In the distant future, biological computers will travel inside our bodies, locate cancer cells and act against them. The current study, published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, offers a possible version of a programming interface for these computers
A group led by Prof. Ehud Shapira at the Weizmann Institute has advanced another step in the development of biological computers. In a new article, published today in the scientific journal Nature Nanotechnology, Prof. Shapira, Tom Ran and Shay Kaplan describe how they managed to develop nanobiological computers "that think logically". The principle of the chain of inferences that this futuristic nanobiological computer uses is known from the distant past - it is an application of a logical principle proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle more than 2,000 years ago: "All human beings are mortal. Socrates is a human being. Hence, Socrates is a mortal."
A programmable molecular computer whose computing power is limited. The direction is not its velocities but the ability of the systems to interact with biological molecules and their future applications are medical applications and not proper computational ones.
Prof. Shapira and the members of his research group at the Weizmann Institute of Science previously developed a nanobiological calculation system that a trillion of them can operate comfortably in a single drop of solution. These primitive nanobiological computers were able to perform simple calculations such as checking a list of the digits "zero" and "one", and finding, for example, whether the number of times the number "one" appears in the list is even. A more advanced version of the nanobiological computer, developed by Prof. Shapira and the members of his research group at the Weizmann Institute of Science, was already able to detect - in a test tube - a molecule that indicates the development of a cancerous process, and in response, released a drug that stopped the process.
This time they went one step further and implemented verse logic in their computers. In a conversation with people and computers, Prof. Shapira explained that the verse logic, which is a degenerate version of the Prolog programming language, makes it possible to ask complex questions.
When the scientists of the Weizmann Institute entered into their nanobiological calculation system a rule (for example, "all humans are mortal"), and a fact (for example, "Socrates is a human being"), then asked the nanobiological computer a question (for example, "Did Socrates Is he mortal?”), the computer answered the question in the affirmative. The scientists continued and created more complex questions, which included several different rules and facts, and the nanobiological calculation devices, made of DNA molecules and different enzymes, managed to calculate and find the correct answers, time after time.
At the same time, the institute's scientists also created a special compiler - software capable of bridging between a friendly computer language and the calculation code of the nanobiological computer. Using a compiler allowed them to type the question like this: "Mortal (Socrates)?" To calculate the answer, different segments of DNA that represented rules, facts and questions were collected using a robotic system. Among the collected molecules, a hierarchical search was performed at this stage, with the aim of identifying genetic compatibility between different segments. The nanobiological computer's answer was encoded in a flash of green light: some of the DNA strands were attached to a protein that naturally glows green, which was attached to a protein that blocks the light. A special enzyme that is attracted to the site of what is defined as a "correct answer" removes the blocking protein and allows the light of the first protein to shine. The drops of the solution that contained these nanobiological data were able in this way to correctly answer complicated questions, when the complex answers were given through flashes of light in different shades.
Today, the development of the nanobiological computers is progressing simultaneously in two tracks. One direction, "doctor inside the cell", speaks of a future in which billions of nanobiological computers will patrol the cells of our body and stop diseases even before they break out, and before we ourselves are aware of their danger and, of course, to improve the diagnostic capacity in the laboratory, the research of the second track strives to perfect the computational performance of the nanocomputers -biological.
Are we on the way to a general biological computer?
"It is not a general computer in the sense that it is not a Turing machine but in the sense that it can be programmed under circumstances that any finite automaton can do. In the first application we demonstrated in a test tube - not in living cells, a very simple calculation power (finite automaton) was enough, now we have something more sophisticated - verse logic. My feeling is that the main problem in biological applications is that the main achievements will not come from strengthening the computer's calculation ability but from strengthening its ability to operate inside the human body or inside human cells in a test tube. In recent years, many articles have been published describing experiments in which the ability to calculate within cells or through cells was demonstrated (bacteria were programmed to be able to perform the calculation).
The current research does not deal with this because we were not able to make the computer, which works in a bacterial environment, also work in an animal cell environment, for technical and biochemical reasons. However, we have brought a possible direction for programming, if in the end, our computer will work successfully in cells - we have shown a direction or a way how to program it in a more successful way."
