# Mini brains (organoids) that have eyes!!



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

Lab-grown mini brains develop basic eyes that can "see"


Researchers have made a striking breakthrough in lab-grown mini organs. Using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), the team induced brain organoids to develop rudimentary eye structures that can sense light and send signals to the rest of the brain.




newatlas.com




My husband and I were discussing these mini brains (before they started to grow eyes on them) and we came to the conclusion that, as they had no sensory input if any kind from their environment (images, sounds, touch, etc.) they could not differentiate themselves from it hence could not have "consciousness" of their own existence. They were not conscious in our opinion.

*But now they can see !!!*  Are they now conscious living beings? What do you think?


----------



## Elrik Settee (Aug 18, 2021)

Fascinating, Captain, but I fail to see the relevance to Earth music production.


----------



## Elrik Settee (Aug 18, 2021)

Black Hole Megastructures May Be Powering Alien Civilizations, Scientists Say


Dyson spheres encompassing around black holes could yield up to one million times more energy than those built around stars, according to a new study.




www.vice.com


----------



## cuttime (Aug 18, 2021)

I'd really like to have dinner with you and your husband. I'd say no, not conscious. Sensory input and detection are not synonymous with consciousness. A camera sensor and memory card are not conscious. If the memory card had some way of processing the image and recognizing what it means in the external world, and triggering a reaction, then maybe, rudimentary consciousness. There is a feedback loop (recursion) between the inner and outer world that would be required for consciousness to be attained. An amoeba with an eyespot can detect light, and if a speck of food obscures the light, and the amoeba has the innate sense of "hunger", then the amoeba can react and absorb the food, so yes, conscious, however primitive.

If I continue down this road you'll have me going back to "Godel, Escher, Bach", and we know where that rabbit hole goes!

EDIT: I just realized that the example I gave above would indicate that a robot with AI programming would be conscious; I'm not ready to go there, and I would say that the reactions of the robot are dependent on its programming, and not making sentient decisions based on agency.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

Elrik Settee said:


> Fascinating, Captain, but I fail to see the relevance to Earth music production.


Captain?? 
It's not about music. That's why it's in the thread entitled "Off-Topics - General Musings"


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

Elrik Settee said:


> Black Hole Megastructures May Be Powering Alien Civilizations, Scientists Say
> 
> 
> Dyson spheres encompassing around black holes could yield up to one million times more energy than those built around stars, according to a new study.
> ...


Now I fail to see the relevance of your article to the subject of _this_ thread 
But thanks anyway. I will relay the info to my physicist husband.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

cuttime said:


> I'd really like to have dinner with you and your husband.





cuttime said:


> I'd say no, not conscious.


So basically we agree 


cuttime said:


> Sensory input and detection are not synonymous with consciousness.


Of course. Agreed!


cuttime said:


> A camera sensor and memory card are not conscious. If the memory card had some way of processing the image and recognizing what it means in the external world, and triggering a reaction, then maybe, rudimentary consciousness. There is a feedback loop (recursion) between the inner and outer world that would be required for consciousness to be attained. An amoeba with an eyespot can detect light, and if a speck of food obscures the light, and the amoeba has the innate sense of "hunger", then the amoeba can react and absorb the food, so yes, conscious, however primitive.


Again, agreed!


cuttime said:


> If I continue down this road you'll have me going back to "Godel, Escher, Bach", and we know where that rabbit hole goes!


I was there a few posts back 


cuttime said:


> EDIT: I just realized that the example I gave above would indicate that a robot with AI programming would be conscious; I'm not ready to go there, and I would say that the reactions of the robot are dependent on its programming, and not making sentient decisions based on agency.


Being facetious: how do you know that WE are?


----------



## cuttime (Aug 18, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> So basically we agree
> 
> Of course. Agreed!
> 
> ...


All this agreement. That was a short dinner party...


----------



## Dr.Quest (Aug 18, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Lab-grown mini brains develop basic eyes that can "see"
> 
> 
> Researchers have made a striking breakthrough in lab-grown mini organs. Using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), the team induced brain organoids to develop rudimentary eye structures that can sense light and send signals to the rest of the brain.
> ...


Interesting article. Replicants are on the way!


