Brain vs. Computer

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that we need to specify what the brain is actually doing. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has literally described step by step what happens from when the hairs of the inner ear vibrate to when we have a positively charged burst of electrical activity sweep through our cells. Protons have more mass and therefor have a higher chance of carrying biological matter.

[imatfaal]

I think that we need to specify what the brain is actually doing. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has literally described step by step what happens from when the hairs of the inner ear vibrate to when we have a positively charged burst of electrical activity sweep through our cells. Protons have more mass and therefor have a higher chance of carrying biological matter.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm not sure if I'm fond of this description, I might have a better explanation now, but regardless, this is the citation.

 

http://www.lingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6668&start=15

I don't think that time is a dictionary anymore either, I think it is a tuple.

I think that this type of equation is more accurate to the brainmind computation, which I described partially in the linguistics forum link.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79578-my-equation-is-more-complicated/?view=getnewpost

 

 

Ok, I might be a little naive here. I'm reading a study right now that makes similar conclusions as my own, but it's a completely neurophysiological approach. It's not algorithmic at all, it's purely descriptive. I attempted to be specific in interdisciplinary terms while describing a theoretical computational algorithm that would sufficiently simulate neurophysiological activity at a mental level. The two approaches are similar in a general sense, but they differ. Forgive me for citing myself.

 

Here is the study I read. Www.jneurosci.org/content/29/41/12748.full

[turionx2]

How can the brain not be reverse engineered by studying the various states that it can be in? Sufficient mapping of brain processes would, in theory, allow one to make an acceptable "blueprint" of the organization and depth of process that each lobe is responsible for. You read every day that more depth is added to what we know of the various parts of the brain. The more we know, the easier it is to replicate. It used to be impossible to replicate a limb, but we now have robotic arms/legs, artificial hearts, etc. It's not unrealistic to believe that it would be feasible to make an adequate facsimile of the human brain that would be able to hold the memories, thoughts, and personality of a person. Only by bridging the gap between natural and artificial would we be able to weed out if the soul exists and from there whether it is an emergent property of the person or the body.

 

Excuse my ignorance. Where is our personality stored in the brain?

[EdEarl]

 

Excuse my ignorance. Where is our personality stored in the brain?

Personality is not a single element of data, it is distributed throughout many parts of the brain. The way you ask, "Where is our personality stored in the brain," is similar to my asking you, "Where is the weight of a person stored in their body."

[turionx2]

Personality is not a single element of data, it is distributed throughout many parts of the brain. The way you ask, "Where is our personality stored in the brain," is similar to my asking you, "Where is the weight of a person stored in their body."

 

 

I am obviously no expert but how is personality or memory stored in what I presume to be the neurons?

[EdEarl]

What exactly do you mean by personality?

[turionx2]

What exactly do you mean by personality?

 

mind

mīnd/

noun

1.

the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

Edited October 30, 2013 by turionx2

[EdEarl]

 

 

mind

mīnd/

noun

1.

the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

 

You seem to be changing your question.

[turionx2]

You seem to be changing your question.

 

Isn't personality derived from the mind?

[EdEarl]

 

Isn't personality derived from the mind?

It is not how I think about the two.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I agree with ed on this one. Personality involves motor processes, planning, comprehension, and imagination. The motor processes are frontal, imagination is near the supra marginal gyrus in the right hemisphere, emotions are behind the right eyebrow, planning is in the prefrontal cortex. Comprehension is in the wernickes area. I might even argue that the personality is almost completely synonomous with mind (and entirely synonomous if you consider yourself a behaviorist).

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

 

I am obviously no expert but how is personality or memory stored in what I presume to be the neurons?

People might know by now, the military in particular. My best guess is that RNA is a type of acquirable knowledge and it's structure interacts with other molecular components to cause a sort of fluctuation from within the cell. I call it a unit of knowledge, but we also accept by now that DNA is a type of knowledge as well. I don't think that anyone can truly tell you how either of these components work, but they are there and they play an important role. I actually have a friend who has alot of family involved in a particular type of intelligence who "had a slip" one day about this and said something along these lines, "knowledge is RNA." There are implications, and I think that they are apparent, but I hate inducing paranoia so I'll leave it be. The fact is that from what I've experienced using search algorithms and focusing techniques, the process prints one of two things, and they both look like DNA and RNA.