38 תגובות
Miracles,
I will read a little again about the subject, I just remembered that they had already finished simulating all the parts of the worm (neurons, the exact connections between them, muscles...) and that it behaves exactly like the real worm, at least that's how it looks in their YouTube videos.
This is me of course...
rival
This is what Stephen Larsen, the project coordinator, claims. Two years ago Stephen said that they realized about a quarter of the project.
In my understanding, today is less optimistic...
I am of course talking about the OpenWorm project.
Miracles,
What do you mean when you say "we don't know how to image the consciousness of a worm today"? Doesn't the virtual worm they created in the famous project behave like a normal worm? In what way is her "consciousness" different from the "consciousness" of a real worm?
Haim Siboni
Electronics is advancing fast. But from here to simulating the consciousness of a specific son the distance is enormous. Today we do not know how to imagine the consciousness of a worm...
I am a computer electronics and quality engineer in the Health Care field, I see this development as extremely important. The robot is approaching with giant steps. I am now 59 years old, in 10 years I predict that I will be a 20 year old robot with the same identity and with the addition of improvements.
A. b.. c… d….
As he always does in the responses to articles on the discussion site, the discussion is dragged from a dialogue to a dialogue of slanders of its participants - and it is said that the achiever of wisdom has already shut up... The fact that you have a bit of intelligence at the top does not mean that everyone who talks to you is stupid or wrong, and that you need to cluck your tongue.
A bit of a country road
Hello, I want to join this
Ron Daniel:
This.
I no longer have a problem with time.
But I don't have time for your nonsense.
I assume that any sane reader can already understand who you are and who I am and you are welcome to continue stewing in the egg to your heart's content.
BSD
My suspicious colleague Michael...
You can relax, I wasn't really confused by the ramblings you write. It was a sting, but you are so closed off (maybe you should brainwash yourself a bit) that this sting went over your head. You are the one who is confused and confusing yourself and the rest. Your arguments are inconsistent and you err, distort or contradict yourself at least once in every response.
If Aristotle's principle is known to every child of his age and it is unnecessary to even mention it, why don't you criticize the person who wrote this article? Isn't it unnecessary for him to explain it?
As for your claim that the laws of logic are ingrained in us genetically - is this an original idea of yours? Is there any scientific authority that can support this idea? On which chromosome are the laws of logic? What is the name of the gene that contains or initiates them? Please enlighten us on the matter.
As for the time of the formulation of the logical principle... I read the comments of the commenter Agnos who explains that there is no connection between the time of the signing of the Talmud and the time of formulation of the measure of the building of the father. You are the one who didn't go through the comments or you choose to ignore what you are not comfortable reading. The Oral Torah as its name is - it was passed down orally from generation to generation and with it the 13 measures in which the Torah is required (including building a father). Only at a late date was it put on the record.
And how is it that if I write something that you don't think I'm "trying to sell" or "trying to recruit" and someone else reacts, it's just a reaction? You are not only obtuse but also a demagogue - I addressed the substance of the matter and you are the one who switched to personal bites and 'compliments'. It is evident from every response that your hostility towards religion has driven you out of your mind.
Ron Daniel:
___________________ in the AMS
It's good that you recognize that you are now confused.
It's a shame you don't recognize that this is your situation throughout this discussion and probably throughout your life.
Did you not read my first response in which I said that this principle is known to every child of his age?
Did you not read the words of others that showed you that even the wording of the principle was conceived by people before the brainwashed people you are trying to recruit to the matter?
Are you unable to say one thing correctly?
And most importantly - have I ever claimed that a brainwashed person like you is incapable of saying anything true?
I don't know, for example, if your name is really Ron Daniel, but I allow myself to assume that your claim on this subject is true despite your brainwashing.
BDS
My fellow poet Blood White...
Kudos to the original song. I admit that you just threw me off the chair with that comment.
Rabbi Nachman teaches (Torah Rebbe Likoti Moharan) that every person should be judged on his merits. You have a lot of poison inside, but to your credit, this time you got it out artfully. I have no choice but to judge you for it.
My wise colleague Ron Daniel: I ask for forgiveness for the sake of God's glory
How could I, I ask, spell the explicit name - "Kers"?
