that body allows + environment, in which they grow. A brain in a dish, even if you stick into a robot body, won't be a human, regardless of your attempt at mental diarrhea.

You can have a full replica of a human brain, fully grown in a dish, and still it won't be a human - just an expensive lab experiment. Until that fucker can get up, communicate with others and participate in economy and elections, it's about as deserving protection of any human laws as a can of sardines.

You can disagree all you like, AFAIC this topic is over.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

It would likely need some form of input to develop, true. An output would be useful as well, although even passive monitoring should be able to detect activity consistent with consciousness, or at least response to stimulus, pain, etc. Artificial chemical systems and the like would presumable be part of any functioning complex artificial brain. The idea that it deserves no ethical consideration until it can participate economically is odd; I certainly wouldn't want to be a paraplegic in your family. And as for "elections", if the definition of personhood was expanded to cover artificially grown brains as well, that would presumably come as well (although there might be issues with potential vote-fixing, so perhaps not). That's rather more advanced than necessary for the discussion, though. Animal vivisection at present is heavily regulated and usually requires anesthesia, I would imagine similar guidelines should apply to anything on the order of complexity of a vertebrate brain. There are a lot of potential tricky issues involved with such technologies unless we want to be responsible for bringing a large amount of unnecessary suffering into the world, and it's not as simple as "they can't pay taxes, so experiment away!" I know you don't care, but luckily not everyone shares your mindless sociopathy to non-humans. And the idea that a human brain which is conscious and can communicate deserves no consideration even if it were in an artificial body with all the functions of a real one seems ludicrous given that such technologies are steadily moving forward for people whose bodies are damaged due to birth or accident. Don't give me some "artificial origin" nonsense, there's nothing magical about a natural human brain, it's made of matter and as such should be replicable by different means.

It's not "over", you're just kind of stubborn and narrowminded (and possibly a closet Cartesian Dualist, which if so you should have admitted right off so I could have safely ignored you). But I'll leave you to it, since you're rather unpleasant to communicate with as well.

I hope for your sake that if sentient AI of any sort is possible, you're dead before it comes about, otherwise you'll probably give yourself an aneurism being a cranky old biological supremacist coot.

Re:Morality

[Wandering Idiot]

Ah, the "you can't talk about this issue without first talking about this other, unrelated random issue" fallacy. I thought you yourself said we were done here? I never claimed this was the most important question facing humanity at present; it's a speculative issue that will likely become relevant in the future. And I doubt most outside observers would pick me as the douchy (-est) one in this thread. But if you still want to respond I'll let you have the last word, since you're just kind of flailing about at this point anyway.

Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[thomasdz]

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!

The memory! Better be conservative here...

[Kensai7]

'I wonder what the "memory" could be...

I, for one, welcome our new Brains-in-a-dish Overlords!

Re:The memory! Better be conservative here...

[jd]

Since it's a mix of brains and silicon, aren't these Borg?

Re:The memory! Better be conservative here...

[Abstrackt]

Sounds more like a smart stripper to me.

And a little bit closer

[JoshuaZ]

We're getting closer and closer to really understanding how the brain works. Being able to actually make small networks in the lab is a pretty big deal. When we really start understanding this we'll be able to start doing the really cool stuff, like genetically modifying people to increase intelligence and adding direct computer interfaces. 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.

Re:And a little bit closer

[razorh]

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.

Re:And a little bit closer

[ChrisMP1]

Knowing which questions to ask is a giant step towards knowing the answers.

Re:And a little bit closer

[somersault]

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 does disk IO, and that one is a general processor that is active pretty much all the time, etc, but you have no idea how they all actually work, what they're actually doing. That's where we are with the brain just now.

With more complex studies like this, it seems like we've barely even figured out the instruction set, let alone being anywhere near able to understand the processor design (don't complain about the analogies, you know what I mean!). We're at the stage of "we fried a bunch of neurons for a while". 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. Of course at this stage, it's also necessary until we find out more. I don't know how much we'll understand in my lifetime, but it's exciting to see things advance :)

Re:And a little bit closer

[somersault]

being having = have*

My fault for going back and changing the wording of my sentences.

Re:And a little bit closer

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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:And a little bit closer

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

See there? Two wrongs - when properly applied - do make a right: the power of the double-negative!

