What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System - NeurIPS 2018

What bodies think about - by Michael Levin at NeurIPS 2018. ▶ this video I dont really know anything about biology, but this piqued my interest.One of the most interesting talks of 2018.

in “Ask HN: Best talks of 2018?” · View on HN

Recent but great talk posted here, What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System [1] by Prof. Michael Levin. He talks about how long term low energy electrical networks between all cells in living organisms shape how the organism grows. I think what he talks about will be the future of medicine as it allows for an amazing degree of high level control over how animals grow. 1. ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: Best talks of 2018?” · View on HN

The last coauthor listed on this preprint is Michael Levin, who has a lot of other cool work. In particular, this talk of his from NeurIPS 2018 includes fascinating biology research results, as well as musings on the future of biologically-inspired artificial intelligence. ▶ this video HN discussion about the talk: [link]

in “Classical sorting algorithms as a model of morphogenesis (2023)” · View on HN

Speaking of Michael Levin, I find this lecture of his fascinating: What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System - ▶ this video

in “Frog skin cells turned themselves into living machines” · View on HN

I feel like there’s some underlying relationship here with Godel and infinitely large numbers. We cannot know all states of all particles that ever were or will be, how can we ever concretely analyze human existence when space-time is so infinite? Michael Levin and team show us that manipulation of electric fields in animals ...well see for yourself: ▶ this video All that physical structure we nurture as concrete truth? Not so sure about that.

in “Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise (2009) [pdf]” · View on HN

There is a talk [1] I saw about programming our bodies at a higher level than genes. Analogous to editing HDL over physically altering an ASIC. [1] ▶ this video

in “Technology Will Soon Give Us Precise Control Over Our Brains and Genes?” · View on HN

What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System talk by Prof. Michael Levin - ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: What tech talk does everyone need to see?” · View on HN

> As described, the individual plant is not the friend, but rather the spirit of its species. Aye. > I have no way to properly apprehend any of this. Sure you do! You're a living being too, eh? :) You've got all the hardware, you just need to learn the protocols. It's not that hard to learn, the hardest part is "letting your hair down" so to speak. Check out the recent scientific advances from Michael Levin's lab's work, e.g. "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" - NeurIPS 2018 ▶ this video [link] [link] In a nutshell, whatever "thought" is, the biomolecular machinery that supports it is common to all cells (not just neurons.) In other words, all cellular life "thinks". Combine that insight with the "Law Of Regulatory Models" from Cybernetics, to wit: "every good regulator of a system must be (contain) a model of that system." and it seems to me that we have a solid basis to talk about "nature spirits", eh?

in “How do people learn to cook a poisonous plant safely? (2019)” · View on HN

More about Michael Levin: What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System – ▶ this video Why don’t (today’s) Robots get Cancer? – [link] The electrical blueprints that orchestrate life – [link] And a tweet about the article – [link]

in “Frogs Regrow Missing Limbs in Lab Study” · View on HN

Transplant medicine is going to seem like archaic nonsense in the future. We’ll just consume the chemical cocktails that normalize us: ▶ this video

in “Humans Could Live up to 150 Years, New Research Suggests” · View on HN

Computers can’t heal themselves. Our bodies do that on their own without conscious prompting. Humans evolve the complexity of a computers electron states, not the computers own inherent properties. My use doesn’t force transistors to evolve into better transistors. It has no self regeneration. You don’t see the issue in principle but here you have an article by an expert pointing them out. Perhaps be a better listener? A computer has observable, literal limitations relative to a humans mechanical functionality. You can’t scrape away literal reality to arrive at some reductionist idea of what a consciousness is. Our only known good model for a machine that can create our consciousness is us. It took billions of years of the universe churning at random to accidentally generate us. We have no clue how to replicate that scale. A computer literally lacks a whole lot of literal information that’s embedded in the hardware and software of a person. Watch this and tell me the last time your computer reconfigured it’s literal shape when you altered its electric field properties: ▶ this video There’s something to “life” we’ll never be able to jam into silicon.

in “Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized” · View on HN

Yes, exactly. Is the human body centralized or decentralized? The ego could be said to be the central "pivot" of the system, but then you have the phenomenon of "multiple personalities", and so on. Once you start to think of biology as the study of billion-year-old self-optimizing nanotechnology it makes sense to look to life for models for designing the structure of our own artificial systems. There's the question of what do we want to be like? A starfish? A meta-human? A decentralized system that depends on each or most of its elements to function is a single "point" of failure for the whole. (E.g., a relatively small wound can cause death by exsanguination.) On the other hand, consider the radical indignities that the lowly planarian will endure only to placidly regrow a tail or a head or whatever. (See "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" ▶ this video [link] Which, incidentally, adds a whole layer of complexity and nuance to the concept of intelligent design , since the whole of Nature has now been scientifically shown to think ...) It remains to be seen whether Humans + Internet = Self-Organization or along what lines. (What's the news out of Hong Kong this week? Are the distributed, self-organizing people of HK prevailing against the centralized imperialistic communist state?) Governments everywhere are waking up and smelling the data coffee. The major players already have databases on the bulk of world population and are collecting (

in “The importance of decentralisation” · View on HN

Short answer is no one knows, but there's tantalising evidence that it has to do with macro extracellular electric gradient in tissue: ▶ this video

in “Woman Grows a Nose on Her Spine After Stem Cell Experiment” · View on HN

If a "debate" is a kind of AI/neural network activity this makes sense. The smaller groups could correspond to layers, and one would expect that the level of interchange would be higher in groups of small groups compared to single large group. In this model, a debate is "thinking" where the participants act as neurons. A recent thread on HN ( [link] ) linked to a video ▶ this video about ion channels providing similar functionality to neurons, so maybe we humans can create "brains" as well.

in “On Having No Head: Cognition Throughout Biological Systems (2016)” · View on HN