The brain is more densely populated than we thought. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14890276
Your Cortex contains 17 billion computers.
I'm sure you all have seen images of neurons before. But this time, it's different.
Image
We used to think of each dendron as a 'wire'. A single input device for the central processor that is the neuron itself. But this is wrong. Turns out, each dendron is its own logic circuit. Each one receives multiple input. And each one obeys its own form of logic to determine the output to the neuron. So each brain cell is not a single processor, but rather its own neural network. The brain is a network of networks of networks; handling at least 3 orders of magnitude more processing than we originally thought.
In addition, each dendron is capable of passing data to other brain cells without instruction from its cell; making the brain cell not just a circuit in a computer, nor just self contained computer. Each cell is more like an intranet of separate computers connected to a central hub. Each dendron can independently communicate with multiple other networks, or according to instructions from the hub.
And there are billions of these "networks" in the brain; tens of billions of "computers" and trillions of "internet connections"
Mind blown.
#14890297
Sivad wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWyjRiexVA


Bullshit.

Computers are evolving to basically be more and more like the human brain. This would suggest, that the human brain basically is a computer, or more precisely, a network of computers.

His assertion that computers only take one input, and make one output, is also bullshit. Computers are massively parallel, and are massively distributed, and are massively networked. Not very different from the brain.

The only thing is, the brain is still far more complicated than any computer system we've created, but that doesn't mean the brain doens't act like a massive deterministic computer.
#14890303
The human brain is most like a black box. We really don't know what goes on inside the black box. But we can "play" with the inputs and predict the outputs. We learned a lot about it that way. And then we figured out that there are smaller boxes inside this black box. And those boxes are not perfectly delineated by function. And we could "play" with each box to see what happens. Then we figured out that each of those boxes are made up of boxes - millions upon millions of little boxes. And now we figured out that those boxes are actually made of 20 or so boxes, on average. We still don't know exactly what goes on inside any of these boxes. All we know is that each has multiple inputs and we can predict the output according to the inputs. On every level, we're still quite in the dark about how things work. Of the human brain, we have mastered nothing.
I used the processor analogy purely as a way to relate it to something commonly known. That's the thing about metaphores - they always break down at some point. Of course, nothing is exactly like anything else. But if you cannot see any similarities in anything, then you're incapable of abstraction. Of course the brain is not made of impurely etched silicon wafers. Of course they the brain does not require a constant +/-12VDC and +/-5VDC. Therefore, the brain is certainly NOT a computer.

His assertion that computers are single instruction devices was correct back when the most advanced computers were 8 bit. But he has not been right since. Besides, the human brain operates more as a hybrid digital/analog device.
#14890344
Citizen J wrote:His assertion that computers are single instruction devices was correct back when the most advanced computers were 8 bit. But he has not been right since. Besides, the human brain operates more as a hybrid digital/analog device.


You sort of missed the point there, his point was that the brain is not algorithmic but criterial.

Here's the full discussion -
#14890537
The brain is very much like a computer except in all the ways it's different.

If we wanted to create a computer that did the things the human brain needs to do it would look a lot more like the human brain than they do now, but since we built them to do things that our brains are bad or slow at doing they look, act, and operate differently in various ways to facilitate those goals.
#14890614
mikema63 wrote:The brain is very much like a computer except in all the ways it's different.

If we wanted to create a computer that did the things the human brain needs to do it would look a lot more like the human brain than they do now, but since we built them to do things that our brains are bad or slow at doing they look, act, and operate differently in various ways to facilitate those goals.


I suggest you look up neutral networks in computer science. Computers are certainly looking more and more like brains. Computers are definitely not looking less like a brain. This is why I take issue with this guy in that youtube video. As we further develop the concept of computers, they are always moving closer and closer to how the brain works.
#14890684
The computer is an extension of the brain. No point in debating if art imitates life or life imitates art, it's a feed-back loop. The brain is a medium for consciousness. The computer is a medium for the brain. Follow the process, stop inventing conclusions. The computer will mimic the mind because the mind invented the computer. Duh :lol: Technology will always be an extension of biological interplay occurring inside the mind/matter interface. Artificial intelligence is a misnomer, it's simulated intelligence- sourced from THE consciousness which 'moves' through all things simultaneously.

When integrated circuits become self-sustaining, independent, units of information, they'll still be a part of the whole world around em. Right now, we can unplug computers and cease operation. Furthermore, when computers become autonomous, they'll still be connected to the system of systems which gave birth to the information they process. :roll:

Side-note, neurons remind me of root systems... Perhaps trees invented brains. Just saying.

The occidental tradition of going outward for 'enlightenment' or 'knowledge' produces space as the final frontier. The oriental tradition of going inward for 'enlightenment' or 'knowledge' produces consciousness as the final frontier. As we, the East & West, merge (as forms of archetypal epistemological investigation), Consciousness & Space become one single movement. Hence the end of dialectical tension, tribalism, and binary conflict. All material things become programmable, and intelligent selection replaces natural selection. The computer itself is a manifestation of our ability to go inward and outward for new forms of 'organized' awareness/patterns of perception.

Computers are evolving to basically be more and more like the human brain. This would suggest, that the human brain basically is a computer, or more precisely, a network of computers.
Semantically-oriented thinkers thought the same bout print when it took over communication (aka, reading the book of life/nature). Humans tend to shift or reinterpret their cosmological perspectives when new technologies emerge and reorganize the world. Written symbols or script/print culture gave us mechanics, classification, compartmentalized occupation, recorded history, etc. In-fact, the early sciences mirrored print (fragmentation of process) in their investigations of nature. The idea that an individual can become objective is a side-effect of print culture.

