Synogenes.com

The TED conference in Oxford this year was the scene of an announcement by Henry Markram, Director of the Blue Brain Project, that we could have an artificial human brain within ten years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8164060.stm

Although the motivation is to model the activity of a human brain to provide a tool for researching illnesses, and also to be able to replace animal testing in many cases, such work also has important consequences for our understanding of human feelings of self and consciousness.

Already it is possible to show these brain simulations images which are then automatically converted into internal representations. It has long been argued (by Hofstadter, Dennett and others) that a self-referential neural network would exhibit signs of consciousness and we are inching closer towards understanding whether this can be demonstrated in practice.

This is an important scientific activity in its own right as such a development would provide scientific evidence for the first time that our notions of self-awareness, of consciousness, of some soul or human essence, is a bi-product of the activities of the brain itself. If it can be demonstrated that consciousness can be produced artificially, then we can no longer claim that human life has some deep spiritual significance.

For that reason, if for no other, the developments of the Blue Brain Project will be an extraordinary path of discovery over the next ten years.

They have already been able to simulate credibly the neuronal activity of a rat brain. Couple a greater mental capacity with an ability to communicate and respond and we have something able to participate in learning and self-evaluation.

One interesting ethical question will be what rights do we afford such a "brain"? Is it a person? It would meet the criterion of sentience. Similarly, if it was self-aware and was learning, would it be developing a personality? Would it acquire values? Who would be entitled to turn it off, if anyone?

Science fiction used to be so far removed from practical science as to permit the use of the term fiction. Now, science advances so fast that what counts as science fiction today, is a research project tomorrow, and scientific evidence in a year's time. We could be seeing the emergence of artificial consciousness, mirroring the development of artificial intelligence from the late 50s into the 90s. Although there are major difficulties with artificial intelligence, few now doubt that we can get machines to do remarkable feats of reasoning. When we first interface with a reasoning, self-aware artificial brain, will we be able to distinguish its consciousness from any other conscious entity?

It is not a surprise for most rational people that a report commissioned by the Food Standards Agency has found that organic food is no healthier than non-organic food.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm

But although the report explains that there is no public health advantage to people eating organic food, there is no explanation of why this should be the case. But it's not difficult, nor secret. In fact it's rather obvious if you know a little bit about biology.

Plants take up nutrients through their roots and as long as the nutrients get through the roots, they will nourish the plant. But the really important point is that plants take up their nutrients as inorganic ions.. For example, Nitrogen is absorbed either as an ammonium ion, NH₄⁺, or as a nitrate ion, NO₃^-. Potassium is taken up as a positively charged inorganic ion, K⁺. Until the organic material providing those sources are decomposed into their inorganic state, they cannot be used by the plant.

That's basic biology. So as far as the plant is concerned, organic is just the same as inorganic. The plant will grow in exactly the same way regardless of whether the nitrogen comes from organic or inorganic sources and will only be taken up once they are available in inorganic form.

Therefore it is entirely obvious that there would be no additional health benefits to eating organic food. It's the same food!

One of the reasons why supermarkets can charge such high prices for organic foods is because most people don't understand very basic plant biology. Their customers' poor understanding of science helps them hoodwink gullible people and take higher profits. The customers think they're getting better food when in fact it's the same food at higher prices.

A little science goes a long way so it's worth making the effort to understand it. And the internet is an excellent place to find these things out.

You might still prefer to eat plants grown organically perhaps because you believe that it's better to avoid chemicals, but that too is a fallacy. Organic fertilizers also break down into inorganic chemicals - they wouldn't work otherwise. So you are not avoiding chemicals.

Avoiding pesticides is of course another matter but there's no guarantee that foods sold as organic are pesticide-free. All it means is that the pesticides used are likely themselves to be organic in origin, and therefore possibly contain unidentified chemicals as well. Indeed some organic pesticides such as rotenone are toxic to humans too. Rotenone produces Parkinson-like symptoms in rats. It's not nice stuff!

The message is clear. Don't get conned by the organic hype. Wise up and learn a bit of biology. It's not difficult, and it's not secret.