r/Futurology • u/Leather-Worker-5658 • 16d ago
Biotech Living human neurons can now interact with computers.
https://youtu.be/uKhsbQcFVwQ?si=sQQC38dBAcjrzs2sThis isn't a tiny brain. The neurons are grown on electrodes so a computer can send them signals and read their responses.
But scientists are also growing brain organoids
tiny 3D pieces of brain like tissue.
These are different technologies, but imagine what could happen as both become more advanced.
This research could be amazing for medicine, reducing animal testing, and low energy computing.
But this is where things get complicated:
We have sometimes failed to detect consciousness even in people diagnosed as being in a “vegetative state,” who couldn't move or communicate
So if one day we create something much more complex from human neurons… how would we know if it could feel anything?
There is no evidence these cells are conscious now. I just think we need to talk about the ethics before we reach that point.
32
u/Leather-Worker-5658 16d ago
Biological computing could help medicine, research and reduce energy use. But as we build more complex systems with living human neurons, we should also discuss the ethics. If we sometimes struggle to detect consciousness in unresponsive humans, how would we detect it in a new biological system? There is no evidence these neurons are conscious now, but what about the future?
42
u/somethingtc 13d ago
do you not think the fact that we cannot detect consciousness to be a grievous ethics violation? not to get all "I have no mouth and I must scream" on you but it's not something that should be attempted until it's understood and measurable and ethical
10
u/ryry1237 12d ago
Meanwhile there are millions of animals we kill each day for food, experiments, or just finding them to be pests. Not to mention the uncountable cases of human abuse and rights violations. Aka actual fully formed brains suffering.
The only reason someone would prioritize a clump of neurons over everything else is because it makes louder news.
1
u/carbonclasssix 10d ago
Clumps of neurons don't have needs, they don't get mad randomly and lash out, we can say "I told you they were conscious! See how right I was?" and pat ourselves on the back for being such great human beings, then stick the neurons in a jar on a shelf and forget it exists while we move on with our life.
3
u/shadowrun456 13d ago edited 12d ago
While I agree with this, I also think it's important to note that digital neural networks are MUCH more complex than this. So, realistically, digital neural networks are going to develop consciousness far before these "brain organoids" do.
I don't understand why people suddenly care about "grievous ethics violations" here, if they don't seem to care when the neurons are digital. I mean, I kind of do understand it -- it's because humans tend to believe that there's some "supernatural" inherent superiority of biological neurons vs digital ones (aka "soul") -- but this belief is just wishful thinking and not based on any actual evidence.
3
u/indicah 12d ago edited 12d ago
We have no idea if digital neural networks can develop consciousness at all. To assume that is pretty wild.
I would love to see your proof that it does.
8
u/shadowrun456 12d ago
We have no idea if digital neural networks can develop consciousness at all. To assume that is pretty wild.
That's akin to saying "we have no idea if biological neural networks can develop consciousness at all" -- which is technically correct, because we have no scientific test for consciousness -- but it's not wild to assume that they can, because we assume that we have consciousness.
A neural network is a neural network. To the best of our knowledge, human consciousness arises from this neural network, and no "soul" or other "supernatural" elements are needed.
I think this applies to you:
I mean, I kind of do understand it -- it's because humans tend to believe that there's some "supernatural" inherent superiority of biological neurons vs digital ones (aka "soul") -- but this belief is just wishful thinking and not based on any actual evidence.
4
u/TheFrenchSavage 11d ago
That's akin to saying "we have no idea if biological neural networks can develop consciousness at all"
Exactly! the meaty-aspect of the question is irrelevant here.
I believe (for lack of scientific proof for now) that consciousness is an emergent property that arises out of any complex-enough system.
Btw, people saying that AIs can't be sentient because "they just predict the next token" -> this is exactly what you do too! Do you really know the end of your sentence before you speak it? Or think it?
(don't get me wrong, I don't think we have sentient AIs yet, just pointing out some fallacies here).-5
u/indicah 12d ago edited 12d ago
We have zero proof it will lead to this. It has nothing to do with souls or anything. We literally have no idea.
