Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed tools for studying the chemistry of the brain, neuron by neuron. The analytical techniques can probe the spatial and temporal distribution of biologically important molecules, such as vitamin E, and explore the chemical messengers behind thought, memory and emotion.
“In most organ tissues of the body, adjacent cells do not have significant differences in their chemical contents,” said Jonathan Sweedler, a William H. and Janet Lycan Professor of Chemistry and director of the Biotechnology Center at the U. of I.
“In the brain, however, chemical differences between neurons are critical for their operation, and the connections between cells are crucial for encoding information or controlling functions.”
I always knew the Borg originally came from Earth.
Just wait till Google jumps on this.
as a proponent of intelligent design, i do not believe that there will ever be man-made intelligence. The reason is simple: man had always known the components of eggs but have not been able to make a contraption that would hatch into a bird. This neuron by neuron study while helpful, will prove futile. Take a look at advances in artificial intelligence – we’re still in the same status as we were back in the 60’s. To think that human intelligence could have been produced by accident or random force of nature is so stupid, it requires a gigantic leap of faith!
Hal a creator could of designed the universe I doubt that creator planned on us or monitors our day to day activities. Your beliefs depend on where you were born or who influanced you growing up. Some parts of the universe are beyond our comprehension due to limits of our thought processes. I think AI is within are grasp and somebody will get working on artificial eggs just for you.
Hal, did someone turn you off in the last twenty years? We already have varying degrees of artificial intelligence (which by definition is man-made) in commercial use. Much of the electronics in modern cars use a form of artificial intelligence to regulate mixtures. The systems that control modern missiles use a form of artificial intelligence. Almost all games have artificial intelligence running your computer opponent.
Secondly, just because you have all the ingredients for a cake does not necessarily imply that you have the directions to combine those ingredients properly. Thus, while we might know the chemical makeup of an egg, we do not know exactly how the process of making the egg works. Sure, we know the general jist of it, but there is quite a bit going on at the molecular level that is, for the moment, still a mystery. However, that does not mean we are not getting closer. Of course, technically, we could create an egg by cloning a chicken and that technology already exists.
While it may scare you that we will soon be sophisticated enough to develop a thinking machine (which is what I really think you are getting at with your phobia of artificial intelligence), it will be a very real possibility in the next twenty years. The converging changes that are coming at the chemical, biological and quantum/nano levels will fundamentally change our world.
Unfortunately, your ignorance about evolution is evidence that our society, in fact humanity in general, will be deeply divided over the coming years between those that embrace science and those that fear it and want to confine it.
Thomas — bah… who says that those who do not embrace evolution are unscientific? You stick to primitive 15th century notions to define your universe while I look forward to nanotech — at that level you see a universe beyond Darwinian understanding. Fire up your Google and do yourself a favor.
You are one of many who confuse these rudimentary programs we’re running with intelligence. What can I say? If Microsoft Word is intelligence for you… then I rest my case.
The reason I am cynical about mankind ability to create AI is this:
Nobody really understands what human intelligence is. We see the
RESULTS of intelligence: the formation of communities and culture,
the ability to make tools for pleasure and survival, but mankind was
never ever close to discovering what intelligence really is. On the
notion that the mind is a product of experience, they tried this
experiment where scientists designed a “baby” robot in the hope of
stimulating intelligence like they would a real infant, well the infants
outgrew the baby robot while the robot remained unaware of itself. Next
they designed competitive robots doing simple “survival of the fittest”
games, to make them evolve intelligence. Several years and iterations
later, did we see intelligence? No, only robots good at playing simple
“survival of the fittest” games.
The reason mankind fails is because it approaches intelligence from a
materialistic standpoint. The same stance that evolutionists take.
Darwin’s primitive notions are now under attack because we are
increasingly becoming capable of peering into the microverse that
Darwin did not have the chance to see. What was considered the
“simplest, most basic, building blocks of nature” are now being
examined as anything but simple and basic: its particles are irreducibly
complex, meaning, it could not have waited for one part to evolve fully
so that it could start working.