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 18, 2021)

I'm still wondering if we are not just sims in a game. Or a microscopic life form in another dimension. But we could be AI and not know it. Though if we don't know what we are, are we actually conscious?


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 18, 2021)

Okay just read the full article. Interesting. In some ways, this is better than testing on rats because you technically grew your test medium, but if they have eyes and brainwaves comparable to a baby, would killing them be murder? 

I've always been in favor of cloning body parts, like a heart or kidneys, because there aren't enough good options out there for people with failing organs. And years ago when I was young, I had a dream about waking up in a hospital where they were doing full body transplants on to heads. 

So my thought is, if they are able to grow brains in a lab, can they use these brains to help those with brain damage or Alzheimer's? Or would we be taking a sentient being a sticking it in another sentient being's body? This could get interesting. 

Okay, I'm probably off the subject here. But it is interesting that they are growing eyes.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> I'm still wondering if we are not just sims in a game. Or a microscopic life form in another dimension. But we could be AI and not know it. Though if we don't know what we are, are we actually conscious?


Now you're opening a whole new can of (virtual) worms! 

You're asking about the nature of our reality and the Nature of The Reality.

We will soon start discussing the simulation hypothesis, Bostrom's papers, it from qubit, etc. Fascinating and enough for a whole year of dinners-discussions with my husband!


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> So my thought is, if they are able to grow brains in a lab, can they use these brains to help those with brain damage or Alzheimer's? Or would we be taking a sentient being a sticking it in another sentient being's body? This could get interesting.
> 
> Okay, I'm probably off the subject here. But it is interesting that they are growing eyes.


True. But you're raising the moral dilemma now. I was more interested in the consciousness question. Are they "humanoids"?

In the spirit of your point about transplants, what about transplanting intestines?

They are, as you know, our "second brain", with about 500 millions brain-like neurons like our main brain and connected to it by the big vagus nerve. Is it like transferring a part of one's brain, i.e. a part of one's consciousness, to another human being? We are, after all, a digestive tube on legs! 

You see? The dinner is just starting!


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 18, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> True. But you're raising the moral dilemma now. I was more interested in the consciousness question. Are they "humanoids"?
> 
> In the spirit of your point about transplants, what about transplanting intestines?
> 
> ...


This is true. For people with things like Crohn's who have had parts of their intestines removed, a transplant would great. But if, as you say, the created brain parts have conscious, would it be ethical to transfer it to someone's gut?

Actually, when you were first talking about brains with eyes, my thought was, if you put that brain with eyes in a body, is it able to see your internal structures? And if it had conscious, would it understand what it was seeing? 

Maybe not dinner conversation.....


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

Now you know @dzilizzi where this conversation is going?.... Down the drain... Down to fecal transplant !!! 

Definitely not a proper dinner conversation !!


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 18, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Now you know @dzilizzi where this conversation is going?.... Down the drain... Down to fecal transplant !!!
> 
> Definitely not a proper dinner conversation !!


True. Having some medical people in my family, dinner conversation does sometimes go down the drain when we all get together and they start talking shop.  

So I have been used to unusual dinner conversations for years.


----------



## cuttime (Aug 18, 2021)

Maybe some definitions would be in order: How does one define consciousness? Is it the same as self awareness or intelligence? Are these the same aspects of a whole, or are they different qualities? Are there adequate tests for these? The Turing test used to be the gold standard for intelligence, but I think it is beginning to fall by the wayside these days. The mirror test might be a good one for self awareness, but surely that doesn't define consciousness. Is consciousness merely basic input/output functions with some pattern recognition? Or, are all of these just artificial human constructs that are reflections of bioelectrical processes? Perhaps questions best left for philosophers or scifi writers, or maybe another bottle of wine...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

@cuttime : good question! Chalmers defined it by what is now called the "hard problem of consciousness" or the relation between physical processes and qualia.






Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

CTT, always a great source on this subject and so many other fascinating ones:








Consciousness Archives - Closer To Truth







www.closertotruth.com


----------



## cuttime (Aug 18, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> CTT, always a great source on this subject and so many other fascinating ones:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not easy questions. I tend to think that consciousness is a product of the neurology of the brain and not a specific truth, BUT, I'll throw in a wild card: the SOUL. Now, I'm not a religious person at all, and lean toward atheism, but my work leads me to contacts with the Religious. I had a similar discussion with a Jesuit priest who is a hell of a lot smarter than me. Catholic doctrine ties this concept up in a neat, irrefutable bow, but it does seem to tackle some thorny issues, even if it is the god in the machine. Personally I totally reject this duality, but damn if it doesn't explain a lot.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 18, 2021)

cuttime said:


> Not easy questions. I tend to think that consciousness is a product of the neurology of the brain and not a specific truth, BUT, I'll throw in a wild card: the SOUL. Now, I'm not a religious person at all, and lean toward atheism, but my work leads me to contacts with the Religious. I had a similar discussion with a Jesuit priest who is a hell of a lot smarter than me. Catholic doctrine ties this concept up in a neat, irrefutable bow, but it does seem to tackle some thorny issues, even if it is the god in the machine. Personally I totally reject this duality, but damn if it doesn't explain a lot.


Jesuits are the "scientists" of the Catholic church. I'm sure in the dark ages, they would have been called heretics. But generally, if there is a logical way to explain it, they will find it. 

Sometimes I think that this is where being a telepath would come in handy. If you could read their thoughts, it is likely they have consciousness. Unfortunately, I flunked mind reading in school. Always one of my big disappointments.


----------



## TinderC (Aug 18, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> *But now they can see !!!*  Are they now conscious living beings? What do you think?


Read "Second Nature" by Gerald Edelman. Mini-brains are not likely to be conscious.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 18, 2021)

TinderC said:


> Read "Second Nature" by Gerald Edelman. Mini-brains are not likely to be conscious.


Exactly what we think at this point. Thanks for the reference, I will look into it. I think we already have at home his book "The Brain" with J.P. Changeux who wrote "L'Homme Neuronal" a while back. Thanks! 

Edit: Just recalled a recent discussion where Edelman was mentioned by @Double Helix. It might also interest you.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

cuttime said:


> Not easy questions. I tend to think that consciousness is a product of the neurology of the brain and not a specific truth... Personally I totally reject this duality, but damn if it doesn't explain a lot.


Agreed! Tough question, pure neurophysiological process, no place for dualism imho, soul...what is it? 

As Laplace famously said "I have no need for this (God) hypothesis" (in my theory) but he also had _his own demon(s) _ This even touches deeper subjects like parallel universes and quantum reality. See for example _The Fabric of Reality_ by David Deutsch.

OTOH, as my husband would say here, one doesn't explain away one mystery by invoking another! Quantum mechanics cannot explain consciousness nor can consciousness explain QM (as Bohr would have liked). He does not believe in such "explanations" as Quantum Consciousness and calls them pseudo-sciences.

My original question is still: if now mini-brain organoids have seeing eyes capable of seeing their environment, can they be called _not only _sentients but conscious?

Ok,it's time to get back to my studio and the "simple" subject of music!!


----------



## Alex Fraser (Aug 19, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> I'm still wondering if we are not just sims in a game. Or a microscopic life form in another dimension. But we could be AI and not know it. Though if we don't know what we are, are we actually conscious?


Oooo, the simulation argument. I love that one. A proper mind twister for (slightly) drunk gatherings.


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 19, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> Oooo, the simulation argument. I love that one. A proper mind twister for (slightly) drunk gatherings.


No brainer. Just expand the Drake equation slightly and add one probability factor (“likelihood a civilization will develop The Matrix”) and one will easily come to the conclusion that each universe will contain a multitude of Matrices. So the chance we’re in one of those versus the probability we’re actually REAL organic sentient creatures living in a REAL universe is way bigger.

Okay, I’ll see myself out…


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> No brainer.


Good one Doc! 


doctoremmet said:


> Just expand the Drake equation slightly...


What???  Drake has his own equation???


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 19, 2021)

He’s a Candinavian right? Nothing but talented musicians and scientists with their own equations named after them from that country…


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> He’s a Candinavian right? Nothing but talented musicians and scientists with their own equations named after them from that country…


Ok, ok. T'was supposed to be kept secret but here it is...

*Tatiana's Equation



*​


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 19, 2021)

I solved it and here’s what I got:


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I solved it and here’s what I got: 42


Close but no cigar for the hitch-hiking Doc! 
Let me help you a bit here...








