Does our brain work like a CPU?

[cameron marical]

I know our brain Is the one that processese all info that we take in, so in that sense it is, but, surely, the brain does not have a whole bunch of transistor like devices making up processer unites do they?

 

Im not really sure how the brain takes in info and decides what to do with it, has nueroscience found out yet? What has it found out about the brain?

 

If I understand right, CPU's work on algorithms and logic gates{ wich I really dont understand, I just read about on a website}[like to though], And that is how we make things like robots and computers{right}?

 

but, our brains do not work the same way, do they? instead of doing every calculation to find something out, we kind of do a more educated guess and check method dont we?

 

Has anyone found out how this works?

 

I just do not know about any of this stuff and would like to.

 

thanks.

[iNow]

You might get a lot of useful information here. I use this site all of the time.

 

 

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bvc.html

Throughout history, people have compared the brain to different inventions. In the past, the brain has been said to be like a water clock and a telephone switchboard. These days, the favorite invention that the brain is compared to is a computer. Some people use this comparison to say that the computer is better than the brain; some people say that the comparison shows that the brain is better than the computer. Perhaps, it is best to say that the brain is better at doing some jobs and the computer is better at doing other jobs.

 

Let's see how the brain and the computer are similar and different. <

see link for more

>

[granpa]

you might want to read up on:

logic programming

belief propagation

event-driven programming

inductive/abductive vs deductive logic

[bascule]

A neuron is comparable to an integrated circuit (i.e. "computer chip") however an individual neuron is far less complicated than your average CPU.

 

You can think of your brain as being a massively complex network of computer chips if you so desire.

[cameron marical]

granpa, thanks for the subjects, Im still reading them as I write them.

 

Qoueted from wikepedia on logic programming;

If B1 and … and Bn then H

treats the implications as goal-reduction procedures:

 

to show/solve H, show/solve B1 and … and Bn.

For example, it treats the implication:

 

If you press the alarm signal button,

then you alert the driver of the train of a possible emergency

as the procedure:

 

To alert the driver of the train of a possible emergency,

press the alarm signal button.

 

My question is, Is that actually how our brains work? Do our nuerons form algorithms in order for us to remember events and have commands tagged with them?

[iNow]

My question is, Is that actually how our brains work? Do our nuerons form algorithms in order for us to remember events and have commands tagged with them?

 

From the link I shared in post #2:

 

The brain uses chemicals to transmit information; the computer uses electricity. Even though electrical signals travel at high speeds in the nervous system, they travel even faster through the wires in a computer.

 

A computer uses switches that are either on or off ("binary"). In a way, neurons in the brain are either on or off by either firing an action potential or not firing an action potential. However, neurons are more than just on or off because the "excitability" of a neuron is always changing. This is because a neuron is constantly getting information from other cells through synaptic contacts. Information traveling across a synapse does NOT always result in a action potential. Rather, this information alters the chance that an action potential will be produced by raising or lowering the threshold of the neuron.

 

Computer memory grows by adding computer chips. Memories in the brain grow by stronger synaptic connections.

 

 

From another page at that same site:

 

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html

Following birth, the brain of a newborn is flooded with information from the baby’s sense organs. This sensory information must somehow make it back to the brain where it can be processed. To do so, nerve cells must make connections with one another, transmitting the impulses to the brain. Continuing with the telephone wire analogy, like the basic telephone trunk lines strung between cities, the newborn’s genes instruct the "pathway" to the correct area of the brain from a particular nerve cell. For example, nerve cells in the retina of the eye send impulses to the primary visual area in the occipital lobe of the brain and not to the area of language production (Wernicke’s area) in the left posterior temporal lobe. The basic trunk lines have been established, but the specific connections from one house to another require additional signals.

 

Over the first few years of life, the brain grows rapidly. As each neuron matures, it sends out multiple branches (axons, which send information out, and dendrites, which take in information), increasing the number of synaptic contacts and laying the specific connections from house to house, or in the case of the brain, from neuron to neuron. At birth, each neuron in the cerebral cortex has approximately 2,500 synapses. By the time an infant is two or three years old, the number of synapses is approximately 15,000 synapses per neuron (Gopnick, et al., 1999). This amount is about twice that of the average adult brain. As we age, old connections are deleted through a process called synaptic pruning.