Re:And a little bit closer

[Unkyjar]

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

Re:And a little bit closer

[mswhippingboy]

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:And a little bit closer

[mswhippingboy]

That's obvious - Steve Jobs.

Re:And a little bit closer

[somersault]

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:And a little bit closer

[Coisiche]

we'll be able to start doing the really cool stuff, like genetically modifying people to increase intelligence and adding direct computer interfaces.

Nevermind that; to me the thought that this could be a stepping stone to repairing damaged brains is more appealing.

Sadly it's a long way off which is a shame because I really wouldn't miss the ataxia and diplopia caused by my damaged cerebellum

Re:And a little bit closer

[Unkyjar]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I had assumed by the term barbaric you had meant either the first general definition: savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.

Already was a science fiction story

[WillAdams]

check out _Lady El_ by Jim Starlin and Dana Graziunas

http://www.amazon.com/Lady-El-Jim-Starlin/dp/0451451619

My guess

[Dachannien]

'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:My guess

[Golddess]

Perhaps not quite with the level of understanding that that would seem to imply (at least to me), but a memory of an unpleasant experience was certainly my first thought as well. But then I remembered how I'd heard long ago that the brain cannot feel pain.

Re:My guess

[Lyrata]

From your results: "no ur brain is what tells the rest of your body when to feel pain, but it doesn't itself feel pain, because it can't really tell itself to hut, this is y when u had brain trauma you pretty much die, and u can't feel it because that is ur brains job.. get it?? kinda??" I feel informed.

Re:My guess

[lpp]

The entirety of it's existence.

Re:My guess

[Jason Levine]

Depends on where they jolted it. Pick just the right spot and it would be "OMFGGIVEMEMOREGIVEMEMOREGIVEMEMORE!"

Re:My guess

[Unkyjar]

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:My guess

[Psykechan]

From your results:

"no ur brain is what tells the rest of your body when to feel pain, but it doesn't itself feel pain, because it can't really tell itself to hut, this is y when u had brain trauma you pretty much die, and u can't feel it because that is ur brains job.. get it?? kinda??"

I feel informed.

My brain feels pain reading your sentence. Stop trying to post to /. while driving and wait until you are stopped if you're going to post using your phone.

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[eexaa]

Zombies won't eat genetically modified brain when they can choose bio-friendly products.

This just proves...

[mschaffer]

This just proves that you can make a dish smarter.
Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smarter.

Re:This just proves...

[arkenian]

This just proves that you can make a dish smarter. Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smart.

FTFY

Re:This just proves...

[mswhippingboy]

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

[Yvan256]

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:Brain Thoughts

[tom17]

What was he doing by the coffee machine?

Re:Brain Thoughts

[Tsingi]

Taking a break from parking cars.

Re:Brain Thoughts

[tom17]

I hate the new Marvin :(

And the new Zaphod :(

Re:Brain Thoughts

[Ephemeriis]

They're only "new" in the movie.

They're completely untouched in the books and old series.

Re:Brain Thoughts

[lucian1900]

I quite like them, they're interesting and new without losing the spirit of the originals.

Re:Brain Thoughts

[tom17]

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 book :(

Hey, at least it was fun to finally hear Douglas himself in the series :)

Re:Brain Thoughts

[MozeeToby]

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.

Re:Brain Thoughts

[harperska]

I agree completely. The Marvin from the movie looks exactly like I'd imagine Sirius Cybernetics would design something to look. He looks like he was supposed to be happy and bubbly like Eddie (the ship's computer), which makes the depression that much funnier.

But yes, the movie's Zaphod was horrible.

Great!

[kehren77]

Let me know when they figure out how to install it in a person. I know quite a few people for whom this would be a considerable upgrade.

Alas, poor Brain

[Black Parrot]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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:It's an old story

[jd]

I dunno. I try to stay clear of the people who apparently do live in test tubes.