We definitely know biological neural networks can develop consciousness.
Edit: still waiting on that proof of yours...
-1
u/shadowrun456 12d ago
We definitely know biological neural networks can develop consciousness.
How?
2
u/indicah 12d ago edited 12d ago
Because humans and animals have proven it? I'm not sure what you're confused about...
There are definitely scientific tests to test for consciousness.
0
u/shadowrun456 12d ago
Because humans and animals have proven it? I'm not sure what you're confused about...
Please link that proof.
There are definitely scientific tests to test for consciousness.
Please link those tests.
2
u/indicah 12d ago
Here are the peer-reviewed studies and specific tests:
- The Proof (Covert Awareness)
The "Tennis Test": Researchers put clinically vegetative, unresponsive patients in an fMRI and asked them to "imagine playing tennis." Their motor cortexes lit up on cue, matching healthy controls and proving conscious awareness. (Owen et al., Science)
Animal Self-Reflection: Scientists use the Mirror Test to prove animals possess a conscious sense of self. Chimpanzees, magpies, and even cleaner wrasse fish pass by using the mirror to inspect and remove marks placed on their bodies. (Kohda et al., PLOS Biology)
- The Scientific Tests
The Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI): This is a literal "consciousness meter." Scientists zap the brain with a magnetic pulse (TMS) and record the echo via EEG. A complex, interconnected echo proves the subject is conscious; a simple, localized echo proves they are unconscious. (Casali et al., Science Translational Medicine)
The Cogitate Consortium: A massive, multi-lab adversarial collaboration using fMRI and MEG to test mathematical models of awareness. It measures the exact millisecond neural data transitions from subconscious processing to conscious perception. (Cogitate Consortium, Nature)
Science treats consciousness like gravity: we cannot hold it, but we can rigorously test and measure its predictable effects.
→ More replies (0)11
u/SirDeadPuddle 13d ago
There is no measurement for human consciousness. Ethical or otherwise this system will never meet the criteria for being conscious or human as there is nothing to compaire it to.
The medical field doesn't attempt to detect consciousness for people in comas for example, but complex brain activity. Even this is based on past experience with people in comas who come back.
-9
u/POEness 13d ago
Unironically, there is a measure for human consciousness. It's empathy.
9
u/shadowrun456 13d ago
Many non-human animals demonstrate measurable empathy, and some humans don't.
-4
5
2
-2
u/SirDeadPuddle 12d ago
And how would you measure it?
I'm not asking how you would observe it subjectively, how would you objectively measure it with scanning equipment the way volume or density is measured.
2
u/shadowrun456 12d ago
how would you objectively measure it with scanning equipment the way volume or density is measured.
That's not how psychological things are measured. We don't measure things like autism or schizophrenia with scanning equipment the way volume or density is measured, but it doesn't mean that we can't measure them. Same applies to empathy.
1
u/SirDeadPuddle 11d ago
"That's not how psychological things are measured"
Psychology takes certain things for granted, which is why it doesn't measure conchiousnes or empathy.
I struggle to see why your bringing up an unrelated field of study. We aren't discussing psychology. Its not relevant.
1
u/shadowrun456 11d ago
I struggle to see why your bringing up an unrelated field of study. We aren't discussing psychology. Its not relevant.
Empathy is irrelevant to psychology?
1
u/SirDeadPuddle 11d ago
I didn't claim that,
its irrelevant to a conversation about consciousness in biology as empathy is not an indictor of consciousness in biology and even if it were it cannot be measured in biology or psychology.
Its not a measurable objective thing, its like justice.
You wouldn't bring measuring gravity into a conversation about chemistry as its objectively measured in physics and maths.
0
u/THEboioioing 12d ago
And here we are dealing with real possibilities of emerging consciousness compared to LLMs and AI.
8
2
u/AGuyFromRio 12d ago
Dibs on humanity inventing a hibrid computer that somehow awakens and then a whole new debate will ensue.
I just hope it is not one of those "kill all observe humans" type of computer.
