Brain from another view

[Ilja]

If u think of the brain u think , in my opinion , ( i dont know how u think about it) in the biological way (biological processes or whatever).But if u imagine that the brain is only a cluster of atoms , i wonder how millions of atoms can produce thoughts and dreams for example ?

 

I'd appreciate your opinions.

 

 

 

(sorry for my poor english)

 

 

Ilja

[bascule]

The same way a computer, as a collection of atoms, can produce realistic looking 3D rendered scenery: because that's what its program does.

[brad89]

Personally, I think we overanylized thinking to confuse it. If a million tiny electrical signals travel between neurons in certain patterns, we can identify them as thoughts. Our brain just made sense of them. Also, perhaps certain chemical agents or hormones affect certain cells of the brain and it causes strange attractions of atoms within the brain. It may be sort of small, but it is very complex, and we can understand it by analyzing it and its reactions toward certain chemicals and other variables.

 

One time, I heard that a brain surgeon poked someones brain and they claimed to hear polka music. It is amazing, but that one story gives me hope not to turn to other ideas about how the brain works, including theological and mythological, as well as astrological.

 

Also, the brain isn't the only thing that runs our body. Don't forget other factors, such as the adrenal glands, testosterone, and certain other hormones.

 

Quoting ryan jones, one cell isn't much, but it is when we include all the billions that surround it. Maybe that is where intelligence derives.

[Mart]

originally posted by brad89

If a million tiny electrical signals travel between neurons in certain patterns, we can identify them as thoughts.

If that's the case then since electrical signals are physical it follows that thoughts are physical. One day someone will invent a thought-rendering contraption. It will save some typing.

[bascule]

If that's the case then since electrical signals are physical it follows that thoughts are physical. One day someone will invent a thought-rendering contraption. It will save some typing.

 

You're describing a Direct Neural Interface (DNI), an Intelligence Amplification device which will lead to a Singularity scenario

[Mart]

Originally Posted by bascule

You're describing a Direct Neural Interface (DNI), an Intelligence Amplification device which will lead to a Singularity scenario

I am? You know what? I didn't know I was that clever. I think I'll change my user name to . . . imasmartguy. Tell me more about the Singularity scenario. Is is dangerous? Will it cure my piles? Will I have to wear a special unifiorm?

[brad89]

If that's the case then since electrical signals are physical it follows that thoughts are physical. One day someone will invent a thought-rendering contraption. It will save some typing.

 

I suppose it is possible, but I don't believe necesarily THAT would happen. I just think the brain is overanalysed as an organ. Not everything we see is always real, as our mind can often play tricks on us (ghosts), but we think thinking is so complex because we can think about it! Maybe it isn't as complex as we imagine. Maybe we just overthink it. Oh god, I have to think!

[bascule]

I am? You know what? I didn't know I was that clever. I think I'll change my user name to . . . imasmartguy. Tell me more about the Singularity scenario. Is is dangerous? Will it cure my piles? Will I have to wear a special unifiorm?

 

The Singularity describes when the course of sociotechnological evolution ceases to be guided by humans as they exist now and becomes guided by either transhumans (with technologically augmented intelligence) or strong AI

 

A DNI would allow everyone to think with the sum of human knowledge as their working memory...

[starbug1]

A DNI would allow everyone to think with the sum of human knowledge as their working memory...

 

That is, if we had a big enough computer with the memory capacity to do so.

[RyanJ]

That is, if we had a big enough computer with the memory capacity to do so.

 

And a powerful CPU to handle al that information and get the required information as requested...

 

It will probably be some years befoire this is possible yet...

 

I suppose it is possible' date=' but I don't believe necesarily THAT would happen. I just think the brain is overanalysed as an organ. Not everything we see is always real, as our mind can often play tricks on us (ghosts), but we think thinking is so complex because we can think about it! Maybe it isn't as complex as we imagine. Maybe we just overthink it. Oh god, I have to think!

