Does our brain work like a CPU?

[ydoaPs]

I am a biomechanist by training and I can 100% guarantee you that you are wrong.

 

I thought you were a giant lizard bent on destroying Tokyo.

[Bishadi]

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.

 

nope, as then a magnet would be like cryptonite! case closed!

 

 

Our consciousness comes from a thin covering of the "old brain" called the neocortex.

 

 

funny stuff as that can be proven wrong by cutting it open for brain surgery.

 

when wishing to comprehend 'consciousnees' think of a whole bunch of em running on a whole bunch of fibers and the combining; the mass is resonating a heat (the combining energy in coheranance is where consciousness exists) (ie... the 'heat' word was just for an analogy)

 

think of the coherance of energy when thinking conscious (to go biblical or even infra red; think of the aura)

 

or better still; when someone dies, all the same mass is there but the 'lights are out'

 

or.. when sleeping, no awareness of self (kind of practicing death and most don't know it)

[Mokele]

funny stuff as that can be proven wrong by cutting it open for brain surgery.

 

The irony is that you cited material that proves YOU wrong.

 

There is a long, long history of brain damage that results in loss of conscious thought, namely damage to the neocortex.

[Bishadi]

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

so what, suggesting an observed crystaline structure within a cell (glial for example) does not mean is is just a protein and how they descibe it.

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

 

and microfiliments, actin and a whole host (structures)

 

2 benefits with talking 'nano-tubes'

 

a.... the scale

 

b.....evidence in the nano tech opens many doors to comprehending living things. (bridging)

 

Second, there is nothing magical about their growth. In fact, we understand it fully, and can induce it in vitro.

sorry....

 

I know michael king (nasa contractor, owns nano tech firm) take my word for it; they can set the 'environment' but the 'growth' is still MAGIC

 

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

 

that is your comment to this

 

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)

 

 

oooops!

 

 

you are scaring me

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The irony is that you cited material that proves YOU wrong.

post it, please....

 

please share what you are claiming that supports this

 

you cited material that proves YOU wrong.

 

There is a long, long history of brain damage that results in loss of conscious thought, namely damage to the neocortex.

is this the kind of depth you have?

 

you are generalizing that consciousness is based on the neo with that as your evidence?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i wish to add something to this thread

 

i am not putting ME and being anything but an assistance for thinking

 

each item posted is based on addressing the questions of the OP and the why

 

telling me i am wrong without having the ability to really know what your talking about is rude

 

why not just observe what EVIDENCE and ideas are running RIGHT NOW all over the world and let's EVOLVE

 

otherwise, you folks are starting to seems like religious folks holding a book saying 'nah-huh not per my belief'

Edited August 5, 2009 by Bishadi
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

2 benefits with talking 'nano-tubes'

 

a.... the scale

 

b.....evidence in the nano tech opens many doors to comprehending living things. (bridging)

 

So, I can determine your muscle physiology by looking at bricks?

 

Because that's what you're saying. You're trying to apply results from a DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT MATERIAL to another.

 

I know michael king (nasa contractor, owns nano tech firm) take my word for it; they can set the 'environment' but the 'growth' is still MAGIC

 

Then he needs to open any cell biology textbook written in the past 30 years. We know very, very well how microtubules form.

 

Saying "I know a guy" isn't a source.

 

I know B. H. Fooduukum, and he knows everything about everything, and he says I'm right!

 

See how well that works?

 

you are generalizing that consciousness is based on the neo with that as your evidence?

 

If I have a functioning car, and I break various pieces, I can see what's needed for it to run and what isn't. Paint, nope. Doors, nope. Fuel pump, yep.

 

This is basic science - if breaking a part changes a property, that part must have something to do with that property.

 

telling me i am wrong without having the ability to really know what your talking about is rude

 

Apologize and we'll forgive you.

 

why not just observe what EVIDENCE and ideas are running RIGHT NOW all over the world and let's EVOLVE

 

Really?

 

What evidence?

 

I've asked for evidence. Over and over again.

 

All you have is hand-waving theoretical gibberish.

 

You can convince me easily - SHOW ME EVIDENCE. Real evidence, in real neurons and real brains. Not theory, experimental evidence.

