I dont think that this experiment has any bearing on the abilities of rats. They just happened to procure the involved neurons from a rat brain. The magic lies in the configuration of the neurons rather than the neurons themselves. A rat brain is probably busy doing too many other things for a rat to ever really perform that task . . . but who knows!
Re:One question...
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That explanation actually makes a lot of sense to my undereducated mind . ..
During the time when the neurons were connecting with each other and forming the mini-brain, they probably had the simulator running locked into a normal flight pattern. In this way, the neurons would fall into a configuration that's in equilibrium with the signals that correspond to normal flight. Once the brain is formed . . . the neurons perhaps respond with some amount of randomness until equilibrium is restored. With further abberrations from normal fright, the brain becomes better and better at solving the problem!
What about earth based sling-shot-style launchers. I thought that I had read something a while back about developing this sort of thing to put satelites into orbit. At least removing th explosives from the package might improve safety a bit.
Wasn't it Clarke who said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? There may be many elements in the movie that sem impossible, but the more general premise of the film is that given our relative youth as an intelligent species, there is some likelihood that other intelligences have arisen long long before us. Given time, their technology and ability to manupilate the universe would be at least as astounding to us as our current technology would be to primitiv man.
I despise sci fi that relies on fantasy, but somehow the odyssey series is saved from that for me.
The solution is to develop a weapon that can destroy everything smaller than a pea. This way, important and large things like people and maonalds restaurants will remian intact, while the ultrakiller nanobots are destroyed. We will also lose some non-combative small objects, like atoms and those little flakes of fish food at the bottom of the can, but who needs those?
As silly as the steady-state theory may be, I think that it's impossible to gauge the value of any truly scientific theoretical work. And I wouldn't judge the ability of any scientist by the subject or direction of their work so much as by the way in which their work is conducted.
The actual theoretical work done in exploring the logical space of any theory, accepted or idiotic, can have a value entirely independent of the value of the theory itself. I am not familiar with Dr. Gold's work, but I would not dismiss it or his ability because it was done in support of a theory that most people now regard as inferior. For one thing, no real scientific work is ever done solely in support of a theory. One may have certain hopes about the way an experiment might turn out, but we test hypotheses by attempting to find instances of their falsehood. If Dr. Gold's theoretical work involved accurately describing the state of affairs of a steady-state universe, then his work should not be demeaned simply because the theory it describes is no longer accepted as "the way things really are". All theories are models and are by definition imperfect analoges of what they model. Even if we could be sure that a theory is perfectly isomorphic in structure to what it represents, there is no way to be certain of its predictive ability for any length of time.
The work done to describe a solar system of which the Earth is the center may not have described the way things really are, but without it there would be no reason to seek the simpler description (Thank you, Copernicus) that we now use to calculate the past and future positions of celestial bodies.
There are many reasons that theoretical work can have value that are independent of the theory with which the work is concerned. I woudl take the same attitude as Gold's former student in thanking him for stimulating the scientific community.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman
Right. Im not worried that I will no longer be able to purchase albums from the artists I like, partially because the artists I like are for the most part ones who can put together a good album as well as good songs.
I wasnt worried a couple years ago that somehow there would be nothing but boy-bands populating the future music industry. I know that good music will continue, but at the same time I cant help but be a little ill-at-ease when I see the way that mainstream, mass-market music is evolving.
And although many people will indeed download an entire album from iTunes or the like, I would still say that an album ought to be much more than the noise that comprises it. Quality aside, the mp3's on my computer are not an album. Perhaps the same richness and artisty that is contained in the great vinyl albums of the past will find its way into the digital medium. But I don't know if it oculd ever be as tangible an experience.
Im not worried. As a consumer, I'll support honest expression, an as an artist, Ill do my best to create for others.
I have to say that I am partial to the long-playing album. The iTunes style of music distributionoffers a lot of freedom to the consumer to purchase as much or little content as he or she would like, but could this threaten the existence of the long-playing album? What insentive does the artist/music industry have to create albums when the model has changed so drastically? It seems like artists and labels would now want to get each track out as quickly as possible.
I was a little distressed at this idea at first, because I really think that the album can have some holistic worth that is not present in the tracks individually. This is most obviously true in the genre of progressive rock where concept albums are popular. Concept albums are albums in which the songs are tied together by a theme or plot that operates within the lyrics and often also within the music itself as themes are reprised and re-orchestrated in a manner that allows them to be expressive through their relationship to each other as well as their own intrinsic expression. And there are many other non-concept albums out there that stand as complete pictures that would not at all be the same were the tracks to be separated.
