StringJunky Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 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. I fear your patience is wasted.
tkadm30 Posted January 1, 2017 Author Posted January 1, 2017 Here's a research paper on the concepts of biological hypercomputation: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4819.pdf I'm not flaming. Only attempting to discuss the essential concepts of synaptic hypercomputation. 1
Strange Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 Here's a research paper on the concepts of biological hypercomputation: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4819.pdf Well done. Why did that have to take so long? (I think the paper is complete hogwash but that is not relevant.)
DrmDoc Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 (edited) 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. From your link: The synaptic hypercomputation theory propose that 1) consciousness is a source of discrete computations driven by exocytosis 2) synaptic hypercomputation is based on a coherent neurocomputational model of consciousness. This is the clearest explanation of your theory thus far as it presents the major components of that theory. Point #1 of your theory is that consciousness is a source of computational activity, which is a given in that we do engage in consciously directed computational activity. You should also note that such activity isn't the exclusive function of consciousness. Your initial point also proposes exocytosis as a driver of consciousness, which is also a given as it is part of the neural system of micro-exchanges that create and support consciousness. However, the perception of consciousness as a system of micro-exchanges between neurons is a mistake in that consciousness involves a confluence of macro-neurochemical and electrical exchanges between separate and distinct neuronal groups inclusive of our entire central nervous system. Consciousness is a collaborative product of interactions within and between different neuronal groups whose functional distinctions contribute to an overall matrix of cognitive activity that isn't always computational. Point #2 of your theory appears to essentially regard consciousness and its output as a product of "neurocomputational" synaptic activity. This is only valid if you can prove--through tangible equivalents or rigorous evidence--that consciousness and it's output is produced through a computational process at cell level. As the originator of this idea, it's incumbent upon you to present to us detailed evidence for your theory regarding this computational activity between neurons. For example, you should detail and provide evidence of how the minute exchanges between neurons and neuronal groups mirror the quantum components of mechanized computational processes. You shouldn't proceed to presenting hyper-computation ideas without first providing a foundation for those ideas in how the brain neurologically engages in computational activity and exchanges. You should understand that the onus is on the investigator to provide evidence for his convictions or theories and not the jury or those to whom the investigator presents his theories. NOTE: I now see that you've provided a link to a paper discussing your idea of hypecomputation. I'll post another response after my review. I've reviewed the paper you've provided and now have a clearer perspective of the ideas we're discussing. The paper is an introduction to the concept of "Biological Hypercomputation" (BH) and appears to be dated from 2012. It's authors regard hypercomputation as the "theoretical and practical feasibility of computing...the dynamics, phenomena and processes that were never before taken into account as essentially computable." Essentially, as I understand, they regard hyper-computation as a capacity to engage computations exceeding the scope of numbers and functions but necessarily computational speed. In this introduction to BH, the authors seek to expound on an idea originated by another author, S. Stepney, in a 2009 computer science paper on "Non-classical Hypercomputation." According to the authors, biological computation regards "how is information represented in the [biological] system, how information is read and written by the system, how it is processed, and how this information acquires function (or “purpose” or “meaning”), and studies comparisons among various kinds of computation and what life does, computationally speaking." Although the authors of this paper attempts to make comparisons between numerical and biological computational systems, they do admit questions remain regarding "how exactly is BH carried out in every level or scale and how that scale interacts – hypercomputationally! – with the other levels of an organism, a species and the biosphere." This paper seeks to establish and quantify the production and exchange of information in biological systems as a hyper-computational process based on the idea that they involve computational elements and processes that transcend the scope of numbers or numeric functions. This idea appears to presuppose that a flower opens to the sun's rays or track the sun across the sky as a result of some computational process. Relative to your interest, this idea appears to regard the intuitive output of brain function where some functional products appear to be the result of computing elements beyond those within the scope of perceptible observations. Unfortunately, this paper provides no evidence for this computational process occurring in biological systems but provides that the idea should be further researched. In my opinion, a healthy brain is the only path to enhanced brain function. You should probably consider pursuing other, more natural avenues for function enhancement. I recall hearing, but not confirming, that people of higher intelligence appear to having higher levels of copper and zinc in their systems. It's an interest notion to investigate--perhaps more so than the minutia of synaptic discharges. Edited January 1, 2017 by DrmDoc 1
