Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 144 posts

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#41

Post by fjeifisjf »

ALittleLight wrote: post #38
wruza wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that experiments on living rodents aren’t hell already? What is the crucial ethical difference between these species, apart from two facts, first that a full human has a legal status, second that most people will relate to an empty human brain more than to a non-empty non-human one (regardless of packaging). I understand legal/relatable parts, but is there more to it?

One scientist studies tumors by causing tumors in rats. Another scientist studies tumors by causing them in humans. If you said to the second scientist "Hey, that's wrong, stop!" And he said "What's the crucial difference between rats and humans?" Would you be convinced by that line of argument?

Obviously yes, rats don’t deserve tumors.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#42

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

jerojero wrote: post #14
sidewndr46 wrote: post #5

A question for someone who understands the neurology and biology of this much more than I do: Once I have a group of neurons like this trained to do something, can I actually count on them to continue performing that task until they die? Or is it possible they spontaneously reorganize or "learn" a previously unseen behavioral pattern?

Hm. That's a very good question. I haven't kept up with neurobiology research but I imagine as long as the same neurons keep their connections to the same other neurons then it would be possible for them to keep performing the task. And neurons will do keep these connections if the stimuli was strong enough and showed up repeatedly. But when the task is not required for a very long time the circuit that turns this ta…

Here is a journal article that might be relevant for you:

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)01362-2

Abstract: ”Neuronal plasticity in the brain is greatly enhanced during critical periods early in life and was long thought to be rather limited thereafter. Studies in primary sensory areas of the neocortex have revealed a substantial degree of plasticity in the mature brain, too. Often, plasticity in the adult neocortex lies dormant but can be reactivated by modifications of sensory input or sensory-motor interactions, which alter the level and pattern of activity in cortical circuits. Such interventions, potentially in combination with drugs targeting molecular brakes on plasticity present in the adult brain, might help recovery of function in the injured or diseased brain.”

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#43

Post by ummonk »

It seems needlessly provocative to use human neurons to do this. Presumably they could have had the same effects with neurons from another species. It’s like they want to provoke a backlash from religious people against scientific experimentation.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#44

Post by melagonster »

sva_ wrote: post #32
tshaddox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you be sure that anyone other than you is conscious? That doesn't seem like a more or less difficult question than asking how I can be sure that human neurons are the substrate responsible for producing consciousness. If it turns out that the other humans I observe only seem like they're conscious, then it could also turn out that my neurons only seem to be the substrate producing my consciousness. Of cours…

Yeah, and I really don't see how that substrate should be much different from that in other animals such as, say, chimpanzees. It seems silly to criticize this research just based on the fact that the neurons were cultured from humans in my opinion.

human just can't accept human suffer. most of legal of us is about protecting human.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#45

Post by melagonster »

hirundo wrote: post #37
odrekf wrote: post #35

I tried to reply to someone but he got censored for pointing out that if you care about two neurons you should care about the animals that go through hell in the meat/dairy industry. Here's my reply: One can't hope to truly know if another individual (be it a human or any other animal) is conscious (the hard problem of consciousness). But if it has eyes like us, mouth like us, plays like us, cries/screams when hurt l…

If you apply the same standard within our own species you would be accused of xenophobia. Why should it be different across species?

if all species are same, what's different between vegetables and animals? or even COVID-19 virus and bacteria?

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#46

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

sally_glance wrote: post #21
sidewndr46 wrote: post #5

A question for someone who understands the neurology and biology of this much more than I do: Once I have a group of neurons like this trained to do something, can I actually count on them to continue performing that task until they die? Or is it possible they spontaneously reorganize or "learn" a previously unseen behavioral pattern?

Disclaimer: Also not a neurologist. I believe they certainly will reorganize in case of a (local nutrient) scarcity or damage event. That might result in "unseen" patterns as well, and by "unseen" I mean kinda random.

Glial cells are fascinating components of the brain.

Artificial NeuroGlial Networks could be really interesting.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#47

Post by _mhr_ »

ummonk wrote: post #43

It seems needlessly provocative to use human neurons to do this. Presumably they could have had the same effects with neurons from another species. It’s like they want to provoke a backlash from religious people against scientific experimentation.

They compared human cells to mouse cells, showing improved performance for the human cells.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#49

Post by austinjp »

seydor wrote: post #4

i would urge people to read the paper instead. The 'learning' is a bit iffy , and this was meant to test the brain theory of Friston rather than plug neurons into pong. Still, great job on the neurotechnology involved and a step in the direction where we should be going, controlling large numbers of neurons Ars Technica has a better article, although they dont describe the dense electode array correctly: https://arst…

Genuine question: why "should" we be going in this direction?
Post reply on HN