I'm an idiot! Stupid enough! Forgive me, Lord, to my chest!
I sinned before the God of my faith when I challenged unconditional idleness.
Give me reason! For this I wished: to become religious all day long!
Foot on foot - in the Gemara one quibbles, one curls one's sideburns, one prays for glasses.
Meida throws diapers on police officers and swears. And goes back to the yeshiva - the mind to confuse.
Tiara of creation! Angel of God! Holy, virtuous, righteous and innocent.
Because your wisdom and understanding are in the eyes of the nations. All the impure seculars salute him.
My selfishness stands before and before the Lord of the world
I am ashamed of myself that I am not like that, that I am not delusional about my people and my mother
I don't contract demons and spirits, and the worst crime: I'm thin!
And my Lord commanded me to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (and to bless "that everything")
And my eyes will be opened and my faculties will develop, and I will ask: "Why am I even bothering to answer?!"
BDS
My colleague who slanders white blood…
May I ask what is your score on the Wechsler test? According to the content and style of the response I assume it is not very high. But what did Rabbi Nachman of Breslav say? There is no despair in the world at all ! You can always put a big cap on your head and grow a belly. That way at least the religious will think you are smart.
BDS
My busy colleague Michael... I'm sorry to take a few more minutes of your precious time, but now I'm really confused...
Aristotle's logical principle was invented by brainwashed people like me?
(Good and blessed week to everyone)
Hello to Michael Rothschild,
We started a dialogue between us about the "philosophy of existence" we talked about axioms and I mentioned Gadel's theorem and the axiom of our existence. Unfortunately, only the last 25 comments are published on the site, and since the rate of responses is accelerating, and I saw that comments are being written even on Friday at 2 am (8/8/2009 02:00), I cannot keep up, and therefore I lost contact with you. Please update me on the comments you wrote to me, or tell me how to retrieve older comments.
Thank you in advance Yoram Tomer
Ron Daniel:
___________________________________________________ on Wednesday_Monday:
Perhaps you will decide if the principle you are talking about is a wise principle (and then you are proud of a lie invented by brainwashed people like you) or if it is a stupid principle whose whole purpose is to sell the brainwashed the nonsense of the truth (and then you don't care who invented it)?
I repeat: the above principle of inference is known to every person from birth. That's right.
There are people who are brainwashed by various religious systems and they lose the ability to use what nature gave them when they were born.
For such people it is necessary to explicitly state the obvious.
The explicit wording is important - whether for the aforementioned purpose, whether to shorten explanations, or to "teach" machines, but what is important in it is the mere naming of the phenomenon and not the discovery of the law.
I explained the importance of "giving the name" in my article "The first word” But I don't know at all why I spend time with you.
in Lisd
the cat is out of the bag:
When a person shows sympathy towards religion, he is automatically wise! (or "my learned colleague")
But when the very same person makes a turn, he already becomes a fool.
This is the measurement parameter: the bigger the dome and the belly, make an equal cut and conclude that the brain is also "bigger". And the smaller they are, the smaller the brain is.
So simple! Who needs the Wechsler and Raven tests?! What do they even know?! The main thing is to have a belly!
If every person knows the logical principle that there is no God from the dawn of their infancy, why was it necessary for the religious priests to create God in the first place?
If every person knows the logical principle that there is no destiny from the dawn of infancy, why did sages have to conclude: "Everything is in the hands of heaven" (except for the sight of heaven of course) in the first place??
If every person knows the logical principle that there is no life after death, why did the religious have to invent hell and heaven in the first place??
Maybe it was a stupid opportunity to sell drugs in the first place...
BDS
My unlearned colleague Michael...
If every person knows Aristotle's logical principle from the dawn of childhood, why did it need Aristotle to formulate it in the first place? Maybe it was a stupid attempt to take advantage of an opportunity to sell the Greeks the nonsense of atheism?
for pleasure That's how it was written in Wikipedia, I also thought it was about the fourth century.
Ron Daniel,
First of all, the principle is called by the Sages "a building of a father from one letter."
Second, the sage's principle is not at all similar to the logical principle described here, and if anything, it is the opposite.