 

<...>

 

The capacity of the brain to change with learning is plasticity. So how does the brain change with learning? According to Durbach (2000), there appear to be at least two types of modifications that occur in the brain with learning:

 

1. A change in the internal structure of the neurons, the most notable being in the area of synapses.

2. An increase in the number of synapses between neurons.

[granpa]

are you familiar with objects, actions, and rules comprising fields?

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001a-symbol-bifurcation.pdf

 

 

procedural thinking vs lateral thinking?

http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/lateral.htm

(think smarter not harder)

[iNow]

are you familiar with objects, actions, and rules comprising fields?

 

procedural thinking vs lateral thinking?

(think smarter not harder)

 

Yeah, but all that's the map, not the territory.

[granpa]

I believe that its the map that hes interested in.

 

whether the map is made of paper or plastic is irrelevant to its function as a map.

[cameron marical]

So they{nuerons In our brain} do not form algorithms, just connections to seperate spots? Then why do computer chips not have a mechanism similiar to that?

[bascule]

So they{nuerons In our brain} do not form algorithms, just connections to seperate spots? Then why do computer chips not have a mechanism similiar to that?

 

Integrated circuits using mesh interconnect (e.g. NUMA) can form connections with other integrated circuits.

 

The process is a logical one rather than the physical one you see with neurons, but the idea is the same.

 

Integrated circuits do not "form algorithms", rather they execute algorithms as a byproduct of their operation.

[granpa]

I tend to see the neurons as being interconnected by a sort of vast telephone switching network (probably through the pyramidal cells). some neurons communicate so often that they prefer to grow dedicated lines to communicate over.

Edited June 8, 2009 by granpa

[GDG]

I know our brain Is the one that processese all info that we take in, so in that sense it is, but, surely, the brain does not have a whole bunch of transistor like devices making up processer unites do they?

 

Im not really sure how the brain takes in info and decides what to do with it, has nueroscience found out yet? What has it found out about the brain?

 

If I understand right, CPU's work on algorithms and logic gates{ wich I really dont understand, I just read about on a website}[like to though], And that is how we make things like robots and computers{right}?

 

but, our brains do not work the same way, do they? instead of doing every calculation to find something out, we kind of do a more educated guess and check method dont we?

 

Has anyone found out how this works?

 

I just do not know about any of this stuff and would like to.

 

thanks.

 

Let me recommend that you get a copy of "The Brain That Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge. It is now out in paperback, and may be available in your local public or school library. Although the book is mainly about neuroplasticity, it will answer a number of your questions (and undoubtedly inspire more ).

 

The bulk of the brain is neurons and glial cells. For many years, science has considered the neurons to be the cells responsible for all signaling, and the glial cells as basically "support". It turns out that more recent research shows that glial cells also contribute to signalling and response.

 

Most of us do not have transistors in our heads, but neurons are pretty complicated processing devices. Your typical neuron has many (possibly hundreds) of connections called "dendrites" that receive input from other neurons. The input from each connection can be either excitatory or inhibitory: the neuron integrates all of the inputs, and either fires or doesn't. If it does fire, it sends an impulse (a wave of electrical depolarization) down its axon (typically the single long main projection), which may connect to one or more (possibly dozens) of other neurons.

 

A fertile field for more research...

[granpa]

cortical columns:

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/mcarreira-perpinan/papers/ecs02.pdf

[cameron marical]

Is a brain simply just nuerons? I know that there is the hippocampus, the cereberal cortex, etc... But are all of those just made out of nuerons?

[granpa]

no. theres blood and connective tissue and membranes...

 

what more do you want?

 

yes. our brains are just neurons and neurons are just atoms and atoms are just electrons protons and neutrons. but do protons feel or think or dream or hope? I am not suggesting that we arent in fact 'just atoms'. I'm just pointing out that one can make more out of that than one should.

[iNow]

If I may criticize, that wasn't a very helpful reply, granpa.

 

 

Cameron - There is a lot to the make-up of the brain. As discussed above, there are a series of neurons, and connections among those neurons (synapses). There is also blood vessels and what some call brain matter.

 

Depending on where in the brain you are, the make-up will be different. You have glial cells which provide structural stability and perform other functions like electrically insulating neurons and helping to buffer ion flow. There is gray matter, and white matter, and different cortexes and convolution. It's a pretty big question you asked.

