Possible Ways to Create Two Compatible Brains?

[NeedBioInfo]

Could you make two brains- for example, a mouse's- compatible with each other, via genetic engineering or something?

Thanks

 

[hypnagogue]

What do you mean by 'compatible with each other'?

 

[NeedBioInfo]

I was asking that question in regards to what somebody said, which was this:

It seems obvious to me that no two minds would be compatible, and that this kind of forced connection would just result in a clash in which both minds would be degraded, if not destroyed. You are assuming that information automatically accumulates whereas it actually often conflicts.

You've also ignored the emotional component, which is brain-based, in the diencephalon. Imagine the havoc it would create in your mind to suddenly have a second, but equally powerful, emotional reaction to everything occurring on top of your native one. Trying to sort them out would paralyse you, or drive you insane.

they said that in regards to me asking about brain physically connecting up to another brain via genetic engineering

Somebody said that with genetic engineering (The type I was talking about) you could repattern the two tissues so that they integrate

 

[LURCH]

I don't think two brains could be "made" physically compatible. If this could be done, the problem of tissue rejection in transplant recipients would be solved. So, just like transplant patients, you would probably have to find two brains that are compatible, rather than trying to make them so. This could perhaps be accomplished through cloning (sellect two mice that are monozygotic twins). This, of course, would do nothing to reduce the other problems involved.

 

[hypnagogue]

NeedBioInfo, you're still being terribly vague. Could you describe exactly what you mean by making two brains compatible with each other? Compatible in what way, exactly?

 

[NeedBioInfo]

Identical, I guess. I guess I'm asking if it would theoretically/hypothetically be possible to make two brains/minds identical to each other, (physically and/or pyschologically) and if so, how.

Thanks

 

[hypnagogue]

I'm not sure what making a duplicate of a brain has to do with making two brains compatible with each other. Whatever it might mean to make two brains compatible with each other, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with creating identical copies. Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

 

[NeedBioInfo]

well basically...I wanted to know about making two MINDS (Not necessarily brains) identical to each other

thanks

 

[somasimple]

Hi,

I wanted to know about making two MINDS (Not necessarily brains)

Minds are expressions of brain functioning. You cannot separate minds from the physical reality of cells => neurons/glia cells

 

[NeedBioInfo]

Could you make the physical reality of cells- neurons/glia cells- identical to each other in two or more different brains then?

Thanks

 

[somasimple]

Could you make the physical reality of cells- neurons/glia cells- identical to each other in two or more different brains then?

similar perhaps in 3/5 decades, identical, never!

 

[NeedBioInfo]

About the above comment:

How similar, though?

Thanks

 

[hypnagogue]

Minds are expressions of brain functioning. You cannot separate minds from the physical reality of cells => neurons/glia cells

This could topic could fill a whole other thread, but the above isn't necessarily true. To the extent that minds are characterized by abstract computational processes, we could build certain kinds of non-biological computers that could plausibly be said to have minds. For instance, in theory we could build a silicon-based robot with a complex CPU taking in lots of information from the environment, processing that information with high-level cognitive functions analogous to memory, attention, decision making, and so on, and then behaving coherently and intelligently in the world on the basis of that data processing. That would inarguably constitute a mind qua complex, computational, cognitive processing unit without needing biological cells. Of course, if by "mind" we mean to include consciousness, the picture gets muddier and it's no longer clear (at least, given what we know now) whether our robot has a mind qua conscious entity.

 

[Moonbear]

similar perhaps in 3/5 decades, identical, never!

I've learned two important things in science . First, never say never. Second, don't try to estimate a time frame for something you just don't know how to do. But, that said...

NeedBioInfo, I think the main point being made here is that what you are asking about is so far beyond our current knowledge of neuroscience as to be unanswerable, unless you are asking if we can do it right now, in which case, the answer is no. I would, however, lean toward the view that there would be so many variables that would need to be controlled in trying to create two identical brains/minds (whether or not you consider them one and the same) as to make it highly unlikely it would ever be accomplished, and even more likely that anyone would be able to provide sufficient justification for experiments to try it.

 

[somasimple]

Hi,

I've learned two important things in science . First, never say never.

The natural complexity of brain (number of cells) and the natural number of changing connections every second brought this affirmation! Twins are similar but not identical.

Exact brain cloning is thus impossible.

 

[somasimple]

Minds are expressions of brain functioning. You cannot separate minds from the physical reality of cells => neurons/glia cells

This statement is valid for human beings (and certainly all conscious living things?) Mind is the result of cells which are functionning so mind exists only if cells exist.