As the musical medium has progressed from live to vinyl to magnetic recording to compact discs and now to the intanbible realm of bits, I do feel that we are losing as much as we gain. Im only 19, but I know that back in the days when the Beatles were releasing vinyl, you would buy the album not just for the music, but for the art and other goodies that came along with it, and, perhaps most importantly, because you wanted to support the group and teh ideas they represented. Nowadays music seems to be as disposable as all of our other goods have become. Im horified by the idea that music could become as stripped down as it now is.
However, I fully support the new way that music distribution is going, not because I think that disembodies mp3s are better than vinyl or even compact discs, but because I think that it may challenge artists to create something worthy of our ownership.
I've really been nauseated over and over by the crap that is being pumped out of the music industry lately. From the boy band thing to linkin park and rap rock, music has gone from a medium of expression to a formulaic and mindless medium of moneymaking. This is not entirely true of music, but of most of the junk that teh RIAA is representing in its rampage.
As an artist myself, I look at an album as more than some sort of physical medium for the noise I make. Seeing the album as an arbitrary medium for music is analogous to the functionalist school of AI. The way we are demmanding our music to be served to us shows that we dont see the medium thorugh which we hear or acquire it as important to the music itself. while I do subscribe to a certain brand of functionalism when it comes to AI, I actually believe that the medium is very important when it comes to music. Music is art, and the musical release - the album - should be a work of art. The graphic art and words that come along with a physical album ought to contribute to the music, and the music itself must merit the words and grapgic art that accompany it.
so I am not protesting our lack of concern about how we acquire our music. Rather, I am hoping that the music industry might now be driven to create music that deserves to be embodied and owned in something more corporeal than a digital file.
I guess Im done ranting, but inconclusion, if Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are going to refuse to let peopel download their music because the want to protect the long-playing album, they had better get started creating an album that is not translatable into digital files as easily as they are now. Im talking abotu a different kind of copy-protection here. when more mainstream artists begin releasing albums that are worth more than the sum of their tracks, more people will shell out the bucks to own a piece of art. I'll still have my ipod loaded with music, but I will also have the albums of my favorite artists at home so that I can appreciate them as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont think that this experiment has any bearing on the abilities of rats. They just happened to procure the involved neurons from a rat brain. The magic lies in the configuration of the neurons rather than the neurons themselves. A rat brain is probably busy doing too many other things for a rat to ever really perform that task . . . but who knows!
That explanation actually makes a lot of sense to my undereducated mind . . .
During the time when the neurons were connecting with each other and forming the mini-brain, they probably had the simulator running locked into a normal flight pattern. In this way, the neurons would fall into a configuration that's in equilibrium with the signals that correspond to normal flight. Once the brain is formed . . . the neurons perhaps respond with some amount of randomness until equilibrium is restored. With further abberrations from normal fright, the brain becomes better and better at solving the problem!
NEAT!!
What about earth based sling-shot-style launchers. I thought that I had read something a while back about developing this sort of thing to put satelites into orbit. At least removing th explosives from the package might improve safety a bit.
Charlie
Wasn't it Clarke who said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? There may be many elements in the movie that sem impossible, but the more general premise of the film is that given our relative youth as an intelligent species, there is some likelihood that other intelligences have arisen long long before us. Given time, their technology and ability to manupilate the universe would be at least as astounding to us as our current technology would be to primitiv man.
I despise sci fi that relies on fantasy, but somehow the odyssey series is saved from that for me.
Charlie
Mass.
The solution is to develop a weapon that can destroy everything smaller than a pea. This way, important and large things like people and maonalds restaurants will remian intact, while the ultrakiller nanobots are destroyed. We will also lose some non-combative small objects, like atoms and those little flakes of fish food at the bottom of the can, but who needs those?
outlaws . . . and the us government.
Bravo. I wont even bother to add. As a producer and consumer of music, I aggree with your take completely. Thanks!
Youre right. I suppose I ought to have said: "As silly as the steady-state theory may sound given what we know today . . . "
I was trying to make the point that to defend work on the steady state theory as being valuable is not tantamount to defending the theory itself.
thanks.
As silly as the steady-state theory may be, I think that it's impossible to gauge the value of any truly scientific theoretical work. And I wouldn't judge the ability of any scientist by the subject or direction of their work so much as by the way in which their work is conducted.
