Synaptic hypercomputation: Hype or reality ?

[Strange]

"Hypercomputation" is a broad term ...

 

 

It wasn't until you made up new meanings for it.

 

 

 

Quantum-like hypercomputation is best described as the near-instant computation of non-classical Turing machines by quantum computers.

 

There is no evidence that hypercomputation is possible and, also, no evidence that quantum computers can implement it.

[StringJunky]

 

I define "biological hypercomputation" as the outputs of synchronicity in living systems. All living (cellular and unicellular) organisms are essentially conscious entities and salient beings: The quantum phase coherence of neural synchronicity (in microtubules) may control phasic dopamine exocytosis. (Dopamine is a neuromodulator of saliency as opposed to a excitatory or inhibitory neurotransmitter)

 

"Hypercomputation" is a broad term which may refer both to neuronal (synaptic) hypercomputation and quantum-like hypercomputation. Quantum-like hypercomputation is best described as the near-instant computation of non-classical Turing machines by quantum computers. Synaptic hypercomputation, however, is an attempt to understand how neural synchronicity is implicated in the quantum-like wavefunction of synaptic dopamine exocytosis.

Seems like to me that you are misapplying highly technical terms and connecting them to fields where they don't belong. Like this:

 

 

....quantum-like wavefunction of synaptic dopamine exocytosis.

You pulled this out of where the sun doesn't shine.

[tkadm30]

 

 

It wasn't until you made up new meanings for it.

 

 

There is no evidence that hypercomputation is possible and, also, no evidence that quantum computers can implement it.

 

If you think with a closed attitude, you may not consider the evidences of neural synchronicity. (open systems)

 

Quantum-like hypercomputation is a trending hypercomputational theory.

Seems like to me that you are misapplying highly technical terms and connecting them to fields where they don't belong. Like this:

 

You pulled this out of where the sun doesn't shine.

 

Negative. I'm investigating the potential for dopaminergic activity to trigger phasic synaptic exocytosis.

 

Technical note: Quantum-like phase coherence in biological systems: Dopaminergic neuromodulation of synaptic exocytosis may trigger quantum-like wavefunction collapse...

Edited December 31, 2016 by tkadm30

[Strange]

 

If you think with a closed attitude, you may not consider the evidences of neural synchronicity. (open systems)

 

 

I don't have any opinion on neural synchronicity or the evidence for it. I don't care.

 

I am just saying that calling it "gravity" or "lemon drizzle cake" or "hyper computation" is going to cause unnecessary confusion.

 

 

 

Quantum-like hypercomputation is a trending hypercomputational theory.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

 

Negative.

 

Then you should be able to provide a link to some published research on "quantum-like wavefunction of synaptic dopamine exocytosis."

 

Or show us the mathematics of this wave-function and how it relates to synapses.

 

 

 

Quantum-like phase coherence in biological systems: Dopaminergic neuromodulation of synaptic exocytosis may trigger quantum-like wavefunction collapse

 

Citation needed.

 

Just throwing a random mixture of buzzwords together (and giving an execllent impression of someone who doesn't understand what they mean) does not constitute "research".

[tkadm30]

 

 

I don't have any opinion on neural synchronicity or the evidence for it. I don't care.

 

I am just saying that calling it "gravity" or "lemon drizzle cake" or "hyper computation" is going to cause unnecessary confusion.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Then you should be able to provide a link to some published research on "quantum-like wavefunction of synaptic dopamine exocytosis."

 

Or show us the mathematics of this wave-function and how it relates to synapses.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

Just throwing a random mixture of buzzwords together (and giving an execllent impression of someone who doesn't understand what they mean) does not constitute "research".

 

I understand that the technical language of undeniable quantum-like effects of neural synchronicity is poorly understood. I don't pretend to have the mathematical skills to demonstrate the potential of quantum-like neuronal phase coherence to control synaptic hypercomputation and collapse the wavefunction of dopamine exocytosis...

 

I'm only arguing that synaptic hypercomputation is connected to neural synchronicity and (phasic) dopamine exocytosis.

