Could you make two brains- for example, a mouse's- compatible with each other, via genetic engineering or something?
I wanted to know about making two MINDS (Not necessarily brains)
Could you make the physical reality of cells- neurons/glia cells- identical to each other in two or more different brains then?
somasimple said:Minds are expressions of brain functioning. You cannot separate minds from the physical reality of cells => neurons/glia cells
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...somasimple said:similar perhaps in 3/5 decades, identical, 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.I've learned two important things in science . First, never say never.
Minds are expressions of brain functioning. You cannot separate minds from the physical reality of cells => neurons/glia cells
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.
I shall stay at my position because:
1/ the number of cells involved.
2/ the number of connection that exist between these cells.
You'll get a divergent solution.
you might have argued that man will never fly.
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.somasimple said:Well it is just a mathematic/probability/physics explanation
A brain consists appproximately of 50,000,000,000 cells
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.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.
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.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!
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.somasimple said: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.
Yes, but...Is Moonbear trying to say/imply that maybe things aren't as random as you think they are?
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.NeedBioInfo said: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...
I know that my English is pretty ugly but let's take an example:I'm arguing an issue of semantics here.
Yes.somasimple, I think you're missing the point.
Wait and see.or give some arbitrarily long time scale like a billion years
hypnagogue said: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.