 

 

You might spend some time exploring this... I think it will educate you on a lot:

 

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html

 

 

Also, it looks like the wiki page on the brain is pretty well done, and robust with information such as that you keep requesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

 

 

Enjoy.

[GDG]

Is a brain simply just nuerons? I know that there is the hippocampus, the cereberal cortex, etc... But are all of those just made out of nuerons?

 

Yes, those structures are all composed of neurons. There are a number of different types of neuron, such as basket cells, pyramidal cells, Purkinje cells, etc., all of which are believed to have different functions and/or characteristics. Different brain structures may have different types of neuron. If you check the Wikipedia entry for neuron, there is a list of different types with links to explore.

[Bishadi]

I know our brain Is the one that processese all info that we take in, so in that sense it is, but, surely, the brain does not have a whole bunch of transistor like devices making up processer unites do they?

 

Im not really sure how the brain takes in info and decides what to do with it, has nueroscience found out yet? What has it found out about the brain?

 

If I understand right, CPU's work on algorithms and logic gates{ wich I really dont understand, I just read about on a website}[like to though], And that is how we make things like robots and computers{right}?

 

but, our brains do not work the same way, do they?

 

no they dont

 

instead of doing every calculation to find something out, we kind of do a more educated guess and check method dont we?

 

Has anyone found out how this works?

 

I just do not know about any of this stuff and would like to.

 

thanks.

 

look up (google) 'crystal structures and neuron'

 

the whole field is about to explode

 

(another item is to look up is the nano tubular-like structures of the cytoskeleton, then notice how well 'light' conveys within)

[Mokele]

look up (google) 'crystal structures and neuron'

 

All it turns up is protein crystal structures, which is really just a way of describing the 3-D structure of a protein.

 

another item is to look up is the nano tubular-like structures of the cytoskeleton, then notice how well 'light' conveys within

 

There are no "nano tubules"; you're thinking of microtubules. And I strongly doubt they're transmitting light, especially since it's pretty dark inside most animals.

[Bishadi]

All it turns up is protein crystal structures, which is really just a way of describing the 3-D structure of a protein.

 

that is not fair

 

are you describing a SNARE?

 

but that analogy you posted is incorrect

 

There are no "nano tubules"; you're thinking of microtubules. And I strongly doubt they're transmitting light, especially since it's pretty dark inside most animals.

 

wow.....

 

they measure microfilaments, micotubules and cytoskeleton in nm, just like nanotubes (organic or not)

 

both "grow" an that growth is still considered magic; no matter the discipline.

 

my comment was "nano tubular-like structures"

 

as for light and tubule STRUCTURES (nano sized)

 

"This is the first measurement of the intrinsic conduction properties of semiconducting nanotubes," Fuhrer said in a statement. "It is an important step forward in efforts to develop nanotubes into the building blocks of a new generation of smaller, more powerful electronics."

 

The findings were published in the journal Nano Letters and publicized earlier this month.

 

The team said it had to use (relatively) extremely long nanotubes for the experiment, using lengths of up to 0.03 centimeters, about 100 times longer than nanotubes previously used in semiconducting experiments.

 

Within a decade, nanotubes could replace silicon as the transistors inside processors and memory chips. Tubes could also be used to convey light through optical fibers and, further out, to deliver medicines to specific cells inside a body or even restructure the nation's power grid

 

from even simple article

 

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,39161987,00.htm

 

http://news.cnet.com/The-stuff-of-dreams/2009-1008_3-5091267.html

 

i would suggest any who enjoys the future material in the works, focus on the conveyance of energy via em (light) and nano structures.

[CharonY]

I hope you are aware that carbon nanotubes have quite different properties from proteins as e.g. tubulin? Just because they are in the same size range does not give them equal properties. Even within carbon nanotubes the conductivity is very dependent on purity and composition, resulting in conductivities ranging from metallic to semi-conductive properties. In contrast electron transfers across proteins (e.g. via cytochromes) are short range affairs, generally in the tunneling range.

[ydoaPs]

no they dont

 

 

 

look up (google) 'crystal structures and neuron'

 

the whole field is about to explode

 

(another item is to look up is the nano tubular-like structures of the cytoskeleton, then notice how well 'light' conveys within)

Our brains work differently than CPUs. Computers are Turing machines, and the brain works in a fundamentally different manner than that of the Turing machine. We can, however, draw an analogy between consciousness and computer programming.