 

 

This is the basis of what all science is - you must present empirical evidence to support your claims. Theory and math are not enough. So far, you have failed to produce such evidence.

 

And if you think this is hard, you've never had to go through the peer review system.

[Bishadi]

So, I can determine your muscle physiology by looking at bricks?

i am getting the impression you don't like me

 

i shared the 'good' of why observing the cytoskeleton (microtubles) like nano tubes in which far more research is 'predictable' as the laws, rules and evidence can be cross referenced

 

and that was your comment

 

looks like you and i have a problem!

 

perhap get with current science (nanotubes is something you may wish to read up on)

 

http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=7419

 

 

2/14/2009 6:27:02 PM

DNA 'nanotubes' spark interest

 

In his research, Yan has been much inspired by nanoscale ingenuity in the natural world: “Unicellular creatures like oceanic diatoms,” he points out, “contain self-assembled protein architectures.” These diverse forms of enormous delicacy and organismic practicality are frequently the result of the orchestrated self-assembly of both organic and inorganic material.

 

Scientists in the field of structural DNA nanotechnology, including Dr. Yan’s team, have previously demonstrated that pre-fab DNA elements could be induced to self-assemble, forming useful nanostructural platforms or "tiles." Such tiles are able to snap together—with jigsaw puzzle-piece specificity—through base pairing, forming larger arrays.

 

you are a funny one

 

Really?

 

What evidence?

 

I've asked for evidence. Over and over again.

 

All you have is hand-waving theoretical gibberish.

 

You can convince me easily - SHOW ME EVIDENCE. Real evidence, in real neurons and real brains. Not theory, experimental evidence.

 

 

This is the basis of what all science is - you must present empirical evidence to support your claims. Theory and math are not enough. So far, you have failed to produce such evidence.

 

And if you think this is hard, you've never had to go through the peer review system.

 

this is not hard

 

i am used to it; material is offered and unless YOU have enough material knowledge YOU will not comprehend the bigger scope

 

the brain does not work like a CPU.

 

and it is because the brain does not work like the community believes it does...

 

Here is a FACT;

 

when you can comprehend how life works then you will be able to comprehend what i post; deal!

[ydoaPs]

brain does not work like the community believes it does...

 

Then why do we have working intelligent software based on the way we think it works?

[Mokele]

i shared the 'good' of why observing the cytoskeleton (microtubles) like nano tubes in which far more research is 'predictable' as the laws, rules and evidence can be cross referenced

 

And I pointed out why it's fundamentally flawed. Microtubules are NOT nanotubes. They have different chemistry, different structures, different properties, etc. You cannot meaningfully apply information about one to the other.

 

Do you even realize what microtubules *are*? Carbon nanotubes are cylinders of nothing but carbon atoms bonded together via covalent bonds. Microtubules are cylinders made of proteins, each of which has hundreds of atoms of various sorts (mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), bound together using hydrogen bonds.

 

The *only* similarity between the two is that they're small cylinders. The molecular structures could hardly be more different.

 

the brain does not work like a CPU.

 

When did I say it does?

 

I got involved in this thread because of your claims about microtubules and nanotubes, nothing more.

[CharonY]

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

Still gold standard.

 

Oops did not notice that the discussion went much further. Or rather it did not. But there are more now.l

[Bishadi]

And I pointed out why it's fundamentally flawed. Microtubules are NOT nanotubes.

did not say they were, that we your assumption

 

 

They have different chemistry, different structures, different properties, etc. You cannot meaningfully apply information about one to the other.

water flows thru a garden house or a straw; the rules are the same

Do you even realize what microtubules *are*?

well beyond you even being aware of

 

Carbon nanotubes are cylinders of nothing but carbon atoms bonded together via covalent bonds. Microtubules are cylinders made of proteins, each of which has hundreds of atoms of various sorts (mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), bound together using hydrogen bonds.

 

The *only* similarity between the two is that they're small cylinders. The molecular structures could hardly be more different.

dahhhhhhhhh

 

When did I say it does?

such is what i say about half the stuff you have mixed up

 

for example; look at all the crap i took when you just couldn't read

 

 

I got involved in this thread because of your claims about microtubules and nanotubes, nothing more.