Edited December 31, 2016 by tkadm30

[Strange]

I don't pretend to have the mathematical skills to demonstrate the potential of synaptic exocytosis to control neuronal hypercomputation...

 

 

That isn't what I asked though, is it.

 

 

 

I'm only arguing that synaptic hypercomputation is connected to neural synchronicity and (phasic) dopamine exocytosis.

 

As "synaptic hypercomputation" is something you have invented, how can it be related to anything?

 

So you need to:

 

1. Present evidence that "synaptic hypercomputation" exists

 

2. Present evidence that it is connected to "neural synchronicity and (phasic) dopamine exocytosis"

 

Otherwise your "argument" is simply an unsupported assertion and therefore worthless.

[tkadm30]

No, local observations can be useful to validate a novel scientific theory. I can provide local and experimental observations on the synaptic hypercomputation theory but further experimentations will be necessary to validate the neurocomputational model of dopamine exocytosis in the frontal lobe.

Edited December 31, 2016 by tkadm30

[Strange]

I can provide local and experimental observations on the synaptic hypercomputation theory

 

 

Then why don't you?

 

You just keep making empty claims.

[tkadm30]

Nope. You essentially lack the motivation to unlock your learning potential of novel scientific knowledge.

 

You seem desperate in making a point which appears highly misinformed. I suggest you take the time to educate yourself on the neurocomputational models of the brain. Hypercomputation is a highly current research domain with many potential areas remaining to be explored.

[Strange]

Nope. You essentially lack the motivation to unlock your learning potential of novel scientific knowledge.

 

 

As you have provided no evidence of any novel scientific knowledge, there is no reason to be motivated.

 

 

 

Hypercomputation is a highly current research domain with many potential areas remaining to be explored.

 

And yet you are curiously unable to provide any references to this research. Why is that?

[DrmDoc]

 

I define "biological hypercomputation" as the outputs of synchronicity in living systems. All living (cellular and unicellular) organisms are essentially conscious entities and salient beings: The quantum phase coherence of neural synchronicity (in microtubules) may control phasic dopamine exocytosis. (Dopamine is a neuromodulator of saliency as opposed to a excitatory or inhibitory neurotransmitter)

 

"Hypercomputation" is a broad term which may refer both to neuronal (synaptic) hypercomputation and quantum-like hypercomputation. Quantum-like hypercomputation is best described as the near-instant computation of non-classical Turing machines by quantum computers. Synaptic hypercomputation, however, is an attempt to understand how neural synchronicity is implicated in the quantum-like wavefunction of synaptic dopamine exocytosis.

 

As I now understand, synaptic hyper-computation (SHC) regards your thoughts on the synchronicity or optimization of exocytosis. Specifically, dopamine exocytosis that you believe to be the primary neuromodulator of a mental quality you've identified as "saliency." I think the synchronicity or optimization of exocytosis is a clearer, more quantifiable reference for the processes we're discussing here than SHC. SHC infers a data producing process between neurons that really doesn't apply to the quantum nature of brain function. Indeed, dopamine is a neuromodulator, as well as, a neurotransmitter and it does have some excitatory affects but primarily inhibitory affects on our nervous system. Also, dopamine is only one of several types of neuromodulators and neurotransmitters. All considered, the singular role of dopamine in your perspective is overstated and there is more than sufficient evidence of its deleterious effects at elevated levels.

 

You should consider focusing your investigation on the intricacies of exocytosis overall without this idea of SHC and the effects of dopamine exclusively. Exocytosis is the quantum nature of cellular exchanges and I believe it's where you may find the answers you seek.

Edited January 1, 2017 by DrmDoc

[wtf]

Quantum-like hypercomputation is best described as the near-instant computation of non-classical Turing machines by quantum computers.

Quantum computers are computationally equivalent to classical Turing machines. Just faster. But only for highly specialized problems.