tkadm30 Posted January 2, 2017 Author Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) From your link: This is the clearest explanation of your theory thus far as it presents the major components of that theory. Point #1 of your theory is that consciousness is a source of computational activity, which is a given in that we do engage in consciously directed computational activity. You should also note that such activity isn't the exclusive function of consciousness. Your initial point also proposes exocytosis as a driver of consciousness, which is also a given as it is part of the neural system of micro-exchanges that create and support consciousness. However, the perception of consciousness as a system of micro-exchanges between neurons is a mistake in that consciousness involves a confluence of macro-neurochemical and electrical exchanges between separate and distinct neuronal groups inclusive of our entire central nervous system. Consciousness is a collaborative product of interactions within and between different neuronal groups whose functional distinctions contribute to an overall matrix of cognitive activity that isn't always computational. Point #2 of your theory appears to essentially regard consciousness and its output as a product of "neurocomputational" synaptic activity. This is only valid if you can prove--through tangible equivalents or rigorous evidence--that consciousness and it's output is produced through a computational process at cell level. As the originator of this idea, it's incumbent upon you to present to us detailed evidence for your theory regarding this computational activity between neurons. For example, you should detail and provide evidence of how the minute exchanges between neurons and neuronal groups mirror the quantum components of mechanized computational processes. You shouldn't proceed to presenting hyper-computation ideas without first providing a foundation for those ideas in how the brain neurologically engages in computational activity and exchanges. You should understand that the onus is on the investigator to provide evidence for his convictions or theories and not the jury or those to whom the investigator presents his theories. NOTE: I now see that you've provided a link to a paper discussing your idea of hypecomputation. I'll post another response after my review. I've reviewed the paper you've provided and now have a clearer perspective of the ideas we're discussing. The paper is an introduction to the concept of "Biological Hypercomputation" (BH) and appears to be dated from 2012. It's authors regard hypercomputation as the "theoretical and practical feasibility of computing...the dynamics, phenomena and processes that were never before taken into account as essentially computable." Essentially, as I understand, they regard hyper-computation as a capacity to engage computations exceeding the scope of numbers and functions but necessarily computational speed. In this introduction to BH, the authors seek to expound on an idea originated by another author, S. Stepney, in a 2009 computer science paper on "Non-classical Hypercomputation." According to the authors, biological computation regards "how is information represented in the [biological] system, how information is read and written by the system, how it is processed, and how this information acquires function (or “purpose” or “meaning”), and studies comparisons among various kinds of computation and what life does, computationally speaking." Although the authors of this paper attempts to make comparisons between numerical and biological computational systems, they do admit questions remain regarding "how exactly is BH carried out in every level or scale and how that scale interacts – hypercomputationally! – with the other levels of an organism, a species and the biosphere." This paper seeks to establish and quantify the production and exchange of information in biological systems as a hyper-computational process based on the idea that they involve computational elements and processes that transcend the scope of numbers or numeric functions. This idea appears to presuppose that a flower opens to the sun's rays or track the sun across the sky as a result of some computational process. Relative to your interest, this idea appears to regard the intuitive output of brain function where some functional products appear to be the result of computing elements beyond those within the scope of perceptible observations. Unfortunately, this paper provides no evidence for this computational process occurring in biological systems but provides that the idea should be further researched. In my opinion, a healthy brain is the only path to enhanced brain function. You should probably consider pursuing other, more natural avenues for function enhancement. I recall hearing, but not confirming, that people of higher intelligence appear to having higher levels of copper and zinc in their systems. It's an interest notion to investigate--perhaps more so than the minutia of synaptic discharges. Thank you for this reply. Your review of synaptic hypercomputation and phase-transition driven exocytosis as potential neuromodulators of consciousness is sensible and crucial to my understanding of biological hypercomputation. I would definitely like to discuss the fundamentals of biological hypercomputation with you in more details. My observations on "non-classical" hypercomputation indicates that living systems through the neuromodulation of consciousness are capable of functional hypercomputation. I think that neuronal phase coherence is a form of quantum-like wavefunction regulating phasic synchronicity in the brain. Hence, neuronal synchronicity appears as regulating optimal neurocomputation efficiency of synaptic (dopamine) exocytosis. (interneuronal quantum tunnelling) Interneuronal quantum tunnelling of beta-neurexins proteins mediate phasic synchronicity of endocannabinoid signaling: The effects of exocytosis on neuronal phase coherence are negatively mediated by functional dopamine D2 receptor connectivity. In particular dopamine-CB1 heteromeric expression may fine-tune dopamine connectivity. Edited January 2, 2017 by tkadm30
