That's not a bad idea. The biggest problem action potentials are in the range of ~40 mV, which means that the photons generated would have to be very low energy and wouldn't be able to be detected through the tissue. But you might be able to do something like a PET scan where the tracer is selectively attracted to active neurons and the emission is from radioactive decay.
The Stanford team used brain samples from a mouse that had been bioengineered so that particularly large neurons that abound in the cerebral cortex express a fluorescent protein, normally found in jellyfish, that glows yellowish-green."
Not unless you have been genetically modified to have jellyfish proteins in your brain.
Do you know what sycophant means? It's just funny that parent post specifically mentions that as being one of the downsides of being wealthy, then you immediately play to type.
Thank you for showing that you don't know anything about brain imaging. For starters, fMRI only measures concentration of oxygen, nothing about neuron level structure. Second, brain tissue quickly decays almost immediately. As soon as those brain cells quit getting oxygen, all connectivity and structure information is lost. Reread the words you wrote, you can't slice the brain in order to figure out the connection map. The method is physically incompatible with the goal.
We are nowhere near neuron level simulation of the human brain. The closest that we've gotten in the IBM project that simulated approximately the same number of neurons in a cat cortex. But the cortex in only part of the the brain and, of course, a human brain is much larger than a cat brain. But most importantly neurons are to a brain what bricks are to a house. Without the right structure, its just a pile of bricks. Structure is not a problem that can be solved by throwing more transistors at it.
Having a large gas giant to shield the Earth from excessive meteors is thought to be a major factor in the habitability of Earth. So even if we take those numbers at face value and assume that 25% of solar systems have an Earth-like planet, only those that have a Jupiter-like planet (1.5%) are candidates for life. Further assuming those two are independant variables, that drops the odds of finding life down to.375% without even accounting for other contributing factors like having liquid water or a significant moon.
I totally agree with you. I think it should always be pointed out the inherent limitation of these models. D.E. Shaw Research, Folding@home and many others use a force-field model that is fundamentally Newtonian. It doesn't take into account any quantum dynamics, it can't model the formation or dissociation of chemical bonds and most of the simulation parameters aren't much better than a wild guess. There used to be an implicit assumption in the computational chemistry community that all of those little errors would cancel out for large molecules, such as proteins. But, personally, I don't think that assumption has held up very well to experimental scrutiny.
I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving. Truckers, cab drivers, even pizza delivery. A computer can work 24/7, so even if the system costs $100,000, that's still saves money over paying for employees.
Normal sugar is the disaccharide, sucrose, which is a combination of fructose and sucrose. These two are separated by hydrolysis and metabolized separately. But many of the biochemical regulatory mechanisms only apply to glucose and the body just "assumes" that there's one fructose for every glucose. So a diet with a significant unbalance of fructose will bypass many of the body's natural regulation mechanisms, leading to things like child diabetics and obesity.
"yet like 90% of the kids I go to school with are white, middle-class males"
What college do you go to? Women have been more than half of the college population for a decade and every school that I've seen has a significant number (>10%) of Asians.
It's called PR backlash. There are people in the string theory community, such as Brian Greene, who have promoted string theory above and beyond the recognition that it really deserves. When string theory didn't immediately deliver on tangible breakthroughs (the way GR and QM did), people start to grumble and wonder if you're pulling a fast one. And your fellow scientists aren't going to be quick to defend you because their own work (which probably does have a more substantial, immediate impact) gets drowned out in comparison to string theory. Also because physicists have a reputation of being prima donnas.
If you're interested in the idea of religion as a social/mental virus, you should read The Origin of Consciousness and Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. I'm 99% sure that Stephenson "borrowed" those ideas from it.
The Force basically just a 'particle of the week'. It has whatever powers or limitations are necessary to advance the plot, but any rational explanation of it is patently ridiculous.
No. That is just a system that has simulates the same *NUMBER* of neurons and synapses as a cat *CORTEX*. Not the whole brain, none of the brain structure, not even close simulating actual brain activity.
Because then there's no financial incentive to ever rigorously test your drug. Testing is expensive and companies wouldn't bother if they could still profit from desperate, ignorant people.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a bad idea. The biggest problem action potentials are in the range of ~40 mV, which means that the photons generated would have to be very low energy and wouldn't be able to be detected through the tissue. But you might be able to do something like a PET scan where the tracer is selectively attracted to active neurons and the emission is from radioactive decay.