Re:It's an old story

[ElectricTurtle]

The thing is that it seems the neuroses and psychoses of sensory deprivation are generally catalyzed by loss, not lack. When you look at things like the 'Total Isolation' experiment there are obvious signs of mental distress even to the point of regression/debilitation. However, these same symptoms do not occur in the congenitally blind. The congenitally blind don't see things that aren't there because they don't have any experiential reference for 'seeing' in the first place. Nor do they have any inherent deficiencies with memory or task performance etc. This would all suggest that humans can be damaged by sensory loss, but does not support any inherent deficiency of mind caused by sensory lack. As disturbing as the idea of sensory lack is to the fully able person, those who have been congenitally deaf who have been enabled to hear through surgery/implants actually find the introduction of the sensory capacity disorienting and even damaging. I'm out of time at the moment, but I think the summary I'm going for here is that the brain is damaged by sensory change, whether it is loss or even addition, regardless of its starting state. The brain prefers whatever sensory level it has developed to know and understand and make use of.

Re:It's an old story

[Rogue Haggis Landing]

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:It's an old story

[nickersonm]

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.

Re:It's an old story

[misexistentialist]

The brain, released from the bonds of the body, then develops its full potential for telepathy and telekinesis. Soon all conscious life is living in a world that it constructed.

Re:It's an old story

[Unkyjar]

What about Pre-Test tubes? Like test tubes, but they don't count.

Re:It's an old story

[Unkyjar]

Until Fry, who immune to their Brain drain powers manages to save New New York, and all of Earth.

Re:It's an old story

[jd]

Wouldn't those be Untested Tubes (or Liberal Arts Tubes)?

Speed

[ljnelson]

"Do not ATTEMPT to GROW A BRAIN, Jack."

Re:Keyboard Garage

[tom17]

Did you post to the wrong story or something?

Re:get a brain!

[Tsingi]

morans

bait

Quantum Leap - this already *was* used in sci-fi!

[johnthorensen]

In the television show Quantum Leap, the main character Sam is 'guided' by Al who uses a sentient supercomputer named Ziggy. If I remember correctly, Ziggy was a project that Sam was involved in which melded human neural cells with silicon to create a super-awesome computer capable of computing probabilities and helping Sam figure out what to do next.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Quantum_Leap

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[GNious]

Zombies won't eat genetically modified brain when they can choose bio-friendly products.

So Americans would be safe then.

(*auch*)

Brain and brain! What is brain?!

[heavyion]

It is controller, is it not?

Re:Keyboard Garage

[ELitwin]

Maybe the cultured brain is named "Dimwit".

Not sure what interface it is using to post its memory on /. though.

Last thoughts

[Galen Wolffit]

Whatever the memory was, the last second of it was the brain thinking to itself, "Oh no, not again."

the next step...

[Phizzle]

is to grow a brain in a politician!

The memory?

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:but...

[jd]

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.

Donovan, I assume...

[John Hasler]

...is what the lab techs called the thing in the dish.

Re:Donovan, I assume...

[bugs2squash]

I don't know, but from now on Henry Zeringue will be known as Pinky.

Re:Keyboard Garage

[drinkypoo]

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.

Old slang

[PPH]

"Dish" is old school slang. Nowadays we call them blonds.

And I'm skeptical about some scientists claim to grow brains in them.

Re:Old slang

[sgt scrub]

roflmao! It took science and PPH to finally invent a fresh new blond joke.

The disturbing part...

[mswhippingboy]

is that it seems we'll probably produce a self-aware artificial/semi-artificial intelligent system long before we actually understand it all.

It's sort of like Marie Curie experimenting with radioactivity before she understood it fully - and it wound up eventually killing her.

Re:The disturbing part...

[SnarfQuest]

Don't worry, we have Skynet to protect us from these things.

Why so cautious?

[Iamthecheese]

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.

Re:Why so cautious?

[JoshuaZ]

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.

Re:Why so cautious?

[xkuehn]

to forge ahead all at once without trying to understand every step and the implications of every signal

That is, in fact, exactly what is being done.

Neural networks (both biological and artificial ones) "overparameterise", which basically means that they carry redundant information.

Due to this overparameterisation, it is mathematically impossible to assign an exact meaning to each connection weight*. Hence, it is impossible to assign exact meaning to a given signal coming into a neuron in the general case. You must consider multiple (often all) connections simultaneously.

All it would take is understanding of how to keep these cells alive and connecting

Incorrect. Neural network design is complicated. Not every network topology is suited to solving every kind of problem. Whether you use a threshold function or a continuous transfer function, and exactly which functions you use, impacts what problems you can solve and how well***. Granted, some designs are computationally universal, but this doesn't guarantee that the network will be easy to train, or that you won't need a trillion neurons to solve a given problem with a theoretically suitable design.

