"Brain Cells Fused With Computer
"NACHIP uses special proteins found in the brain essentially to glue the neurons to the chip, but the proteins act as more than a simple adhesive,
the professor explained. "They also provide the link between the ionic channels of the neurons and semiconductor material in a way that neural
electrical signals could be passed to the silicon chip," he said."
I'm not surprised by this one bit, in fact they've been publicly
doing work like
this for several years now. However, these are important results because this proves that effective and lasting connections can be made between
silicon and neurons. The ultimate applications of the technology are "potentially limitless", according to researchers involved with the
funded by the European
's Future and Emerging Technologies
initiative within the
I have some science journal printouts that detail some other successes with neuron to silicon interfaces, and stacks of printouts about neuron
stimulation using MEA's. Neuron stimulation has been going on for decades using MEA's, but they're far more limited in their ability to effectively
manipulate multiple neurons, and more importantly being able to form and fire multiple synapses with each individual neuron.
MEA technology is rather effective and has brought some respectable achievements such as "brain in a dish flies flight simulator"
), 'semi-living artist "MEART" and the "animat". They have been making
profound MEA advances in recent years, in several ways important to this presentation.
First, they have built MEA's capable of firing multiple synapses, but the only MEA project of this sort involved an 8 electrode array designed for
testing firing on one single neuron. This could be applied on larger scales, but not as effectively as using silicon. Second, they're now developing
, to study firing the live neuron networks from different sides. Third, they've
control technologies. That is somewhat expected, but
it demonstrates the advances in capabilities from custom upgrades beyond the standard equipment, and more importantly the advances that 'simple'
university research teams can achieve imagine what multi-billion dollar government science teams can do.
I must add that (beyond this all being what is actually public) that those technologies and experiments are mostly just that: experimenting. The
results of these large-scale experiments are important for 2 reasons here: One, understanding utilization of the entire neurons, instead of just
interacting with the edges of networks of neurons. Two, understanding how to manipulate the neuron networks from multiple sides. Silicon chips, if
properly interfaced with neurons, can control multiple synapses on individual neurons, but also in larger arrays with much of the required circuitry
built right into the silicon architecture, which would be far more effective than separate circuits connected to the neuron interfacing hardware by
Those who realize that these experiments are being conducted across multiple labs and universities may not consider these realities to be a monumental
issue or threat. Likewise, those who read the new brain-chip articles, and read the
where the scientist said "It could still be decades before the
technology is advanced enough to create living computers" might feel the same. I find that claim to be absurd (it's more like his team is decades
away from), as (at least in the US) all national and university laboratories feed all of their science findings into what's titled the
", which is a major WAN database that's feeds all of the science findings into one easy to mine
source. It's like a science pyramid, it's existence motivated by the
At the top of that pyramid sits DARPA, who mines all of that data while also issuing major contracts with desired teams to complete critical projects
to acquire findings, which are important to their cognitive computing programs. Those many programs are all just individual pieces in the same goal,
the same beast. It should be noted that this particular program was part of the
, who has
NBIC initiative that clearly attempts to follow that of the US
(as is probably true of the China/Russia/India superpower).
It fascinates me how conventional AI proponents still desperately hang onto the notion that conventional AI theories will rule first. Conventional AI
has been around for decades, biological I has been around longer than anyone can really say for sure. These people think that they can build math
models of live neurons and operate virtual networks of neurons to effectively out-do live neurons. This will probably be possible in the future, but
we have a long way to go before we truly know exactly what "math" a neuron is capable of. On the other hand, we can already control live neurons,
and if properly done we could control large arrays of them in advanced configurations.
Originally, I figured that they would have large 'brains' in massive MEA arrays, probably in cube or sphere like shapes. I considered the sphere
shape based on the shape of the infamous Echelon domes (that people still speculate about what's inside them to this day), but the cube or rectangle
shape seemed more feasible. Several months ago, after I learned about the effectiveness of then silicon-neuron interfacing technologies, I determined
that the ultimate super 'brain' would be a large cube shaped device.
The inner walls of said cube would be these silicon chips, a 3D neuron chamber with interfacing silicons on all sides. I reached this conclusion by
assessing two important schools of thought. First, the science and manufacturing school (science); silicon chips are typically formed in square shapes
in large molds that produce sheets of semiconductor chips. Each 'sheet' typically furnishes a large set of identical chips (but often in
surprisingly circular shaped molds). Second, the occult/esoteric school of thought (psi-ence); the square, and more importantly the cube symbolize
perfection (most notably according to Freemasons), as it also does in mathematics.
[edit on 24-4-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]