Computers are not evolving, humans are evolving. Computers are not independent 'things.' Life is a network of happenings, computers will never be anything more than the world around em. You must remember, you body is not just a barrier, it's a bridge; Point A to point B, you 'feel' out the network.

Unfortunately, you're being trained to think therefore believe in, and ultimately accept, the evolution of the computer. At any moment you can unplug it, but you're too involved in calculating our myths... Actively engaged in obsolescing yourself, inventing reasons for why it must happen. People are stupid, consciousness is a joker, and the universe never lies.
#14891018
Rancid wrote:I suggest you look up neutral networks in computer science. Computers are certainly looking more and more like brains.


I suggest you look up neutral networks in computer science and ask yourself why the field is trying to model the brain. You seem to have your shit precisely backwards.
#14891025
Sivad wrote:
I suggest you look up neutral networks in computer science and ask yourself why the field is trying to model the brain. You seem to have your shit precisely backwards.


How is the comment "Computers are certainly looking more and more like brains." backwards? :?:

A backwards statement would be "Brains are certainly looking more and more like computers." which is not what I said......

Please, explain your logic.

Your response shows that you still don't understand my point. I'll try again:
The guy in that YouTube video, effectively makes the assertion/claim that computes will never match the human brain, because computers and that brain are fundamentally different. My disagreement is two parts:
- It's premature to conclude that computers are fundamentally different from the human brain. We still do not entirely understand that complexities of the brain. The brain could very well be just a very very large and complex input/output state machine. A computer is simply a much simpler input/output state machine.
- If you look at the evolution of computing. Computers are moving more and more towards architectures that look like the human brain. Computers are most certainly not looking any less like human brains over time. They are becoming much more like human brains overtime. This points back to my first point. We don't understand the brain well enough yet, and we still haven't see how far computing will go into the future. Objectively, you cannot conclude computers and brains are different. The most we can conclude is there isn't sufficient information to make a good conclusion on the question. Again, it's premature given what we know today.

In fact, computing (and just about any other technological development) takes it's inspiration from biology. Most technology we create, mimics the way biology works. CMOS cameras aren't that different from the human eye, fundamentally.
#14891063
Sivad wrote:
Are we done here?


What's wrong with that statement? Your boyfriend in that video is making a conclusion without any real evidence. As I said, the most you can conclude is there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion about the brain either way.

If i had to bet, I would say the brain is largely a deterministic machine. It's just too complicated for us to really understand its architecture.

If you want to be smug bitch about it all, that's fine.
#14891079
Rancid wrote:If i had to bet, I would say the brain is largely a deterministic machine.


If I had to bet I'd say you don't know anything at all about the subject and you're just talking out your ass ideology.
#14891150
Sivad wrote:
If I had to bet I'd say you don't know anything at all about the subject and you're just talking out your ass ideology.


You have yet to say anything of real substance with respect to this subject. You've said nothing interesting or thought provoking thus far.

You're a bore. Hopefully someone else can come in here and say something interesting.
#14891215
Rancid wrote:Computers are also hybrid digital/analog devices, they also can act on digital and analog data.
I can't let this one go. That's just bs. Analog data is first digitized before it is processed. But that's not even the definition of an analog computer. An analog computer uses a range of voltages/current to determine the output rather than discreet 1s and 0s. The differential analyzer is an example of an analog computing device.
#14891224
@Sivad

Trying to use philosophical or scientific reasoning to demonstrate that the human brain cannot be modelled as any sort of deterministic computer is doomed to failure. Why not be intellectually honest and just assert that humans have a soul and computers don't? You are, after all, making an unprovable metaphysical claim rather than a scientific claim. You should own that.
#14891227
Citizen J wrote:I can't let this one go. That's just bs. Analog data is first digitized before it is processed. But that's not even the definition of an analog computer. An analog computer uses a range of voltages/current to determine the output rather than discreet 1s and 0s. The differential analyzer is an example of an analog computing device.


ok ok ok.... but here's the thing you're missing.

Analog to Digital converters can be so precise, that they capable of measuring noise. Noise is insignificant variation of a signal. If you are capable of measuring noise in an analog signal through a digital processor, then your analog to digital converter is effectively measuring an analog signal accurately. At that point, you are capable of making decisions on a very very accurate digital representation of an analog signal. What makes this any different than a pure analog computer?

At this point, the computer is effectively analog. Please explain to me how it's not. I'd love to hear it. I stand my original point, that modern computers are in fact both analog and digital. Even when the processing is all done digitally, the computer is effectively analog.

This whole thing about digital and analog being these fundamentally different things is what's bullshit. This idea that there's something fundamentally special/different about processing signals purely analog, or running it through an A/D converter and then working with it digitally is what's flawed in many people's thinking. I hate to sound snobby (not really actually lol ), but this is something layman usually don't understand. Actually, many newbie signal engineers often don't get this either.

Aside from that, you can do MORE when you process a signal digitally as compared to purely analog with some circuits. This is exactly why we use DSPs (Digital signal processors). They can do so much more, and cheaply. Last, analog computers suffer from the same signal sampling/measuring issues as well. They aren't immune to noise and sampling issues. There's nothing special about analog computers, plain and simple.

You are the guys talking out of your asses. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person providing ACTUAL information to back my claims. You guys are just making claims and not providing any additional info. You're hoping no one challenges you if you make your bullshit claims sound complicated (you're doing a shit job of it as well). I'll tell you why you're having trouble. Because you are wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited by Rancid on 23 Feb 2018 14:16, edited 1 time in total.
Cricket

What do you need me to "come out" about[…]

@Negotiator , Many populations don't support goi[…]

One would imagine that any sentient being would re[…]

The Central Plaza mall parking lot at opening time[…]