The deconstructed Standard Model equation


The Standard Model is far more than elementary particles arranged in a table.




www.symmetrymagazine.org


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 19, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Close but no cigar for the hitch-hiking Doc!
> Let me help you a bit here...
> 
> 
> ...


So physics uses "ghosts" to account for things? And yet scientists say "ghosts" do not exist? Hmm. Quite the conundrum..... 

LOL! Now we are starting to mix this thread with the paranormal thread.....


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> So physics uses "ghosts" to account for things? And yet scientists say "ghosts" do not exist? Hmm. Quite the conundrum.....  LOL! Now we are starting to mix this thread with the paranormal thread.....


Not only that but there are "good ghosts" and also "bad ghosts" 


> Good ghosts are virtual particles that are introduced for regularization, like Faddeev–Popov ghosts. Otherwise, "bad" ghosts admit undesired non-virtual states in a theory, like Pauli–Villars ghosts that introduce particles with negative kinetic energy.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 19, 2021)

So maybe call the poltergeists Pauli-Villars ghosts? Unless, of course, they bring me a cup of coffee. then they are Faddeev-Popov ghosts. 

Of course, all my poltergeists usually end up being my cats. They do like to knock things over. 

These equations are beyond me, though. Algebra was easy, geometry, not so much. So I never made it to real calculus, just calculus for business where all numbers exist in some form.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> So maybe call the poltergeists Pauli-Villars ghosts?


Paultergeists


----------



## Loïc D (Aug 19, 2021)

Hey, I got the mini-brain but poor eyes.
Those things beat me up !


----------



## TinderC (Aug 19, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Edit: Just recalled a recent discussion where Edelman was mentioned by @Double Helix. It might also interest you.


Good thread there. Eric Kandel's "In Search of Memory" is a page-turner about how he uncovered the basic mechanism of neural connections in sea slugs. No discussion of consciousness is complete without including the sharp opinions of the philosopher John Searle.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 19, 2021)

TinderC said:


> Good thread there. Eric Kandel's "In Search of Memory" is a page-turner about how he uncovered the basic mechanism of neural connections in sea slugs. No discussion of consciousness is complete without including the sharp opinions of the philosopher John Searle.


Both names are household names here  Great thinkers, both!


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Aug 20, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> So maybe call the poltergeists Pauli-Villars ghosts? Unless, of course, they bring me a cup of coffee. then they are Faddeev-Popov ghosts.


To return to consciousness you can add to physics ghosts the philosophical zombies too! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 20, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> To return to consciousness you can add to physics ghosts the philosophical zombies too! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/


I didn't read the whole thing, but I'm sure zombies exist as I feel like one today. (Read too late last night and woke up too early this morning) Not sure the brain is functioning.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

_Looking_  back at this subject I found this article:


> The classical view has always been that “the mind” is something that can exist as distinct from the senses. But it now seems that the higher brain functions are vitally dependent upon the senses, that deprived of our senses we would become mindless in short order. It is fortunate that the scientists have kept their eyes and ears open about our eyes and ears. and fingertips as well.











We Have More Than Five Senses; Most people take the faculties of sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing for granted—but not the scientist. Recent findings suggest we may have abilities we never suspected. (Published 1964)


L W Robinson article on human senses; comments on new evidence humans have more senses than accepted 5; illus




www.nytimes.com


----------



## Elrik Settee (Nov 13, 2021)

Paywalled. If you have access, please copy content and paste here, thnx


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

Elrik Settee said:


> Paywalled. If you have access, please copy content and paste here, thnx


Sorry about that. You can check my other related post in thread 'This Person Does Not Exist - but do YOU?' :




__





This Person Does Not Exist - but do YOU?


I should not open this particular can of entangled quantum worms here ;) Would make for an interesting conversation, especially considered from different angles (science, religion/spirituality).




vi-control.net


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 15, 2021)

dydazz000 said:


> I'm still wondering if we are not just sims in a game


You should read the whole thread mentioned just above 




__





This Person Does Not Exist - but do YOU?


Something fun to ponder over the weekend, during a Saturday night dinner with friends, something along the lines of the Simulation Theory. Each time the following web page is reloaded a completely fake new human face is created by this artificial intelligence (AI) system...




vi-control.net


----------