 

http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/23162/quantum-computing-and-turing-machines-are-turing-machines-still-an-accurate-mea

[tkadm30]

 

As I now understand, synaptic hyper-computation (SHC) regards your thoughts on the synchronicity or optimization of exocytosis. Specifically, dopamine exocytosis that you believe to be the primary neuromodulator of a mental quality you've identified as "saliency." I think the synchronicity or optimization of exocytosis is a clearer, more quantifiable reference for the processes we're discussing here than SHC. SHC infers a data producing process between neurons that really doesn't apply to the quantum nature of brain function. Indeed, dopamine is a neuromodulator, as well as, a neurotransmitter and it does have some excitatory affects but primarily inhibitory affects on our nervous system. Also, dopamine is only one of several types of neuromodulators and neurotransmitters. All considered, the singular role of dopamine in your perspective is overstated and there is more than sufficient evidence of its deleterious effects at elevated levels.

 

You should consider focusing your investigation on the intricacies of exocytosis overall without this idea of SHC and the effects of dopamine exclusively. Exocytosis is the quantum nature of cellular exchanges and I believe it's where you may find the answers you seek.

 

Excellent analysis. You seem to have well investigated the concepts of synaptic hypercomputation.

 

The quantum-like nature of neuronal phase coherence seems highly relevant to synaptic exocytosis.

 

Serotonin/Vitamin D levels may also interact with endogenous retrograde signaling

to activate on-demand neuromodulation of corticostriatal pathways implicated in saliency and creativity.

Edited January 1, 2017 by tkadm30

[Strange]

 

Yep. You seem to have well investigated the concepts of synaptic hypercomputation.

 

 

There is no such thing. (And adding a smiley doesn't add any weight to your claims. It just makes you look even more flakey.)

[tkadm30]

Nope. Synaptic hypercomputation is a novel neurocomputational model to study the interneuronal phase coherence and neuromodulation of monoaminergic pathways on the brain electrodynamics.

 

Your lack of imagination is reducing your arguments to a unnecessary distraction.

[Strange]

Nope. Synaptic hypercomputation is a novel neurocomputational model to study the interneuronal phase coherence and neuromodulation of monoaminergic pathways on the brain electrodynamics.

 

 

Then you should be able to provide references to the scientific research on "Synaptic hypercomputation".

 

As you can't do that, you should admit it is something you made up.

 

 

 

Your lack of imagination is reducing your arguments to a unnecessary distraction.

 

You think I should imagine the evidence, rather than you providing it?

 

Your lack of evidence makes the thread pointless.

[tkadm30]

 

 

Then you should be able to provide references to the scientific research on "Synaptic hypercomputation".

 

As you can't do that, you should admit it is something you made up.

 

 

You think I should imagine the evidence, rather than you providing it?

 

Your lack of evidence makes the thread pointless.

 

No, imagination is essential part of the regulation of creativity and saliency. Without imagination, you will get nowhere in science. I cannot provide "evidences" since I must interpret the experimental data from local observations. This require time and careful analysis of neural synchronicity, synaptic phase coherence, and exocytosis.

[Strange]

 

No, imagination is essential part of the regulation of creativity and saliency. Without imagination, you will get nowhere in science.

 

 

As all I am asking you to do is provide evidence, I do not need to use my imagination.

 

 

 

I cannot provide "evidences" since I must interpret the experimental data from local observations. This require time and careful analysis of neural synchronicity, synaptic phase coherence, and exocytosis.

 

I am asking you for evidence that "Synaptic hypercomputation" is not something you have made up. Therefore the evidence just needs to be a reference to the scientific literature on "Synaptic hypercomputation".

 

As you have not provided this, I have to assume you have invented this concept. Is that correct?

I cannot provide "evidences" since I must interpret the experimental data from local observations. This require time and careful analysis of neural synchronicity, synaptic phase coherence, and exocytosis.

 

 

Then, at best, you should be presenting your ideas as hypotheses (or guesses) rather than facts.

 

I would suggest you go away, do the experiments, gather the results do the careful analysis and then come back and tell us about it.