DrmDoc Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 Thank you for this reply. Your review of synaptic hypercomputation and phase-transition driven exocytosis as potential neuromodulators of consciousness is sensible and crucial to my understanding of biological hypercomputation. I would definitely like to discuss the fundamentals of biological hypercomputation with you in more details. My observations on "non-classical" hypercomputation indicates that living systems through the neuromodulation of consciousness are capable of functional hypercomputation. I think that neuronal phase coherence is a form of quantum-like wavefunction regulating phasic synchronicity in the brain. Hence, neuronal synchronicity appears as regulating optimal neurocomputation efficiency of synaptic (dopamine) exocytosis. (interneuronal quantum tunnelling) Interneuronal quantum tunnelling of beta-neurexins proteins mediate phasic synchronicity of endocannabinoid signaling: The effects of exocytosis on neuronal phase coherence are negatively mediated by functional dopamine D2 receptor connectivity. In particular dopamine-CB1 heteromeric expression may fine-tune dopamine connectivity. Regarding phasic neuronal synchronicity, I found this slightly dated (2014) Frontiers in Neuroscience article exploring the computational role of gamma wave activity. The authors of this article admit that the "functional role of gamma activity and the computational means by which it is achieved is still unclear" which, to my mind, typifies the speculative nature of this area of interest. Unfortunately, I've reached the limits of my desire to speculate further on this topic but wish you well in your pursuit of this interest.
tkadm30 Posted January 3, 2017 Author Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) Regarding phasic neuronal synchronicity, I found this slightly dated (2014) Frontiers in Neuroscience article exploring the computational role of gamma wave activity. The authors of this article admit that the "functional role of gamma activity and the computational means by which it is achieved is still unclear" which, to my mind, typifies the speculative nature of this area of interest. Interesting. I guess the quantum-like phase coherence in neuronal populations is sensitive to exocytosis. Thanks for your input, DrmDoc. Edited January 3, 2017 by tkadm30
tkadm30 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 Here's a paper on relevant quantum-like effects in biological systems: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/ In summary, synaptic hypercomputation is the quantum regulation of coherence in neural communication systems.
swansont Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 Here's a paper on relevant quantum-like effects in biological systems: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/ In summary, synaptic hypercomputation is the quantum regulation of coherence in neural communication systems. But this is the problem: you cite quantum behavior in biological systems, but are claiming that biological processes are exhibiting quantum behavior. Those are not the same thing. Biological systems involve atoms and photons. There is bound to be quantum mechanics going on. "These experiments are optimized for revealing fundamental physics, such as quantum statistics, delocalization, and entanglement. But they all also show that quantum phenomena are best observed in near-perfect isolation from the environment or at ultralow temperatures, in order to avoid the detrimental influence of decoherence and dephasing. They are thus not representative for life as such." ... "Under biological conditions, in an aqueous and warm environment, position superpositions of massive particles cannot survive more than a few collisions with electrons, atoms, photons, or phonons. In the case of strong interactions, a single collision will destroy the coherence. And even for weak perturbations, the visibility of quantum phenomena will vanish exponentially with the separation of the position states. Any delocalization in biomaterials will therefore be limited to extensions of a few nanometers and time scales typically shorter than nanoseconds, in most cases even a few hundred femtoseconds only." (Emphasis added. They then discuss a few possible exceptions that could be investigated) There's nothing in that article that would allow one to conclude that quantum behavior is exhibited by biological processes, only that QM is present in them, as it has to be, much like one can conclude that chemistry is going on in biological processes. But it would be similarly erroneous to describe biological processes as being chemical reactions. (e.g. cell division is not a chemical reaction, even if it involves chemical reaction)
tkadm30 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 I'm highly sure that quantum-like effects in biological systems are evidences of the quantum non-locality of consciousness. Consciousness is non-local because observation is depending on our perceptions and immaterial. Synaptic hypercomputation is evidence of macroscopic quantum coherence in brain activity.
swansont Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 I'm highly sure that quantum-like effects in biological systems are evidences of the quantum non-locality of consciousness. That's not enough. It's not anything, really. What evidence do you have?
tkadm30 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) That's not enough. It's not anything, really. What evidence do you have? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188 The Orch OR theory is evidence of the quantum non-locality of interneural communications. (biological entanglement/hypercomputation) Edited January 9, 2017 by tkadm30
swansont Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188 The Orch OR theory is evidence of the quantum non-locality of interneural communications. (biological entanglement/hypercomputation) An unproven hypothesis is not evidence.
