Artificial Intelligence/Conciousness

[mooeypoo]

Bombus, please go over your latest post and fix the quotes, I'm having trouble following who said what, something got screwey with the quote tag.

[bombus]

When did I claim to know everything? Or that neurons were necessary for complex behavior?

 

Here's two claims for you:

 

1) I know much, much more about neurobiology than you do.

 

2) There is no empirical evidence for quantum effects in the brain.

 

Fine. I doubt 1) and agree with 2).

 

The point is you claimed 'we understand perfectly how the brain works at the deepest level - they're called neurons, and there's no deeper level.

 

This is just not true. Ignoring any speculation about QM, exactly how brains work is not well understood, especially the role of other cells and inter-cell structures such as glial cells, neurolemnocytes, synapses, microtubules, centrioles, etc. The idea that brain function cannot be reduced further than a neurone firing or not firing is very probably false (although to be fair, you didn't quite say that, but it seems implied).

 

And yes, I do know messages are transmitted by ions, I learnt that in school, but they are essentially chemical transport systems for electrons - it all boils down to the same thing unless you wish to be particularly pedantic.

Edited June 26, 2009 by bombus

[Sisyphus]

If I may step in:

 

1) "On the deepest level," as Mokele used it, means an understanding of the fundamental mechanisms, not a total understanding of everything there is to know. Since QM, if it plays a roll, would obviously be playing that roll "on the deepest level," that's all that is necessary to falsify it.

 

2) Neurotransmitters are hardly just "chemica transport systems for electrons."

[bombus]

If I may step in:

 

1) "On the deepest level," as Mokele used it, means an understanding of the fundamental mechanisms, not a total understanding of everything there is to know. Since QM, if it plays a roll, would obviously be playing that roll "on the deepest level," that's all that is necessary to falsify it.

 

2) Neurotransmitters are hardly just "chemica transport systems for electrons."

 

Certainly good sir,

 

Forget QM for a minute. I am saying that even the fundamental mechanisms are not that well understood. Sure, we know pretty much what neurons, synapses etc do, but how their functioning is influenced by (as you say) neurotransmitters, glial cells, and other brain 'meat' and chemicals is not that well understood. In a nutshell, I don't think neurones are the biological equivalent of computer bits as I think they 'think' for themselves via smaller structures within them, and are influenced by lotsa stuff outside them.

 

And yes, I agree, neurotransmitters are not just transport systems, but thier function seems to be to influence the nerve impulses in the brain (which are believed to be the primary mechanism for brain function - but not the only function).

 

You are probably agreeing with my overall point in fact, that there are deeper levels than just neurons

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not if they're just following a set of rules.

 

Yes you are right, but you'd be more open to criticism.

Edited June 26, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

bombus, I'm not ignoring your previous reply, it will just take me a bit more to go over it thoroughly and give you proper answers. This, however, popped up and I thought it needs a quick one:

In a nutshell, I don't think neurones are the biological equivalent of computer bits as I think they 'think' for themselves via smaller structures within them, and are influenced by lotsa stuff outside them.

(Emphasis by me)

 

You do understand that this is a highly unproven hypothesis, right? I am not saying it's wrong, but since it's not proven and isn't (yet) supported by any evidence, it can't be held as an obvious reason of why QM != brain.

 

That is, you think that the brain doesn't work by QM because the above reason, which is an unproven hypothesis. It means that in order for your reasoning to make good point, you need to first put some evidence for your hypothesis.

 

Not if they're just following a set of rules.

Yes you are right, but you'd be more open to criticism.

That's an unfair assumption.. what are you basing it on? First off, we're not closed to criticism (if we were, we would not have had this discussion, would we?) and second, there's no reason to claim the criticism or acceptance of it would change with that new case. If there is a reason, you need to put it forth. I, for one, might disagree with you on that one - I think that if the comparison is close enough, there's not much difference between the two cases, and therefore we either need to have moral consideration for *both*, or none for either.

 

On the other hand, if you are refering to the fact that the slaves are humans (unsaid, but valid point to make), then I agree with you, but then the comparison to brain neurons is lacking, and missing the point that was made (about the *amount* and *ability* of multiple units to achieve a highly complex task).

 

You see my point, bombus? I understand your reasoning, but the way you present it can lead us to have a totally different discussion, and so when anyone disagrees or agrees we do that on a totally different point than the one we actually argue, and the discussion becomes moot.

 

~moo

[bombus]

bombus, I'm not ignoring your previous reply, it will just take me a bit more to go over it thoroughly and give you proper answers. This, however, popped up and I thought it needs a quick one:

 

You do understand that this is a highly unproven hypothesis, right? I am not saying it's wrong, but since it's not proven and isn't (yet) supported by any evidence, it can't be held as an obvious reason of why QM != brain.

 

That is, you think that the brain doesn't work by QM because the above reason, which is an unproven hypothesis. It means that in order for your reasoning to make good point, you need to first put some evidence for your hypothesis.

 

Please re-read what I said. I said 'Forget about QM for a minute'. Please do that and re-read the rest. I am not talking about QM for the rest of that post. I am also not making a firm hypothesis, I am merely making a speculation. I am telling you my opinion based on current neurobiological study. I do not ACTUALLY mean that neurones THINK, hence my use of inverted commas, I am suggesting that their action is far more complex than simply fire or not fire in that they process and assess at a cellular level impulses they receive before firing (or not) - and most people working in the field think so too.

 

That's an unfair assumption.. what are you basing it on? First off, we're not closed to criticism (if we were, we would not have had this discussion, would we?) and second, there's no reason to claim the criticism or acceptance of it would change with that new case. If there is a reason, you need to put it forth. I, for one, might disagree with you on that one - I think that if the comparison is close enough, there's not much difference between the two cases, and therefore we either need to have moral consideration for *both*, or none for either.

 

On the other hand, if you are refering to the fact that the slaves are humans (unsaid, but valid point to make), then I agree with you, but then the comparison to brain neurons is lacking, and missing the point that was made (about the *amount* and *ability* of multiple units to achieve a highly complex task).

 

You see my point, bombus? I understand your reasoning, but the way you present it can lead us to have a totally different discussion, and so when anyone disagrees or agrees we do that on a totally different point than the one we actually argue, and the discussion becomes moot.

 

No, I don't see your point at all. I am surprised you can't see mine though. Please read up about the chinese box thought experiment, and you will see that the use of a conscious person in the box has lead to some saying it's a flaw in the argument, even though others say it's inconsequential. It's only a minor point, and nothing to get flustered about, and as I've said, Sysiphus is correct. What more do you want me to do?

 

Can we please get back to the subject of the thread?

[mooeypoo]

bombus, you said "forget about QM", but then you made a comment about what *you* think to be the deepest levels of operation of the brain (that the neurons "think for themselves" via smaller structures, etc). You used this hypothesis to say that "even the fundamental mechanisms are not that well understood."

 

You posted it as a direct reply to Sysiphus' first point about what "Deepest Level" means.

 

So you gave an answer talking aobut what you think the deepest level is, related it to what others remarked about deepest level is, and the entire conversation is (in broader context) about why it is or isn't about QM.

 

The fact you said "Forget QM" in the beginning of your paragraph doesn't mean the context has vanished. You made the context yourself, bombus. Stop moving the goal post, and please stop changing subjects all the time, it's very confusing.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

 

Brain simulation is being done on classical computers. It has worked so far. So one doesn't need a quantum computer to simulate a brain.