Thinking machine are possible for sure.

 

[Moonbear]

Hi,

The natural complexity of brain (number of cells) and the natural number of changing connections every second brought this affirmation! Twins are similar but not identical.

Exact brain cloning is thus impossible.

That's a large leap in logic there. Just because it doesn't naturally occur in twins doesn't mean it's impossible, unless you're talking about the current state of technology. It is impossible NOW, but will it ever become possible? I don't know. I wouldn't bet the house on it, but I wouldn't be a complete naysayer either. There's simply no way to know where technology could lead in the future. Yes, there are a HUGE numbers of variables that would need to be controlled for, but many things have been said to be impossible that became possible.

 

[somasimple]

Hi,

I shall stay at my position because:
1/ the number of cells involved.
2/ the number of connection that exist between these cells.
3/ education.

You'll get a divergent solution.

 

[hypnagogue]

Hi,

I shall stay at my position because:
1/ the number of cells involved.
2/ the number of connection that exist between these cells.
3/ education.

You'll get a divergent solution.

If you were alive not too long ago, you might have argued that man will never fly. Certainly no one is saying that making a close replica of a brain would be easy, or even that it's likely to happen. But if you were more educated on this subject of forecasting what will be possible tomorrow based on what we know today, you wouldn't be so confident. Given the exponential growth of technology and knowledge, it's probably true that civilization a mere 100 years from will have advanced so much as to be largely unrecognizable to us as we stand today. Give humanity a few million or even billion years to continue at that pace, and the smart move is not to put all your chips against virtually anything being possible.

 

[somasimple]

Well it is just a mathematic/probability/physics explanation

A brain consists appproximately of 50,000,000,000 cells
Each cell has 1,000 to 30,000 connections and some of these ones are changing every second. (# combinations! )
Every signal may change because a neuron is able to add/subbstract ions channels changing the speed/intensity of signal.

If a single cell over 50,000,000,000 changes one connection thus the system diverges.

If only a little breeze/touch/event is perceived differently by two identical brains that is the end of your exact/identical brains.

they will diverge at the first second in my view!

you might have argued that man will never fly.

But Man do not fly (by himself) sorry!

 

[Moonbear]

Well it is just a mathematic/probability/physics explanation

A brain consists appproximately of 50,000,000,000 cells

The question didn't specify a species. In mice, that number would be considerably lower, around 100 million cells and only 75 million of those are neurons. If instead we tried this with Drosophila, it would get even simpler.

Each cell has 1,000 to 30,000 connections and some of these ones are changing every second. (# combinations! )
Every signal may change because a neuron is able to add/subbstract ions channels changing the speed/intensity of signal.

And there is ongoing research to understand what determines this synaptic plasticity. All that number of combinations suggests is that it's improbable, not impossible.

If a single cell over 50,000,000,000 changes one connection thus the system diverges.

If only a little breeze/touch/event is perceived differently by two identical brains that is the end of your exact/identical brains.

they will diverge at the first second in my view!

But it remains only your view or opinion. What if identical twins, or clones, were to be raised in a highly controlled environment in order to prevent anything different being experienced between the two? Technically, incredibly difficult, and not possible now. And if you claim they will diverge in the first second, then there would be one second in which they are identical. The question didn't require we manage to maintain it for long. Realistically, is anyone going to bother trying? No. And I highly doubt it will ever be done or happen, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible. "Impossible" is a dangerous word to use, and should be avoided, simply because you cannot know the answer with that much certainty.

 

[somasimple]

MoonBear,

Even with 100 cells, it would be impossible because the underlying processes that regulate a cell have to be exactly the same in the clones. It is actually impossible to have two exact/identical cells that function excactlly in the same way.
A neuron "fires" with ions channels and they work with probabilities. An axon have 300/3000 ions channels/µm². Trying to say that an indentic behaviour may happens when its basic functionning is based upon random things is weird.

 

[Moonbear]

MoonBear,

Even with 100 cells, it would be impossible because the underlying processes that regulate a cell have to be exactly the same in the clones. It is actually impossible to have two exact/identical cells that function excactlly in the same way.
A neuron "fires" with ions channels and they work with probabilities. An axon have 300/3000 ions channels/µm². Trying to say that an indentic behaviour may happens when its basic functionning is based upon random things is weird.

Why do you think it's random? I think it just means we don't understand enough yet to know what reason there is for the variation. For example, I know of a group that is working on ion channels in olfactory cilia, and are already developing models predicting the numbers of ion channels AND their position. The experimental results are fitting the predictions pretty well, so that would indicate ion channel numbers and gradients are not a random process if you can develop models that work.