Strange Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 It is clear that tkadm30 has no idea what "evidence" means.
tkadm30 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 An unproven hypothesis is not evidence. It is at least a functional postulate to confirm the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules.
swansont Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 It is at least a functional postulate to confirm the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules. What you're being asked for is experimental evidence.
tkadm30 Posted January 17, 2017 Author Posted January 17, 2017 My local observations are experimental evidences of synaptic hypercomputation: Endocannabinoid-mediated retrograde signaling is controlling synaptic connectivity and synaptogenesis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17525344 Synaptogenesis is evidence of the quantum non-locality of interneural communication. By fine-tuning synaptogenesis, retrograde signaling modulate dopaminergic neurons and phase-transition driven exocytosis.
tkadm30 Posted January 17, 2017 Author Posted January 17, 2017 My local observations of brain-to-brain quantum connectivity in neural communication is experimental evidence of synaptic hypercomputation. In a quantum system, a local observation is functionally different than a non-local (remote) representation of a abstract concept.
DrmDoc Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 My local observations are experimental evidences of synaptic hypercomputation: Endocannabinoid-mediated retrograde signaling is controlling synaptic connectivity and synaptogenesis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17525344 Synaptogenesis is evidence of the quantum non-locality of interneural communication. By fine-tuning synaptogenesis, retrograde signaling modulate dopaminergic neurons and phase-transition driven exocytosis. Synaptogenesis is not evidence of the quantum quality you've described, in my opinion and according to the link I've provided. The reference link you provided described a neurochemical process rather than a quantum exchange or conveyance of energetic particles between neurons, as we might observe in quantum physics. Although endocannabinoid receptors may be a factor in synaptogenesis, there are other factors of equal importance to our CNS. If this regards the quantum chemistry of neuronal exchanges, we should be probably be discussing those exchanges at their molecular level--which hasn't been the focus of this discussion and your links thus far.
Strange Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 My local observations of brain-to-brain quantum connectivity in neural communication is experimental evidence of synaptic hypercomputation. In a quantum system, a local observation is functionally different than a non-local (remote) representation of a abstract concept. What are "local observations"? How are you measuring "quantum connectivity"? What experimental setup do you use, what results have you obtained?
tkadm30 Posted January 17, 2017 Author Posted January 17, 2017 What are "local observations"? How are you measuring "quantum connectivity"? What experimental setup do you use, what results have you obtained? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics) You can measure quantum connectivity through local communication.
Strange Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics) You can measure quantum connectivity through local communication. That doesn't answer any of the questions (that page does not even contain the word "local"). Please stop googling for keywords (that you appear not to understand) and answer the questions about these "experiments" you say you have performed: 1. What is "local communication"? 2. What are "local observations"? 3. How are you measuring "quantum connectivity"? 4. What experimental setup do you use? 5. What results have you obtained?
tkadm30 Posted January 17, 2017 Author Posted January 17, 2017 1. Local communication is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication 2. Local (quantum) observation is a computation of a conscious experience 3. Through language semantics and neural representations 4. Internet connection... 5. Quantum entanglement of neural communication is evidence of synaptic hypercomputation
Strange Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 1. Local communication is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication As the word "local" does not appear on that web page, I assume that when you say "local communication" you just mean "communication". 1a. Is that correct? 2. Local (quantum) observation is a computation of a conscious experience 2a. Why do you include the word "local"? 2b. This contradicts the earlier link you gave for quantum observation. Why is that? 3. Through language semantics and neural representations These do not have any apparent connection to "quantum connectivity" so: 3a. What is "quantum connectivity"? 3b. What evidence do you have for a connection between "quantum connectivity" and language semantics and neural representations? 3c. How do you measure language semantics and neural representations? 4. Internet connection... 4a. Could you be any less specific? I can't help conclude you are deliberately posting nonsense (i.e. trolling). 5. Quantum entanglement of neural communication is evidence of synaptic hyper computation 5a. What evidence do you have for quantum entanglement in neural communication? 5b. What evidence do you have that hypercomputation exists? 5c. What evidence do you have that synaptic hypercomputation exists? Basically, you are simply repeating the same old made-up nonsense and not providing evidence. I will suggest that the moderators close this for lack of science and likely trolling.
Recommended Posts