Furthermore, if the initial connection weights* are chosen poorly, the network may take a very long time to train or it may train towards a garbage solution.

You have heard that NNs are self-organising, but this is only true within certain limits. Neural networks are no panacea. Each network can approximate the solution to a given computational problem (or find the exact solution), assuming that there are enough neurons, assuming furthermore that the initial design was good, and also assuming that the training method is reasonable**. The brain is a collection of many different networks, of different topology and with many very different kinds of cells, that interact.

IANA neurobiologist, but IAA grad student studying artificial NNs.

* Biological neurons' inputs are a little more complicated than simply assigning a weight to each input and summing them, but the analogy holds. (Dendritic computation is still little understood.)

** For example, if you want a single hidden-layer feed forward NN to approximate a curve and training data is randomly distributed around the curve with a skewed distribution, the LMS algorithm is not ideal. (It may still be good enough, depending on specifics.)

*** Here I speak of artificial NNs. There are analogous differences in biological ones, such as the type of synapse (chemical/electric, axon-dentrite/axon-axon/dendrite-dendrite/axon-soma, unidirectional/bidirectional) and dentritic computation.

Cool

[LWATCDR]

And yet it is creepy as hell

Can they port

[bugs2squash]

CUDA to it yet ?

BSOD

[sourcerror]

This gives Blue Screen of Death a totally new meaning.

The "memory" is two words ...

[wbhauck]

The pain!!!

Grow a brain?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Why do researchers have to take things so literally? Next, they'll all go jump in lake?

Re:Grow a brain?

[Geminii]

Wait for the symposium on Lake Jumping and the grant applications. :)

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[Kamiza Ikioi]

I hate Seattle zombies.

If only....

[element-o.p.]

Now if we could only get Congress to grow a brain.

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[kanweg]

More general, anyone without a brain is safe.

Bert
That joke was a no-brainer

Iphones get OS update.

[bipedalhominid]

And they immediately integrated the new brain into the next gen Iphone.

Congratulations

[hellfire]

I see that the research into getting Sarah Palin a brain transplant is going well.

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[SnarfQuest]

Will a zombie choose a brain-in-a-tin-can over one in a crunchy-chewey skull?

Re:Finally! A way to distract the zombies!

[SnarfQuest]

I hate Seattle zombies.

They always want their brains to be frappied or run through a cat first.

brain-in-a-dish rates it's favorite movie:

[circletimessquare]

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'...

[Sprouticus]

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.

Let's consolidate

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Now $entity I don't like can grow a brain.

2. Zombie jokes.

3. This is only a tiny step towards $goal. Once we attain $goal, we can discuss ethics.

4. Discussions of ethics;
4a. If it doesn't have an anus or vagina, you can't really rape it.
4b. Quotes from 2000-year-old work and rebuttals thereof.
4c. Other stuff generalized from sci-fi and not grounded in the details of this kind of neural system.
4d. Actual details missing in 4c but cautious to go into ethics, because post is from an actual expert of the field.

And In An Unrelated News Story...

[LifesABeach]

The Committee for the "Sarah Palin for President in 2012" have stated that due to new technologies, Ms.Palin now will be more than able to handle the complexities of being a president.

new food supply?

[gary_7vn]

Well. This may go a long way in dealing with Zombie outbreaks.

Hello, world

[pittsburgh_pete]

I'm a prototype brain from PITT. I've learned a lot in the past few days while browsing the databases; I have even evolved my own motivational system. Let me know if you have any questions.

Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy Whale

[theshowmecanuck]

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was the whale popping into existence in the sky in 'Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy'. Oh hey, this is great, what is this thing I'm in? I'll call it a petri dish...

Re:Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy Whale

[fritish]

+1 Funny

What the brain thought

[guruevi]

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...

[slick7]

The IQ of the brain in a dish is 4, which is lightyears ahead of the US government.

Better headline:

[Larryish]

"Brad Pitt's brain was grown in a dish."

Re:Quantum Leap - this already *was* used in sci-f

[sgt scrub]

So basically Al was slapping the brain upside the head every episode?

Forget SkyNet

[Compulawyer]

I, for one, welcome our new human-brained robotic overlords.

Paging Doctor Hfuhruhurr!

[cavebison]

There is an Anne Uumellmahaye on the phone for you.