[/quote']

 

Like it, thats an idea, it is possible it seems far more complex too us simple because we can't think about how we thing?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cognition]

thinking is not hard at all. We don't have all the details yet, but I can easily make a neural network on my laptop that learns from several examples and then generalizes this to correctly categorize new examples. And that is thinking, although ofcourse it is not the entire story, but a pretty good start. We are only getting into real trouble when we want to explain consciousness in this way. But it seems to me that most people here assume that consciousness is repsonsible for thinking or am I wrong?

[sunspot]

Thoughts can stem from conscious action such as via logic and reason. Thoughts can also spontaneously appear in the mind, such as what flows from a writers pen. The thing with consciousness is that it needs a energy source to be able to manipulate the memory. Even a computer without power or battery backup will stop functioning. With the brain always firing at some level (brain waves) one can see the constant energy source. The energy behind consciousness can stimulate memory and thoughts.

[Ophiolite]

But it seems to me that most people here assume that consciousness is repsonsible for thinking or am I wrong?

I suspect a large number of people, in general, falsely believe that consciousness is either responsible for thinking, or is the same thing as thinking. I think.

[zyncod]

I suspect a large number of people, in general, falsely believe that consciousness is either responsible for thinking, or is the same thing as thinking. I think.

 

I, in turn, suspect that a large number of people think that consciousness is anything but an accident of evolution.

[Helix]

I think therefore I am. Or whatever.

 

I believe that, going back to the OP, it's only when you imagine what trillions of atoms can do can you realize the complexity of the brain. The universe is a collection of atoms, a lot of atoms, and it still is extremely advanced. If you can think of those atoms coming together to form neurons and chemicals and synapses, then it's possible to view the link from atoms to thoughts.

[Ophiolite]

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

[sunspot]

If we look at all the atoms that make up the brain, these are arranged as covalent molecules and ions, all connected to the action of electron sharing. The living state is somewhat unique in that a secondary layer of bonding occurs between molecules, and between molecules and ions (with water), which brings the molecules and ions together in loose fluid arrangments. This secondary layer of bonding is based primarily on the hydrogen proton.

 

The value of the hydrogen proton, with respect to the living state can not be over emphasized. It provides the reduced materials from which energy will arise, and also provides the secondary bonding that is responsible for the structures and activity of DNA, proteins, RNA, as well as ionic/water interations and water/protein/RNA/DNA interactions. Since the hydrogen proton is so universal with respect to the living state and defines the lion's share of bioactivity, theoretically, the functioning of the brain can be simplied to just the hydrogen bonding. In other words, one does not need to define everything that is going on iwithn the nuclei of every atom to be able to define chemical properties, although both are probably highly coordinated. With respect to the living state and brain, one does not need to know everything about electron based chemistry to be able to define what is going on with the hydrogen proton, although both are also highly coordinated. This simplies the integration of the living state and brain from its chemical diversity, just as chemistry is simplied by separating all the theoretical constraints of the physics of atomic nuclei. Both foundations are important but can be factored out and still get practical models.

[qed]

Hi, im new to this forum and id like to join this interesting discussion.

 

 

We don't have all the details yet, but I can easily make a neural network on my laptop that learns from several examples and then generalizes this to correctly categorize new examples. And that is thinking, although ofcourse it is not the entire story, but a pretty good start.

 

My impression is that a lot of people forget an important fact when they compare the brain to a computer. In a brain, hardware and software are the same thing. So learning and thinking is to remodel the architecture of the system in a certain extend. I hardly believe that a computer will be able to do this.

Can they alter the program to adapt to situations or tasks or do they just add things to expand their capacity?

 

Since the hydrogen proton is so universal with respect to the living state and defines the lion's share of bioactivity, theoretically, the functioning of the brain can be simplied to just the hydrogen bonding.

 

Is this reduction satisfactory to you? In my opinion it doesnt explain anything.

the hydrogen bond is important for specific interactions between molecules, but it doesnt produce information. 2 Proteins that bind to each other and induce conformational changes dont produce information. The biophysical interactions are only transducer of information. The biological function depends on the persistance of the information by following interactions and this only occurs when specific interactions take place in a specific temporal and spatial context. The hydrogen bond is not even sufficient to explain protein stability.

I hope i didnt get you wrong. Sorry for strange english.