[Igor Antunov]

It seems when you allow a bunch of neurons to multiply and form connections in a petri dish, they start forming sensory organs with which to perceive the world around them.

Mini brains grown in a lab from stem cells have spontaneously developed rudimentary eye structures, scientists report in a fascinating new paper.

On tiny, human-derived brain organoids grown in dishes, two bilaterally symmetrical optic cups were seen to grow, mirroring the development of eye structures in human embryos.

The optic cups contained different retinal cell types, which organized into neural networks that responded to light, and even contained lens and corneal tissue. Finally, the structures displayed retinal connectivity to regions of the brain tissue.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... ntary-eyes


I want to grow a brain in a jar. I want it to have a mouth with which it can scream. Don't you?

[XogGyux]

It seems when you allow a bunch of neurons to multiply and form connections in a petri dish, they start forming sensory organs with which to perceive the world around them.





https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... ntary-eyes


I want to grow a brain in a jar. I want it to have a mouth with which it can scream. Don't you?

Oh, there is hope for you then, if you go into a petri dish, perhaps it will go in reverse and you'll grow a brain.
All in good humour

[Torus34]

It seems when you allow a bunch of neurons to multiply and form connections in a petri dish, they start forming sensory organs with which to perceive the world around them.





https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... ntary-eyes


I want to grow a brain in a jar. I want it to have a mouth with which it can scream. Don't you?

Hi, Igor!

I see you read SF. Best to you and yours.

[Potemkin]

You think that's creepy, @Igor Antunov? Check this out....

https://lapsuspsych.com/2015/08/10/a-si ... -like-eye/

[B0ycey]

It seems when you allow a bunch of neurons to multiply and form connections in a petri dish, they start forming sensory organs with which to perceive the world around them.

I wonder if the creationists latch onto this. Isn't their ideology based on the complexity of the human eye? Spontaneous eyes seems something that is going to be difficult to explain on evolution standpoint. Although I am sure there are a number of scientists trying to work that one out.

This is a legit story right @Igor Antunov?

[Igor Antunov]

I wonder if the creationists latch onto this. Isn't their ideology based on the complexity of the human eye? Spontaneous eyes seems something that is going to be difficult to explain on evolution standpoint. Although I am sure there are a number of scientists trying to work that one out.

This is a legit story right @Igor Antunov?

No shit it's legit. It's more legit than the wuflu.

[B0ycey]

No shit it's legit. It's more legit than the wuflu.

Reading your article with a bit more time on my hands, they were using stem cells which might explain it. However the spontaneity of sensory organs on neurons although wouldn't imply a creator given it was a mixture of ingredients by human hand that allowed it to happen, still doesn't explain why it occurred do to our understanding of evolution either. However it is evidence for Genetic Memory as it may be in the DNA sequencing and not adaptation for its occurrence.

[Potemkin]

Reading your article with a bit more time on my hands, they were using stem cells which might explain it. However the spontaneity of sensory organs on neurons although wouldn't imply a creator given it was a mixture of ingredients by human hand that allowed it to happen, still doesn't explain why it occurred do to our understanding of evolution either. However it is evidence for Genetic Memory as it may be in the DNA sequencing and not adaptation for its occurrence.

Stem cells contain the full DNA code to make a complete organism, including eyes. And there's not much point having a brain without having sensory input to process....

[B0ycey]

Stem cells contain the full DNA code to make a complete organism, including eyes. And there's not much point having a brain without having sensory input to process....

Sure, but that isn't suppose to be how evolution happens. It is a process of small adaptations to adapt to the environment. What happened here was purely an adaptation that happened to the environment given the stem cells were within neurons and not eye cells. That would be better explained with generic memory theory.

[Potemkin]

Sure, but that isn't suppose to be how evolution happens. It is a process of small adaptations to adapt to the environment. What happened here was purely an adaptation that happened to the environment given the stem cells were within neurons and not eye cells. That would be better explained with generic memory theory.