[imatfaal]

People might know by now, the military in particular. My best guess is that RNA is a type of acquirable knowledge and it's structure interacts with other molecular components to cause a sort of fluctuation from within the cell. I call it a unit of knowledge, but we also accept by now that DNA is a type of knowledge as well. I don't think that anyone can truly tell you how either of these components work, but they are there and they play an important role. I actually have a friend who has alot of family involved in a particular type of intelligence who "had a slip" one day about this and said something along these lines, "knowledge is RNA." There are implications, and I think that they are apparent, but I hate inducing paranoia so I'll leave it be. The fact is that from what I've experienced using search algorithms and focusing techniques, the process prints one of two things, and they both look like DNA and RNA.

 

We do not, in general, accept that DNA is a type of knowledge. Knowledge is the result and the action of a building/learning process whereas DNA is a almost completely immutable and reproducible blueprint. DNA has more in common with the physical lump of the encyclopaedia than with the understanding that can be gained by actually reading it!

 

RNA is made on the fly in the cells to enable many cellular processes - it is not commensurable with knowledge.

 

The idea that our life experiences directly affect our genome (other than epigenitically) is Lamarkism and whilst very alluring it is just not borne out by the facts.

 

DNA

RNA

Lamarkism

[EdEarl]

We do not, in general, accept that DNA is a type of knowledge. Knowledge is the result and the action of a building/learning process whereas DNA is a almost completely immutable and reproducible blueprint. DNA has more in common with the physical lump of the encyclopaedia than with the understanding that can be gained by actually reading it!

 

RNA is made on the fly in the cells to enable many cellular processes - it is not commensurable with knowledge.

 

The idea that our life experiences directly affect our genome (other than epigenitically) is Lamarkism and whilst very alluring it is just not borne out by the facts.

Instincts may not be called knowledge, but the distinction may be subtle.

 

Snakes On the Brain

 

In a paper published Oct. 28 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Isbell; Hisao Nishijo and Quan Van Le at Toyama University, Japan; and Rafael Maior and Carlos Tomaz at the University of Brasilia, Brazil; and colleagues show that there are specific nerve cells in the brains of rhesus macaque monkeys that respond to images of snakes.

 

"The results show that the brain has special neural circuits to detect snakes, and this suggests that the neural circuits to detect snakes have been genetically encoded," Nishijo said.

When we learn to recognize a person or thing, exciting a specific neuron electrically during surgery causes us to remember the person or thing.

Edited October 31, 2013 by EdEarl

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok, so what does that tell us about knowledge? Why is RNA not commensurable to knowledge as well? The wikipedia says that it is a "[utility of transcription and translation]". I don't understand what that means exactly. The evidence suggests that it is stored in parts of the brain, but I don't think that knowledge is commensurable to a neuron. I think that a neuron is a container for the knowledge. I guess that it's not really an important distinction in the computational sense, but it would be interesting to point at something and say with confidence that it is knowledge.

 

Here is an experiment. Find a correspondence between an area of the brain and something like snakes. Eliminate the RNA from that portion of the brain and stimulate it. See if it has the same effect.

[EdEarl]

There is no evidence, AFAIK, that either RNA or DNA is used by the brain to encode either short term or long term memories of things we experience day to day. In fact, experiments done on flat works suggests RNA/DNA is not used to store experience memories.

[julian boustead]

Brain vs Computer ; This can be said as to the chicken or the egg , apart from the brain came first as did the chicken . The brain evolves from solutions in the form of questions that have already been answered so then knowing format .. The brain programs the computer so coming to becoming advanced in so to working out solutions to an unanswered question , with working out the problem the brain learns the methods of detecting becoming more evolved so their more intelligent . Knowledge is knowing how to solve a solution or a problem by working out the answer before know the question ie; we know of black mass and dark energy yet we are unable to give a detailed account of how such happenings occur , so then in comes the faithful computer, working together side by side searching for the solution or format . Computers can work out so many queries far quicker than the human brain at certain given points in time as to when the brain catches up after studying the computers findings or answers , So has the computer become more evolved than the brain for after all its the brain that will now program the computer to give it the direction to take as so to what the computer has to do next . I would say that on equal terms the brain evolves as quick as the computer is programmed .