The actual theoretical work done in exploring the logical space of any theory, accepted or idiotic, can have a value entirely independent of the value of the theory itself. I am not familiar with Dr. Gold's work, but I would not dismiss it or his ability because it was done in support of a theory that most people now regard as inferior. For one thing, no real scientific work is ever done solely in support of a theory. One may have certain hopes about the way an experiment might turn out, but we test hypotheses by attempting to find instances of their falsehood. If Dr. Gold's theoretical work involved accurately describing the state of affairs of a steady-state universe, then his work should not be demeaned simply because the theory it describes is no longer accepted as "the way things really are". All theories are models and are by definition imperfect analoges of what they model. Even if we could be sure that a theory is perfectly isomorphic in structure to what it represents, there is no way to be certain of its predictive ability for any length of time.
The work done to describe a solar system of which the Earth is the center may not have described the way things really are, but without it there would be no reason to seek the simpler description (Thank you, Copernicus) that we now use to calculate the past and future positions of celestial bodies.
There are many reasons that theoretical work can have value that are independent of the theory with which the work is concerned. I woudl take the same attitude as Gold's former student in thanking him for stimulating the scientific community.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman
Right. Im not worried that I will no longer be able to purchase albums from the artists I like, partially because the artists I like are for the most part ones who can put together a good album as well as good songs.
I wasnt worried a couple years ago that somehow there would be nothing but boy-bands populating the future music industry. I know that good music will continue, but at the same time I cant help but be a little ill-at-ease when I see the way that mainstream, mass-market music is evolving.
And although many people will indeed download an entire album from iTunes or the like, I would still say that an album ought to be much more than the noise that comprises it. Quality aside, the mp3's on my computer are not an album. Perhaps the same richness and artisty that is contained in the great vinyl albums of the past will find its way into the digital medium. But I don't know if it oculd ever be as tangible an experience.
Im not worried. As a consumer, I'll support honest expression, an as an artist, Ill do my best to create for others.
- charlie
I have to say that I am partial to the long-playing album. The iTunes style of music distributionoffers a lot of freedom to the consumer to purchase as much or little content as he or she would like, but could this threaten the existence of the long-playing album? What insentive does the artist/music industry have to create albums when the model has changed so drastically? It seems like artists and labels would now want to get each track out as quickly as possible.
I was a little distressed at this idea at first, because I really think that the album can have some holistic worth that is not present in the tracks individually. This is most obviously true in the genre of progressive rock where concept albums are popular. Concept albums are albums in which the songs are tied together by a theme or plot that operates within the lyrics and often also within the music itself as themes are reprised and re-orchestrated in a manner that allows them to be expressive through their relationship to each other as well as their own intrinsic expression. And there are many other non-concept albums out there that stand as complete pictures that would not at all be the same were the tracks to be separated.
As the musical medium has progressed from live to vinyl to magnetic recording to compact discs and now to the intanbible realm of bits, I do feel that we are losing as much as we gain. Im only 19, but I know that back in the days when the Beatles were releasing vinyl, you would buy the album not just for the music, but for the art and other goodies that came along with it, and, perhaps most importantly, because you wanted to support the group and teh ideas they represented. Nowadays music seems to be as disposable as all of our other goods have become. Im horified by the idea that music could become as stripped down as it now is.
However, I fully support the new way that music distribution is going, not because I think that disembodies mp3s are better than vinyl or even compact discs, but because I think that it may challenge artists to create something worthy of our ownership.
I've really been nauseated over and over by the crap that is being pumped out of the music industry lately. From the boy band thing to linkin park and rap rock, music has gone from a medium of expression to a formulaic and mindless medium of moneymaking. This is not entirely true of music, but of most of the junk that teh RIAA is representing in its rampage.
As an artist myself, I look at an album as more than some sort of physical medium for the noise I make. Seeing the album as an arbitrary medium for music is analogous to the functionalist school of AI. The way we are demmanding our music to be served to us shows that we dont see the medium thorugh which we hear or acquire it as important to the music itself. while I do subscribe to a certain brand of functionalism when it comes to AI, I actually believe that the medium is very important when it comes to music. Music is art, and the musical release - the album - should be a work of art. The graphic art and words that come along with a physical album ought to contribute to the music, and the music itself must merit the words and grapgic art that accompany it.
so I am not protesting our lack of concern about how we acquire our music. Rather, I am hoping that the music industry might now be driven to create music that deserves to be embodied and owned in something more corporeal than a digital file.
I guess Im done ranting, but inconclusion, if Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are going to refuse to let peopel download their music because the want to protect the long-playing album, they had better get started creating an album that is not translatable into digital files as easily as they are now. Im talking abotu a different kind of copy-protection here. when more mainstream artists begin releasing albums that are worth more than the sum of their tracks, more people will shell out the bucks to own a piece of art. I'll still have my ipod loaded with music, but I will also have the albums of my favorite artists at home so that I can appreciate them as a whole.