We're not witnessing evolution in a petri dish, @B0ycey. All the evolution has already taken place, and is locked up in the DNA of the stem cells. What requires explanation is the fact that the genetic code to make eyes was expressed in this environment. What triggered it? That's a mystery.

[late]

Sure, but that isn't suppose to be how evolution happens.

It is a process of small adaptations to adapt to the environment.

What happened here was purely an adaptation that happened to the environment given the stem cells were within neurons and not eye cells. That would be better explained with generic memory theory.

Eyes evolved something like 5 times. They give a huge survival advantage. They evolved gradually.

"Scientists think the earliest version of the eye was formed in unicellular organisms, who had something called ‘eyespots’. These eyespots were made up of patches of photoreceptor proteins that were sensitive to light. They couldn’t see shapes or colour, but were able to determine whether it was light or dark out. These unicellular organisms would use photosynthesis to create food for themselves, so being able to determine where the most light was coming from created a huge advantage for them."
https://www.scienceworld.ca/stories/eyes-how/

Not always, the Cambrian Explosion was a bunch of large adaptions.

Generic memory??

[B0ycey]

We're not witnessing evolution in a petri dish, @B0ycey. All the evolution has already taken place, and is locked up in the DNA of the stem cells. What requires explanation is the fact that the genetic code to make eyes was expressed in this environment. What triggered it? That's a mystery.

You have basically repeated what I have told you.

The point is, as you clearly don't know, genetic memory theory isn't suppose to happen either. Stem cells are meant to adapt to their environment. They aren't meant to create a new organs within organs. The only way that can happen is if stem cells actually adapt the genetic code to an environment from another part of the genetic code.

[B0ycey]

Eyes evolved something like 5 times. They give a huge survival advantage. They evolved gradually.

"Scientists think the earliest version of the eye was formed in unicellular organisms, who had something called ‘eyespots’. These eyespots were made up of patches of photoreceptor proteins that were sensitive to light. They couldn’t see shapes or colour, but were able to determine whether it was light or dark out. These unicellular organisms would use photosynthesis to create food for themselves, so being able to determine where the most light was coming from created a huge advantage for them."
https://www.scienceworld.ca/stories/eyes-how/

Not always, the Cambrian Explosion was a bunch of large adaptions.

Generic memory??

The problem people seem to be having here is thet clearly thet don't understand evolution and this event in particular. The problem was first explained with the giraffe neck. Before evolution it was just assumed the giraffe neck stretched itself and the genetic makeup altered the DNA (although that was before DNA was discovered I might add). Then Darwin came along and it was assumed small adaptations over a long time gave specific giraffes a biological advantage. If the stems cells have actually adapted to the environment and this event DIDN'T occur due to small adaptations which I think should be obvious in this case, then the merit of the former and not the latter is true @late.

[Deutschmania]

This reminds me of Krang , from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles . With all this science fiction coming into being , could killer tomatoes really be that far behind ?

[Rancid]

Stem cells contain the full DNA code to make a complete organism, including eyes. And there's not much point having a brain without having sensory input to process....

A life of only self-reflection without external input or interaction sounds wonderful!

[ThirdTerm]

Brain organoids, which are derived from embryonic stem cells under three-dimensional culture condition, recapitulate many features of the fetal human brain, including cytoarchitecture, cell diversity and maturation. A brain organoid is designed to grow primitive sensory structures just like a fetus growing in the womb does. At about 7 weeks, the main parts of the eye start developing. By about 10 weeks, the baby has eyelids that remain closed until about 27 weeks. Their isolation from human embryos, which deals with early forms of human life, creates significant ethical concerns on the value of human life.