[EdEarl]

Brain vs Computer ; This can be said as to the chicken or the egg , apart from the brain came first as did the chicken . The brain evolves from solutions in the form of questions that have already been answered so then knowing format .. The brain programs the computer so coming to becoming advanced in so to working out solutions to an unanswered question , with working out the problem the brain learns the methods of detecting becoming more evolved so their more intelligent . Knowledge is knowing how to solve a solution or a problem by working out the answer before know the question ie; we know of black mass and dark energy yet we are unable to give a detailed account of how such happenings occur , so then in comes the faithful computer, working together side by side searching for the solution or format . Computers can work out so many queries far quicker than the human brain at certain given points in time as to when the brain catches up after studying the computers findings or answers , So has the computer become more evolved than the brain for after all its the brain that will now program the computer to give it the direction to take as so to what the computer has to do next . I would say that on equal terms the brain evolves as quick as the computer is programmed .

We do not consider that an arm does not evolve because it can use a hammer, neither do we consider that the brain evolve because it can use a computer. But, it is true that people do quicker, more accurate calculations using a computer than they can do without a computer.

 

Recent research has shown that memories in offspring may be impacted by parental experiences. If this research is shown to be valid, it suggests that life skills may be passed on to ones progeny. However, such causation is not proved and may only be valid visceral experiences.

.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

A computer will never think. Because it is a machine. A brain will never think. Because it is a machine. It is not a computer or the brain that thinks. It is your mind that thinks. A separate entity unto itself. Apart from the stuff running under it. The brain certainly produces the mind. But without a mind the brain could never learn anything. Talk about the failure of dualism and materialism. Talk about the failure of Classical Physics too. Is anyone out here even remotely aware of the success of Quantum Physics in this area ? If the mind can alter the brain through something called Neuro Plasticity which is very firmly grounded in quantum physics ... then it seems logical to conclude that the brain interacts with the mind through quantum physics as well ..

[Popcorn Sutton]

Your point is not easy to argue. It's a matter of belief.

 

I do believe that quantum physics is a major player in describing how the mind works, but classical mechanics clearly plays a role as well. You really can't have pattern recognition or even provide a pragmatic interface without classical mechanics.

 

I think that the most promising avenue of research for determining the answer to this question is computational neuroscience.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

Your point is not easy to argue. It's a matter of belief.

I do believe that quantum physics is a major player in describing how the mind works, but classical mechanics clearly plays a role as well. You really can't have pattern recognition or even provide a pragmatic interface without classical mechanics.

I think that the most promising avenue of research for determining the answer to this question is computational neuroscience.

At least you did partially believe what i was saying. I did not mean to completely rule out classical physics. Nothing would possibly exist without it. Please give a link to what ever is computational neuroscience.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I actually believe the opposite. Nothing would exist of it weren't for quantum physics. Observation materializes reality. But even with this bit of information, even if we don't know what is real, we kind of have to assume that reality exists independent of observation in order to provide substantive explanations.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience

[Moontanman]

I actually believe the opposite. Nothing would exist of it weren't for quantum physics. Observation materializes reality. But even with this bit of information, even if we don't know what is real, we kind of have to assume that reality exists independent of observation in order to provide substantive explanations.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience

 

 

Popcorn are you suggesting that an observer has to be a mind? From what i understand of it, which may be small, things like radioactive decay pretty much do the same thing.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm not sure Moontanman. I was under the impression that if something is not a point of interest, then it doesn't have a definite location. I do think that radioactive decay plays a major role in prompting information though, so it does make sense to me. IMHO, if information is not radioactive, then it does not arise in the mind. I have to admit that it seems to be a very complicated task to provide an adequate theory of mind in terms of biophysical and chemical events. I don't think that it will never be done, but I do think that we need to be able to point at something and say with confidence that what we are looking at is in fact knowledge. I think that a lot of us are just waiting patiently for this answer. When we have it, it's going to be a game changer.