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

How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

blogs.discovermagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#51

Post by 6ren »

raldi wrote: post #10

What are the major technical barriers before we can identify the input and output channels to this insect's brain and start iterating through all possible input values, recording the corresponding output values? And once we can do that, could we use that data to fly a virtual insect around a virtual world?

That's assuming they are stateless (i.e. that they can't learn), so that the ordering of input triggering has no effect on outputs.

BTW: some small spiders press their brains not only into their abdomens, but into their legs. e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111219-spide... Spiders gotta spin.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#52

Post by vacri »

excuse-me wrote: post #46
raganwald wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, downvotes. Hey Fred! Get in here, and bring the spare sensor filaments. I think we have some sarcasm detectors on the fritz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law

Doesn't HN let you see a poster's other posts/comments? My background should be pretty obvious! ps How many christian fundies post on HN anyway?

HN is a fairly humourless place independent of religious leanings.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#53

Post by CamperBob2 »

6ren wrote: post #51
raldi wrote: post #10

What are the major technical barriers before we can identify the input and output channels to this insect's brain and start iterating through all possible input values, recording the corresponding output values? And once we can do that, could we use that data to fly a virtual insect around a virtual world?

That's assuming they are stateless (i.e. that they can't learn), so that the ordering of input triggering has no effect on outputs. BTW: some small spiders press their brains not only into their abdomens, but into their legs . e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111219-spide... Spiders gotta spin.

Arguably, even human brains work that way. You can't really draw a line across part of the CNS and say "This is where the brain stops." The retina, for instance, is almost as much a part of your brain as it is your eye.

By the same token, it's not always easy to classify complex movements as reflexes or thought-guided actions. Cut a chicken's head off while it's walking, and it will keep going for a while. My understanding (IANABiologist) is that the same is true for a human.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#54

Post by joeyo »

Xcelerate wrote: post #38
cs702 wrote: post #31

Wow: with only 7,400 neurons (compared to 340,000 for the common housefly and 850,000 for honeybees), this wasp can somehow fly, search for food, find the right places to lay its eggs, etc. That ridiculously tiny neural network is one freakingly efficient computing device!

7,400 seems very capable of being simulated. In fact, that's a small enough number that I'll bet you could map those connections out by hand with some type of microscope. To someone more knowledgeable in this subset of biology, is this possible?

C. elegans (a type of nematode) is even simpler, with exactly 302 neurons and ~15k synapses. But despite having the complete connectome, there has to date been only limited success at simulating the whole worm. Although see: https://code.google.com/p/openworm/

Edit: Also see the NYT article below.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#55

Post by Bjartr »

vibrunazo wrote: post #50
raldi wrote: post #10

What are the major technical barriers before we can identify the input and output channels to this insect's brain and start iterating through all possible input values, recording the corresponding output values? And once we can do that, could we use that data to fly a virtual insect around a virtual world?

Honest newbie question: Why would we even want to do that? Exclusively for academic medical purposes? (ie learning how our body works) It seems to me, that since evolution is highly imperfect, that trying to mimic living beings, might not be the best idea. While we do mimic them a lot, mostly it seems to be for learning until we can do better. But in this case. Since it's so expensive and not viable to mimic them pro…

>Shouldn't we just try to come up with our own algorithms instead of trying to copy nature's historically bloated algorithms?

People are working on this problem from both sides. AI on one and biological simulation on the other. We don't know which will realize its goals first.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#56

Post by jacobolus »

StavrosK wrote: post #37
kjhughes wrote: post #36

I find the implied range of cell sizes to be amazing. (Informally, it's tempting to view all microscopic biological entities as being similarly small; they're not.) Here's a cool visual of relative cell sizes and scale: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/

The amoeba is as big as a grain of salt? It must be visible with the naked eye, then, no? I had no idea it was that big...

Yes, many kinds of amoebas are visible to the naked eye. Some grow to several millimeters long.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#57

Post by tsotha »

joeyo wrote: post #54
Xcelerate wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7,400 seems very capable of being simulated. In fact, that's a small enough number that I'll bet you could map those connections out by hand with some type of microscope. To someone more knowledgeable in this subset of biology, is this possible?

C. elegans (a type of nematode) is even simpler, with exactly 302 neurons and ~15k synapses. But despite having the complete connectome, there has to date been only limited success at simulating the whole worm. Although see: https://code.google.com/p/openworm/ Edit: Also see the NYT article below.

How do you know when you've simulated a worm's brain correctly? I mean, they don't actually do much, do they?

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#58

Post by einhverfr »

jacobolus wrote: post #56
StavrosK wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amoeba is as big as a grain of salt? It must be visible with the naked eye, then, no? I had no idea it was that big...

Yes, many kinds of amoebas are visible to the naked eye. Some grow to several millimeters long.

I used to have a culture of paramecia and noticed I could see a paramecium with the naked eye.

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#59

Post by einhverfr »

username3 wrote: post #23
nemo1618 wrote: post #4

Wow, these little guys are incredible! I had no idea such complexity could evolve at that scale. I think these species deserve a mention in science classrooms.

Once science shows how they evolved, they will be more than welcome.

Maybe they were brought here on micro-comets ;-)

(reference to "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism" by Fred Hoyle)

Re: How tiny wasps cope with being smaller than amoebas

#60

Post by rcthompson »

tsotha wrote: post #57
joeyo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C. elegans (a type of nematode) is even simpler, with exactly 302 neurons and ~15k synapses. But despite having the complete connectome, there has to date been only limited success at simulating the whole worm. Although see: https://code.google.com/p/openworm/ Edit: Also see the NYT article below.

How do you know when you've simulated a worm's brain correctly? I mean, they don't actually do much, do they?

Worms (C. elegans specifically) have specific well-documented responses to certain stimuli. You can apply those same stimuli to your simulated worm and see if it responds like a typical real worm.
Post reply on HN