Your assertion is overly definite when too little is known to make such a conclusion. Impossibility can only be claimed if you've already identified every variable, controlled for all of them, are 100% certain there are no other variables left, and still do not get the predicted outcome. You're basing your claims on things like differences in clones, but that's such a brand new technology (on the relative scale of technologies) that it would be premature to say some of the epigenetic factors can't be controlled for yet. People thought the entire idea of cloning of mammals was impossible not all that long ago, and the same for in vitro fertilization. I know I'm arguing semantics, but it's not a trivial issue to be precise in your language when dealing with science.

 

[somasimple]

Well,

the distribution of ions channels is made randomly (they stick to the membrane if they find a place).
We know that some of them have failures every day but are replaced.
Do you know exactly when and where it will happen? It will change in the instant the firing pattern and message.

Can you say that the failure may happen at the same place and at the same time in the same cell? Just compute the probability of a such event!

You know also that ions penetrate through membrane in some unique patterns ion/water or water/ion and it will dramatically change the internal computation of the activation of the other neighbour ones.
Have we a chance to know if an Na ion or K ion is at the good place for an incoming in the channel? No because, we can't really predict the place of an atom.

Too much variables, too much events, too much chance to have a divergence.
It is exactly the same with the butterfly effect.

 

[NeedBioInfo]

Is Moonbear trying to say/imply that maybe things aren't as random as you think they are? (In regards to what you're talking about) Because if that's what he's trying to say then your last post didn't appear (to me) to respond to that...

 

[somasimple]

Is Moonbear trying to say/imply that maybe things aren't as random as you think they are?

Yes, but...
Take a neuron and apply the same stimulus several times and you'll get ever different responses (similar but not exactly the same). The firing will differ because ions around the channels aren't positioned in the exact manner of the previous event.
Thus you introduce a ramdom in the duration of spiking and because duration/intervall will slightly differs you'll get a divergent behaviour that is only, in part, corrected by pre and post 'synapsing'.

 

[Gokul43201]

QM teaches us that if you prepare 2 systems indentically, and allow them to evolve according to the same set of rules, they will, in general end up at different final states (when you observe them after some time). If the set of allowed states is continuous, the probability of the two systems being in the same state at some time t != 0 is in fact zero.

 

[Moonbear]

Is Moonbear trying to say/imply that maybe things aren't as random as you think they are? (In regards to what you're talking about) Because if that's what he's trying to say then your last post didn't appear (to me) to respond to that...

Nope, what I'm saying is we don't know enough yet to determine that. Somasimple could be right, that it is impossible, but we don't have enough information to state that with such certainty at this time. What we're arguing goes beyond your original question...the answer to your original question is more that we have no ability to do it now, and I don't know of any justification to bother trying it. Somasimple is correct that it's not going to happen, but that's different from impossibility. I'm arguing an issue of semantics here.

 

[somasimple]

MoonBear,

I'm arguing an issue of semantics here.

I know that my English is pretty ugly but let's take an example:

Here is an inverter that comes with 2 resistors and a single OA.
The gain is given by the ratio G=Rf/R1
I will be very kind and we will suppose that it is an ideal operational amplifier.

Problem:
we want to make an inverter with a defined gain of 100.0 with resistors (1% tolerance) and Rf =100K and R1 =1K.
Go to your preferred electronic supply and buy 100 resistances of each values.
1/ What are the chances to have a 100.0 gain, (the resistors are randomly choosen)?
2/ consider a circuit that use 100 inverters!
3/ consider that a neuron is made with thousand inverters.
4/ Are you able to create two exact electronic neurons?
5/ consider a system with 50 000 000 000 neurons

Well, biologic systems haven't a such 1% precision!

 

[hypnagogue]

somasimple, I think you're missing the point. Moonbear is not at all denying that it would be astronomically difficult to do something like creating a (virtually) identical copy of a brain. Nor is she denying that we have absolutely no means to do this given our current knowledge and technology. She is just maintaining that it might not be categorically impossible for this to be done. Inordinately improbable yes, but not necessarily impossible in principle, at least on some interpretations of the initial question. Again-- assume humanity doesn't annihilate itself but rather continues to progress in knowledge and technology in an unbounded fashion (or give some arbitrarily long time scale like a billion years), and it's no longer at all clear exactly what would be possible and impossible for such an advanced society. Certainly the catalogue of what such a society could do would include many things that today we might think impossible.