 

 

this is my post

 

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)

 

i said:

 

tubular-like

 

and notice how well 'light' conveys

 

everything is and will MOST always be consistant with me!

 

on the other hand

 

Mokele, the errors are all yours

[bascule]

when wishing to comprehend 'consciousnees' think of a whole bunch of em running on a whole bunch of fibers and the combining; the mass is resonating a heat (the combining energy in coheranance is where consciousness exists) (ie... the 'heat' word was just for an analogy)

 

Your writing is slightly... incoherent. But I will attempt to respond.

 

Consciousness is a metaphysical construct. We self-referential conscious systems live within an elaborate reconstruction of the outside world created by the operation of our brains.

 

Brains are classical physical systems.

 

"Consciousness" and "brains" are not interchangeable terms. Consciousness is metaphysical, brains are physical. The metaphysical nature of consciousness should not be confused with the supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about consciousness.

 

and it is because the brain does not work like the community believes it does...

 

How are you proposing it works then? Judging from comments like:

 

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

 

I can only assume your answer is MAGIC!

 

That's not the case. Our brains obey the laws of physics, and are made out of macrostructures too large to exhibit quantum mechanical properties which cannot be explained by classical physics.

 

The operation of the brain is deterministic and follows the rules of classical mechanics. There's no "magic" to be found, sorry.

[Klaynos]

water flows thru a garden house or a straw; the rules are the same

 

The physics of water flowing through a hose or straw is broadly similar and doesn't depend much on the material of the tube.

 

Light travelling through sub-wavelength structures (such as nanotubes) is deeply dependent on the material and structure that you are trying to do. Once you break to above sub-wavelength scales the physics changes again. Although of course it's all predictable by solving maxwell's equations, so the underlying physics is the same, just the resulting effects...

 

In the case of carbon nanotubes, the nanotubes have some VERY unusual physical qualities, such as being a single layer of atoms thick, this results in some very weird optical effects

 

We had a colloquium on this quite recently one of the tricks they did was growing forests of tubes on a substrate to create some interesting metamaterials.

[CharonY]

However if you talk about how water flows through a small, say micrometer channel, than the the surface material becomes important again.

[dr.syntax]

In my opinion it is important to discuss the hypothalamus and thalamus when considering how the brain functions. These two structures are anatomically and functionally directly linked together. These structures have sensory and motor functions. Almost all sensory input enters these structures. Much like a switchboard these organs decide which information to send and where to send it for further processing. They are connected to the cortex where much of our conscious thought processing occurs and also to lower brain structures that control vital functions and midbrain structures that are more involved with emotions. So, at least in my opinion, the brain structure most like the Cental Processing Unit of a computer is the hypothalamus/thalamus. Thier fucntions are so closely connected and dependant upon each other I choose not to seperate them for this discussion. They are seperate sections of the brain. For detailed discussions of brain function they need to be considered and discussed as seperate sections of the brain and there are many seperate and important aspects of each that warrant such discussion. The hypothalamus is mostly involved in maintaining vital functions and the thalamus is more involved in recieving and routing information throughout the brain to maintain those vital functions in conjunction with and the help of the hypothalamus. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 9, 2009 by dr.syntax
better wording,the same

[bascule]

It's just wrong to collude the thalamus and hypothalamus. The thalamus is integral to sensory preprocessing and conscious thought whereas the functions of the hypothalamus are almost entirely unconscious. The thalamus is much more highly interconnected to the cerebral cortex than it is to the hypothalamus.

[dr.syntax]

It's just wrong to collude the thalamus and hypothalamus. The thalamus is integral to sensory preprocessing and conscious thought whereas the functions of the hypothalamus are almost entirely unconscious. The thalamus is much more highly interconnected to the cerebral cortex than it is to the hypothalamus.

 

I am wrong. The thalmus and hypothalmus have very little to do with each other. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The thalmus and hypothalamus have very little to do with each other. Sorry for this misleading,very inaccurate posting. ...Dr.Syntax

[insane_alien]

is there a reason you had to post that twice?