 

Presenting your vague ideas, which you admit have no support, as facts is a waste of everyone's time.

[tkadm30]

I do present my ideas as hypothesis. The theory of synaptic hypercomputation is a valid scientific investigation. It is your duty to research biological hypercomputation before claiming the absence of evidences to support this idea.

[Strange]

I do present my ideas as hypothesis.

 

 

Nonsense. You make assertions of fact ("Synaptic hypercomputation is a novel neurocomputational model") not suggestions of what might be; for example: "I would like to discuss a possible neurocompuational model based on interneuronal phase coherence and neuromodulation of monoaminergic pathways. (To maximise confusion, I have made up the meaningless term 'synaptic hypercomputation' for this.) Does anyone know of any evidence that might support such a model?"

 

If you had done that, I would have ignored your posts as being of zero interest to me.

 

The theory of synaptic hypercomputation is a valid scientific investigation.

 

If that were true you would be able to present some science. You have spectacularly failed to do that.

 

It is your duty to research biological hypercomputation before claiming the absence of evidences to support this idea.

 

I have no such duty. You are the one presenting the idea; it is your duty to back it up.

 

 

Do that once more and I will assume you are trolling (as you appear to be) and report it to the moderators.

[tkadm30]

 

 

Nonsense. You make assertions of fact ("Synaptic hypercomputation is a novel neurocomputational model") not suggestions of what might be; for example: "I would like to discuss a possible neurocompuational model based on interneuronal phase coherence and neuromodulation of monoaminergic pathways. (To maximise confusion, I have made up the meaningless term 'synaptic hypercomputation' for this.) Does anyone know of any evidence that might support such a model?"

 

If you had done that, I would have ignored your posts as being of zero interest to me.

 

 

If that were true you would be able to present some science. You have spectacularly failed to do that.

 

 

I have no such duty. You are the one presenting the idea; it is your duty to back it up.

 

 

Do that once more and I will assume you are trolling (as you appear to be) and report it to the moderators.

 

You need to calm down. A smiley won't affect your interpretations of my theory. You should take the time to educate yourself on the science before making spectacular claims on the things you don't necessarely understand.

[Strange]

You need to calm down.

 

I am quite calm, thank you.

 

A smiley won't affect your interpretations of my theory.

 

Of course not. But if you stop putting them after every sentence it won't look as if you think your assertions are funny. which will stop you looking like a troll.

 

 

You should take the time to educate yourself on the science before making spectacular claims on the things you don't necessarely understand.

 

As you are claiming the existence of something that doesn't exist (hypercomputation) it would seem that you are the one lacking in understanding.

[tkadm30]

 

I am quite calm, thank you.

 

 

Of course not. But if you stop putting them after every sentence it won't look as if you think your assertions are funny. which will stop you looking like a troll.

 

 

As you are claiming the existence of something that doesn't exist (hypercomputation) it would seem that you are the one lacking in understanding.

 

Your ignorance is perhaps a sign of poor education. I suggest you learn to use Google and search for "evidences" yourself. Meanwhile, the synaptic hypercomputation theory remains a fascinating scientific topic.

Edited January 1, 2017 by tkadm30

[Phi for All]

Your ignorance is perhaps a sign of poor education. I suggest you learn to use Google and search for "evidences" yourself. Meanwhile, the synaptic hypercomputation theory remains a fascinating scientific topic.

 

!

Moderator Note

The rules are at the bottom of just about every page.

 

Be civil.

• No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.

There's no need for this behavior. Fix it, please.

This isn't up for argument, so there's no need to respond to this modnote in this thread. If you object, Report it.

[Strange]

 

Your ignorance is perhaps a sign of poor education. I suggest you learn to use Google and search for "evidences" yourself. Meanwhile, the synaptic hypercomputation theory remains a fascinating scientific topic.

 

 

Why should I look for your evidence for you. If you "know" that synaptic hypercomputation exists, then it should be trivial for you to provide appropriate references.

 

Your inability to do this says all we need to know.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Strange