A MYSTERY - Why Did Bio-Supercomputing Go Dark?

a reply to: moebius

Thanks. And thanks to everyone!

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: moebius

Thanks. And thanks to everyone!

And thank you for the neat links! Made for some interesting reading.

a reply to: Byrd

Indeed. I have mad respect for Soficrow's threads. Always a fantastic read.

Aaawww. [blush]

Thanks guys.

a reply to: soficrow

It is do able but the problem is the cost, and then theres the conversion of BIO logic to boolean logic so systems can carry on

a reply to: soficrow

"The work builds on the idea of combining machines with living organic material to create hybrid computers"

Maybe the system they build turned into a Shadow vessel?

a reply to: soficrow

Because they are using living organic people who are becoming part of the computer with their ipads and smartphones.

"…Nearly a decade ago, scientists predicted that within 15 years hybrid computers would be operating with a combination of technology and living organic material."

a reply to: soficrow

capitivated me

Exotic physics associated with frustrated quantum magnets is an enduring theme in condensed matter research. The formation of quantum spin liquids (QSL) in such systems can give rise to topological states of matter with fractional excitations1,2,3,4 . The realization of this physics in real materials is an exciting prospect that may provide a path to a robust quantum computing technology

arxiv.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nature.com...

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

The bio-supercomputer was real, and it worked. Definitely not in "Sci-Fi land."

I'm hoping someone here has some hard information.

Anyone

You're in the dark because you choose to be. Look in the mirror and at your computer set up and your questions are thereby answered.

a reply to: WhiteWingedMonolith

got to say
vision

Old news

OLD

a reply to: Maxatoria

Are you sure?

...source?


PS. Many thinks for your posts. All appreciated and S'd.

a reply to: kibric

Thanks for the links kibric but sorry - the physics is beyond me. I have to rely on simplified interpretations in populist articles for that kind of stuff. The concepts and ideas intrigue me, and I do have some grasp but I get lost in the math. eg., I get Einstein's Special Theory but not the General One - plus it's been decades.

a reply to: soficrow

I have to rely on simplified interpretations in populist articles for that kind of stuff

errrr....mmm

there ya go
beware audi ad
www.livescience.com...

www.theneweconomy.com...

At its best, ATS is a great place to learn. So thank you all.

I know many who posted here are into physics - about which I know dick. And no, I don't get most of the jokes. But that does not mean I am not interested, or that I'm totally incapable of understanding.

What I have learned from, or had confirmed by you all so far:

1. Research continues on the bio-supercomputer (but no source - inside info?).

2. D-wave quantum computers do exist - but no quantum supercomputer yet.

3. Many think the decay and decomposition rates of organics make bio-computers untenable / unreliable - but knowing that prion proteins are almost virtually indestructible (and were used in the bio-supercomputer model), I don't accept this as fact.


Again, thank you.

...Now, if anyone still has the patience - I'm looking at the potential for a 3 or 4-way hybrid: cerebral organoid with bio-supercomputer with a quantum computer and cloud access.

Yes, it's all about superhuman cyborg development.

a reply to: kibric

YES! Thank you!

...Would it be disrespectful if I re-named my two dogs Majorana and Fermion? I have yet to learn how to manipulate them in a controlled fashion.

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
From your source:

"Once you put electrodes on people's heads, it's feasible."

That is a feint. The can use airwaves for intercepting/interfacing brainwaves. Around the clock encephalograms,
for everyone. Because they can.

No, they can't. Your brain doesn't emit radio waves. And in order to have any chance at all to resolve any sort of detailed EEG data at all, you have to have wires. Looking at the tiny electric fields left over from summing everything in your head from a few feet away is nearly impossible, and it's trash data anyway. And looking at the magnetic fields requires a SQUID, and even then, you'd still have to be a few feet away, and it's STILL nothing but a summation.

You may as well believe that in order to use a satellite phone, you must have wires strung out to space. Or, that because you paid $600 for a frequency counter, your room has no spy receivers in it, since, you know, there was no red light flashing.

Satellite phones DO emit RF. You don't. And you wouldn't use a frequency counter to find a 'spy receiver'. Why have a spy receiver, by the way? I'd rather have a spy transmitter.

It's a very young field. I see SOME work being done, there are a few university institutes dedicated to it, but there's not a lot of published output yet.

Try your searches on scholar.google.com instead, it's free access and you'll get better results for scientific queries.

a reply to: Bedlam

Thanks, but google scholar only brings up 10 entries - and nothing to do with the model built in 2015-16, not even the PNAS paper. Regular Google has lots of coverage and commentary on that from February to about June 2016.

...I would have expected at least a prospectus for investors but that's not even out there.

I read an article about Moore's law, which predicted how fast computers would be over time, and it said that although traditional computers were hitting physical limits, biocomputers were going to be the next big thing. This article was written in 2003 or so. Since then, it has all been about quantum computing. There is a movement in AI research to model the neurons in a human brain on the computer and use the model for the AI.