Taking the brain apart neuron by neuron is the same materialistic
direction that will produce nothing but a long list of ingredients that
comprise the brain. But what’s really happening here is that scientists
who do not want to accept they have been stumped at producing
intelligence are REVERSE-ENGINEERING the brain. That is a
non-verbal admission that all efforts of using computers to make A.I.
have failed and now they go back to nature to COPY ITS DESIGN.
Reverse-engineering the brain is a dead-end because, at the most
optimistic, it merely supplies the material: the “CPU” and not the
“SOFTWARE” for human intelligence. So, in the near future, you’ll have
OSXXX running on a tricked out human brain. Ho-hum.
But consider this: A butterfly emerging from its coccoon must struggle,
wiggling for hours before it can fly off to feed. The materialist in you
would help that butterfly and crack open the enclosure to free the
butterfly and spare it of two hours of agony. But if you did that, you’ve
killed the butterfly just as surely as breaking its wings because the
butterfly will never fly. The butterfly NEEDS the struggle to push off the
fluids that would strengthen its wings. If that sounds like a bible-school
lesson more than natural fact, that’s because everything in nature is.
***
Hal,
How can you dismiss my claim that we have already made intelligent devices when you yourself claim that “intelligence” cannot be defined?
You need to do a bit more research into current robotics and artificial intelligence. Amazing strides have occurred over the past ten years that will grow rapidly as computing power grows. Many of the failures you refer to stem from lack of computing power.
Much of the study in nanotechnology and genetics has confirmed that Darwin was right. There are some areas where Darwin was clearly wrong but just as many areas where he was absolutely right.
Your comments on reverse-engineering are ignorant of how reverse-engineering works. When you are reverse-engineer a program for example, you study how the program worked, the steps it took to solve its problems and then decide whether to make a similar design or deviate from the design. When engineers leverage natural designs, they know that those designs have withstood millions of years of competition in designs. We do not always know why a particular design survived, however, in some cases we do find out. For example, we know that people in the western part of Africa are particularly susceptible to sickle cell anemia both as carriers and in contraction. However, it turns out that people susceptible to sickle cell are also particularly resistant to malaria which very prevalent in those same areas.
Frankly, Darwin is under attack primarily from people that are ignorant of science and feel that science is shattering their religious views.
I suspect that it is very likely that in the near future (within 20 years) they will be able to make a thinking machine that can expand its knowledge and create new associations and understanding. The problem right now is due to constraints on computing power. The human brain is designed as it is because of millions of years of evolution. However, it is not without its flaws; just ask a neurologist or psychiatrist. In addition, the human brain was designed to improve survival not solving analyzing weather patterns.
RE: Butterfly example
I fully agree that butterflies need to struggle in order to survive. The materialist in me knows this to be true. It is the reason that athletes must exercise in order to gain strength. It is the reason that people must continue to learning to keep those skills (of learning) fresh. However, if we want to understand how the butterfly as an organism works in order to learn better techniques for building machines for example, we need to really see how it works both operationally and in its assemblage. We need to take apart a butterfly (not all butterflies) to see what makes it tick. What chemical and biological forces are at work in the butterflies design? Perhaps if we try to make a butterfly we can learn how it really works and what parts of the butterfly, through evolution already work best and what parts we might expand upon. That is not say that our artificial butterfly will be comparable to the real thing, but it is to say that the process of leaning how one is made and made-up expands our understanding of butterflies and nature itself.
Thomas
“The man who invented the telescope found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer ever discovered.”
— Robert G. Ingersoll, “The Great Agnostic” (1833-1899)
Thomas, you say:
“We need to take apart a butterfly (not all butterflies) to see what makes it tick. What chemical and biological forces are at work in the butterflies design”
As a proponent for intelligent design, I rest my case. As a realist in A.I all I can say is: Dream on.
Hal,
When I say “see what forces are at work in the design”, I do not mean “design” as a verb. I mean “design” as a noun referring to the structure and makeup of animal. I mean using observation to determine how its parts are put together and interact.
I do not mean “design’ as in the Flying Spaghetti Monster extended his noodly appendage and “designed” the butterfly ala “intelligent” design. Your ignorant statement is perfect example of the slippery use of language by ID proponents to further their ideology.