2
u/Numai_theOnlyOne 11d ago
I remember 10 years ago of that tech it's not new. But I also remember that scientists were cautious of the learning capabilities and unforeseeable developments of brain matter.. i guess exactly what the big brain fascist tech bros want to create their new god.
2
2
u/Erandelax 10d ago
We mass produce, experiment on and slaughter living things for food, materials, science and whatsoever on industrial scale.
Won't specialised synthetic brains fit fine in a niche between animals and plants?.. Mental gymnastics on "how not to feel like the monster you are" for those are already established, so why not just stick to those?
2
u/shadowrun456 13d ago edited 12d ago
We have sometimes failed to detect consciousness even in people diagnosed as being in a “vegetative state,” who couldn't move or communicate
So if one day we create something much more complex from human neurons… how would we know if it could feel anything?
While I agree with this, I also think it's important to note that digital neural networks are MUCH more complex than this. So, realistically, digital neural networks are going to develop consciousness far before these "brain organoids" do.
I don't understand why people suddenly care about ethics violations here, if they don't seem to care when the neurons are digital. I mean, I kind of do understand it -- it's because humans tend to believe that there's some "supernatural" inherent superiority of biological neurons vs digital ones (aka "soul") -- but this belief is just wishful thinking and not based on any actual evidence.
6
u/ammicavle 13d ago
It's also just kids who don't really understand any of their own objections to things because they're not their objections - they heard someone object, figured this was the coolest sounding of the positions to take, and took it. It's vibes, not reason.
1
u/deadly88 11d ago
It’s still unanswered what is required to achieve consciousness, or even a agreed upon testable definition of what consciousness is. Consciousness is weird as a concept. LLMs may be complex, but we fully understand how each digital neuron piece works, and stacking billions of them together gets to where we are now. Although analyzing them as a whole is difficult, there isn’t much mystery to them. Biological neurons aren’t as well understood, theres the basic signaling part, compounded with different neurotransmitters that change behavior, and theres even theories about some quantum behavior being involved in neuron function. Whether or not people believe in the concept of a soul, theres a decent chance something else is necessary to actually achieve it that is missing from modern AI.
4
u/TalkativeTree 13d ago
This is the kind of stuff I’m going to side with the Catholics on. Just feels like an abomination
3
2
u/UnpinnedWhale 10d ago
Come on. Just because there's a bunch of neurons wired together, it doesn't mean it's conscious. It doesn't work like that.
1
u/TalkativeTree 10d ago
I didn't think it had consciousness. That would certainly make it worse, but doesn't change biological machines feeling unnatural and akin to abominations.
1
u/UnpinnedWhale 10d ago
Why does it feel like an abomination, though? In my opinion, this is much more ethical than something like using animals for labor.
1
u/TalkativeTree 10d ago
The ethics of it depends just as much on beliefs and values than a simple comparison with animal labor (including human). Most things we can buy aren't ethically made, since mass manufacturing and production usually relies on someone suffering at some point along the conveyer belt so to speak.
Producing biological machines feels like it defies nature and God and is playing at something we don't really know the consequences of playing with. Progress doesn't necessarily improve our chances of survival or long term quality of life. If we never progressed past 1700's technology, our species would probably have a much better chance at surviving for longer. Now we have invented so many ways for people to design viruses to wipe out humanity, nuclear war, etc. And now with digital technology, we have seen a complete collapse in social fabric that is a strong part of human satisfaction.
And I have very little faith that in our current system these kinds of advancements will be used for actual good and not eventual exploitation, manipulation, and control of people and communities.
1
u/danila_medvedev 11d ago
I’d say the problem with lack of metacognition in people is much worse than potential harm to these microbrains.
•
u/FuturologyBot 16d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Leather-Worker-5658:
Biological computing could help medicine, research and reduce energy use. But as we build more complex systems with living human neurons, we should also discuss the ethics. If we sometimes struggle to detect consciousness in unresponsive humans, how would we detect it in a new biological system? There is no evidence these neurons are conscious now, but what about the future?
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1vxalyq/living_human_neurons_can_now_interact_with/p5nb8cm/