The principle of sages says that if we found a law that was stated in one case, it means that it is true for the rest of the cases, if there is no special reason for the division. This is not a logical rule, because there is no logical logic to tap from the particular to the general.
If we take the example of Socrates, if we say that Socrates is mortal and he is human, we can learn from this that other humans are also mortal, because we have no reason to assume that Socrates is different from other humans. Of course, this logical move cannot be made without this rule (reserved because there is an analogy if there is no reason to differentiate) given to us as part of the data.
My father and Noam,
There is no connection between the time of the signing of the Talmud or the Mishna and the time of the formulation of the rules for the Benin Av. You need to find out when it was first said.
Avi!
You must be preparing for the Mishna
The Talmud was signed around 400-500 AD
Ron Daniel:
I think every person knew this principle - even long before Chazal.
I, for example, don't remember a single day that I didn't know him - right from the day I made up my mind. This is true for all the basic laws of logic - in my opinion, they are genetically embedded in us.
The question of who wrote it first is really not interesting in the scientific context. It may be important in a historical discussion about "who told whom, when and where" but from a scientific point of view or from the point of view of the article and this is just a stupid attempt to take advantage of an opportunity to sell all the readers the nonsense of faith.
By the way: It's really good that you explained to me what the conclusion is!
Socrates died in 399 BC (third century BC). The Talmud, in its two versions (Babylonian and Jerusalem) was signed in the second century AD, that is, 500 years after the death of Socrates. Indeed, this probably means, according to your conclusion, that Socrates copied from the Talmud.
BSD
My learned colleague Michael...
No need to repeat and clarify, I understood that this is a biological computer. At the beginning of the article it was said that the computer is based on a logical principle proposed by Aristotle. Aristotle's logical principle is an independent entity, it exists even before and without connection to a biological computer. What is the logical principle? The conclusion - "Socrates is a mortal" which is based on an existing fact - "all men are mortal" and a private case - "Socrates is a man". This type of inference is called in the Hebrew Talmud a construction and av and one verse. And just so you know... the letter M in the word Gemara (Hebrew Talmud) represents the Archangel Michael.
True, luck knew everything, science knows nothing. All biologists are just retards, and need to repent.
Ron Daniel:
You didn't understand what it was about, so I'll come back and explain to you that it's a biological computer.
BDS
"It is about applying a logical principle proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle more than 2,000 years ago..."
Hazal knew it much earlier and called it "Binin Av and One Verse". The conclusion that results from a combination of a known fact and a private case.
white blood:
I guess everything that can be said has already been said by someone.
In the meantime they have not been able to create RNA molecules in this way. What they did manage to create in this way are nucleotides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Thanks.
By the way, someone told me that there is a theory that claims that the first RNA molecules were created by a process of lightning striking some kind of solution. Is anything known about it?
white blood:
I think the answer to your question is negative.
Not only because they haven't even succeeded in introducing these computers into human cells yet and not even because their structure includes too much DNA (it is written that they also contain various enzymes).
The main reason is that in order for them to be inherited, they must integrate into the chromosomes, but in that case they will not be able to perform their function because they will reside permanently only in the cell nucleus.
If nanobiological computing systems are indeed released in our bodies that can identify cancer cells, etc. - does this mean that they will be inherited (genetically, of course) naturally (since they are made of DNA molecules), or will each person have to go through the process themselves, as they do Vaccines today?
WOW!! We are really making great strides…..
It's like taking 2 computers connected by a wireless network, and building a system that by running commands on the network will make the system succeed in calculating how much 3+2 is, (for example by increasing the DELAY in the network traffic proportionally)
It's a bit unclear to me why efforts are made to try to turn very complex objects capable of performing very complex operations into simple calculating machines?
It is possible to think of ways that these can be useful, but I think that the field will be very limited in relation to the second option: that is, it seems to me that in the end the direction that will win is the opposite, to learn the language of natural DNA and produce programs, cells or RNA structures or something similar, (at the same time as computer programs computer viruses which are in total software).
exciting!
Question: What can be called here as the central processing unit?..that is, is it the whole solution? And the way I see it, the memory, the "hard disk" - the data store, and the "processor" are the same thing here and are not fixed devices that can be defined..
someone?