 

Our minds are analogous to computer programming. we can look at computer programming from various levels. You can look it it from the low level of electrons moving about on wires. In the same manner, you can look at the brain as ion currents through neurons. At a higher level, you have logic gates in computers and neural hierarchies in the brain. Then you have higher level programming like python. The analog in the brain is an idea.

Our actions, our choices, are all based upon our beliefs, our values, preconcieved notions, etc. It's algorithmic(albeit VERY complicated). All of these things come at the lowest level from deterministic physics(the brain is a classical system).

 

Our consciousness comes from a thin covering of the "old brain" called the neocortex. It works hierarchically(with many more feedback connections than feedforward) to produce a working model of the world. Instead of creating trillions of files to save what every object looks like under every condition(that would be utterly ridiculous as the pattern on your retina is never the same) the cortical-thalamo-cortical loops use a time delay to form invariant auto-associative memories which are used recursively in hierarchical feedback loops to provide a model of our world. This is how our senses are cleaned up. For example, these auto-associative memories fill in our blind spot. This model is what we experience. Most of our experiences are what we expect to experience rather than what we actually experience. Consciousness is what it feels like to have a working neocortex(or analogous structure).

 

The following is a great lecture by Jeff Hawkins on the topic.

 

cCdbZqI1r7I

[Bishadi]

I hope you are aware that carbon nanotubes have quite different properties from proteins as e.g. tubulin? Just because they are in the same size range does not give them equal properties.

sure i am aware, just as each musical instrument has it's own tune

 

my add...

think in the lines of comparing usable building blocks; electrical: binary(on/off) see chips for computers

 

then compare to mass (the range and molecular variations) and the spectrum of electromagnetism. Think of mass as just 'holding' a resonance (soliton/photon) and when some systems (resonant) come into contact, the combining increases total power of the energy. (i suggest this is how the phospholipid bilayers assemble; the resonant energy is associating without structural bonds between the lipids (rather peptide))

 

or even 'common sense'; 2 men; each can lift a maximum but together they can lift more than the sum of their individual maximums (basics)

 

that last paragraph part was an analogy to assist in what is being observed (simply that all mass that ever combines to make a molecule is because of em) ie... no electron even 'jumps' without it. (bohring model)

 

electron transfers across proteins (e.g. via cytochromes) are short range affairs, generally in the tunneling range.

Tunneling?

 

(is that Gibbs free energy?)

 

What frame is that derived from?

 

now if you are masking the heme in the cytochromes then find THAT iron based molecule can retain a HUGE range of wavelengths; the 688nm, heck most of 300's on up in many oxigenase configs

 

have you ever done homework on the P680?

 

that is the horse of plants and go look at how the INCREASE of energy occurs during the process... (perhaps another thread)

[Mokele]

that is not fair. are you describing a SNARE?

 

I was talking about the use of X-ray crystalography to determine protein structure, still a popular method, IIRC.

 

they measure microfilaments, micotubules and cytoskeleton in nm, just like nanotubes (organic or not)

 

both "grow" an that growth is still considered magic; no matter the discipline.

 

my comment was "nano tubular-like structures"

 

as for light and tubule STRUCTURES (nano sized)

 

First, whether they are "nano" or not is irrelevant - their *proper* name is "microtubule".

 

Second, there is nothing magical about their growth. In fact, we understand it fully, and can induce it in vitro. In fact, there is an entire class of cancer drugs exclusively based around disruption of microtubule formation (they're used in mitosis), and a microtubule disruptor is used to induce polyploidy in plants.

 

Finally, as CharonY pointed out, just because they're small tubes doesn't mean they have the same properties. Comparing a nanotube to a microtubule is like comparing a PVC pipe to a brick smokestack. That they're cylindrical is about as far as the comparison can go.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

sure i am aware, just as each musical instrument has it's own tune

 

Irrelevant analogy.

 

or even 'common sense'; 2 men; each can lift a maximum but together they can lift more than the sum of their individual maximums (basics)

 

No, they cannot. I am a biomechanist by training and I can 100% guarantee you that you are wrong.