Summary
During embryogenesis, optic vesicles develop from the diencephalon via a multistep process of organogenesis. Using induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived human brain organoids, we attempted to simplify the complexities and demonstrate formation of forebrain-associated bilateral optic vesicles, cellular diversity, and functionality. Around day 30, brain organoids attempt to assemble optic vesicles, which develop progressively as visible structures within 60 days. These optic vesicle-containing brain organoids (OVB-organoids) constitute a developing optic vesicle’s cellular components, including primitive corneal epithelial and lens-like cells, retinal pigment epithelia, retinal progenitor cells, axon-like projections, and electrically active neuronal networks. OVB-organoids also display synapsin-1, CTIP-positive myelinated cortical neurons, and microglia. Interestingly, various light intensities could trigger photosensitive activity of OVB-organoids, and light sensitivities could be reset after transient photobleaching. Thus, brain organoids have the intrinsic ability to self-organize forebrain-associated primitive sensory structures in a topographically restricted manner and can allow interorgan interaction studies within a single organoid.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

[Potemkin]

A life of only self-reflection without external input or interaction sounds wonderful!

No. Think of the developing brain as a neural net. Unless and until the neural net is 'trained' with inputs, it will develop only random pathways linking the neurons, which will accordingly fire only randomly. Such a neural net will have no sense of self, will think no profound thoughts, and will in fact generate nothing but random noise. If you were to tune in to its 'thoughts', you would hear only a random static hiss, like a radio on a frequency on which no station is broadcasting.

[Wellsy]

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/les-treilles-talk.htm

Fichte made the ‘substance’, or basic concept of his philosophy, activity (Fichte 2000). The point about activity is that it is both subjective and objective. As the subjective activity constituting a subject, but at the same time a material process constrained by objective limits, it is simultaneously subjective and objective. Fichte aimed to overcome the dichotomy of his predecessor, Kant, by beginning with subjective-objective activity. Against Descartes, Fichte denied that the existence of an ‘I’ could be deduced from the fact of cogito; first there was just pure activity, not the activity of an already-existing ‘I’. Self-consciousness was a construct of that activity. [5]
To prove this, Fichte conducted an experiment with his listeners: he told his listeners to look at that wall over there! Now where is your ‘I’ when you are looking at that wall? Fichte said that his students were dumbfounded by this question. If you’re a normal, mentally healthy person, then all that exists for you at the moment your attention goes to that wall, is the wall. Your ‘I’ doesn’t exist for you. It’s only in the next moment when I draw your attention to your ‘I’ by asking you about it, that your attention, your activity, turns upon itself and there is the ‘I’. Fichte says that the ‘I’ is activity turned upon itself. The activity is not initially the activity of an ‘I’, it just is pure activity, and self-consciousness is a product of that activity when it is turned upon itself.
Fichte asked: How does an ‘I’ become a free person? – and we can take Fichte’s idea of the ‘free person’ as synonymous with what I mean by ‘subject’. An ‘I’ can only find in its internal world, what it first finds in the external world, he claimed, but surely a person who is not already a free person will not be able to recognise a free person when it sees one, since it does not know freedom. Only when summoned, said Fichte, by another free person who recognises them as a free person, summoned to exercise their freedom, is there the possibility that the ‘I’ may recognise itself as a free person. A person’s recognition of themselves, their self-consciousness, therefore, comes from outside, from their recognition by others.
This is the origin of the concept of ‘recognition’, by means of which people get to know themselves as free agents, and acquire rights and obligations in society. The basic idea is that self-consciousness and free will is kindled from outside, from being recognised as a member of society, not from inside.

While our consciousness is strictly our own it arises in interaction with an acculturated or humanized reality full of meanings which we are accustom to well before we can reflect upon it.

[Rancid]

No. Think of the developing brain as a neural net. Unless and until the neural net is 'trained' with inputs, it will develop only random pathways linking the neurons, which will accordingly fire only randomly. Such a neural net will have no sense of self, will think no profound thoughts, and will in fact generate nothing but random noise. If you were to tune in to its 'thoughts', you would hear only a random static hiss, like a radio on a frequency on which no station is broadcasting.

Sounds fucking wonderful

[Potemkin]

Sounds fucking wonderful

Soothing, perhaps, but hardly 'wonderful', since there would be no sense of self which could experience any 'wonder'.