Not unless you have been genetically modified to have jellyfish proteins in your brain.
It also requires a specimen that is genetically engineered to have fluorescent neurons. So doing this on humans at all is out of the question.
He don't own the company but he has a consulting firm that gets paid by the body scanner company. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/
Do you know what sycophant means? It's just funny that parent post specifically mentions that as being one of the downsides of being wealthy, then you immediately play to type.
Thank you for showing that you don't know anything about brain imaging. For starters, fMRI only measures concentration of oxygen, nothing about neuron level structure. Second, brain tissue quickly decays almost immediately. As soon as those brain cells quit getting oxygen, all connectivity and structure information is lost. Reread the words you wrote, you can't slice the brain in order to figure out the connection map. The method is physically incompatible with the goal.
What existing technology can map the structure of a living brain at a the neuron level?
We are nowhere near neuron level simulation of the human brain. The closest that we've gotten in the IBM project that simulated approximately the same number of neurons in a cat cortex. But the cortex in only part of the the brain and, of course, a human brain is much larger than a cat brain. But most importantly neurons are to a brain what bricks are to a house. Without the right structure, its just a pile of bricks. Structure is not a problem that can be solved by throwing more transistors at it.
Having a large gas giant to shield the Earth from excessive meteors is thought to be a major factor in the habitability of Earth. So even if we take those numbers at face value and assume that 25% of solar systems have an Earth-like planet, only those that have a Jupiter-like planet (1.5%) are candidates for life. Further assuming those two are independant variables, that drops the odds of finding life down to .375% without even accounting for other contributing factors like having liquid water or a significant moon.
I totally agree with you. I think it should always be pointed out the inherent limitation of these models. D.E. Shaw Research, Folding@home and many others use a force-field model that is fundamentally Newtonian. It doesn't take into account any quantum dynamics, it can't model the formation or dissociation of chemical bonds and most of the simulation parameters aren't much better than a wild guess. There used to be an implicit assumption in the computational chemistry community that all of those little errors would cancel out for large molecules, such as proteins. But, personally, I don't think that assumption has held up very well to experimental scrutiny.
The full-service gas stations are mandatory in Oregon explicitly for that reason.
I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving. Truckers, cab drivers, even pizza delivery. A computer can work 24/7, so even if the system costs $100,000, that's still saves money over paying for employees.
Randi is a scientist. Anyone who applies the scientific method is a scientist.
Normal sugar is the disaccharide, sucrose, which is a combination of fructose and sucrose. These two are separated by hydrolysis and metabolized separately. But many of the biochemical regulatory mechanisms only apply to glucose and the body just "assumes" that there's one fructose for every glucose. So a diet with a significant unbalance of fructose will bypass many of the body's natural regulation mechanisms, leading to things like child diabetics and obesity.
What college do you go to? Women have been more than half of the college population for a decade and every school that I've seen has a significant number (>10%) of Asians.
It's called PR backlash. There are people in the string theory community, such as Brian Greene, who have promoted string theory above and beyond the recognition that it really deserves. When string theory didn't immediately deliver on tangible breakthroughs (the way GR and QM did), people start to grumble and wonder if you're pulling a fast one. And your fellow scientists aren't going to be quick to defend you because their own work (which probably does have a more substantial, immediate impact) gets drowned out in comparison to string theory. Also because physicists have a reputation of being prima donnas.
If you're interested in the idea of religion as a social/mental virus, you should read The Origin of Consciousness and Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. I'm 99% sure that Stephenson "borrowed" those ideas from it.
The Force basically just a 'particle of the week'. It has whatever powers or limitations are necessary to advance the plot, but any rational explanation of it is patently ridiculous.
All three judges on the "liberal court" were Republican appointees. Kozinski (Reagan), O'Scannlain (Reagan) and Smith (Bush the first)
Its not illegal to carry a visible weapon. You can even bring a rifle to a political rally and not get arrested. Concealed weapons are another matter.
But all of the judges on the cases were appointed by Republican presidents. The other two were O'Scannlain (Reagan) and Smith (Bush the first).
No. That is just a system that has simulates the same *NUMBER* of neurons and synapses as a cat *CORTEX*. Not the whole brain, none of the brain structure, not even close simulating actual brain activity.
That was is Israel, not California.
Because then there's no financial incentive to ever rigorously test your drug. Testing is expensive and companies wouldn't bother if they could still profit from desperate, ignorant people.
You always have another choice: quit watching TV.