Is the brain a computer?

[Write4U]

Do you believe that every reaction to any stimulus at all amounts to a computation, then?

I would submit that any data processing that produces a result, is a form of generic computing.

permacomputing/ unconventional computing

Unconventional computing, also known as alternative computing, refers to computing with unusual methods. An unusual method may be e.g. an unusual theoretical model or an unusual physical basis. The term "unconventional computing" was coined in 1998.

Permacomputing is interested in expanding the lowest layers of the technological possibility space, especially in order to develop computer technology that better integrates with natural processes. This, along with the strive for a greater technological diversity, makes unconventional computing techniques interesting from the permacomputing point of view.

https://permacomputing.net/unconventional_computing/#

CoPilot (GPT4) defines it this way:

"From a non-human objective perspective, generic computing refers to the broad field of computation that transcends specific applications or contexts."

 

[Seattle]

A very smart mollusk.

Maybe one can work on microtubules or the mathematical universe with you?

 

[Write4U]

When a block of ice melts in the sun, is it performing a computation?
When an apple is blown off a tree by the wind, is the apple (or the wind) performing a computation?
When a sunflower faces towards the sun, is it performing a computation?
When you pull too hard on the seatbelt in your car and it locks in place, is the seatbelt performing a computation?

Are all of these things examples of "data processing"?

In the abstract, yes.

IMO, computation isn't necessarily a human controlled process involving a computer. In a mathematical universe , every interaction that produces a result is a computation in and of itself.

 

[Write4U]

Maybe one can work on microtubules or the mathematical universe with you?

You are making false assumptions. Please stay with the actual text in front of you.

 

[Seattle]

You are making false assumptions. Please stay with the actual text in front of you.

Priceless...

 

[Write4U]

Priceless...

OK, what does monetary value have to do with the brain?

This is the way you "misrepresent" text. Meaningless derision.

But the Giant Squid is indeed being studied as part of the science of neurology and cognition.

The field of computational neuroscience became popular with Hodgkin and Huxley's (1952)Nobel Prize winning efforts to model the generation of action potentials in the giant squid axon.

see below

 

[Write4U]

The Neurodynamics of Cognition: A Tutorial on Computational Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Introduction

The emerging new field of Computational Cognitive Neuroscience (CCN) lies at the intersection of computational neuroscience and the similar fields of machine learning, neural network theory, connectionism, and artificial intelligence. Like computational neuroscience, CCN strives for neurobiological accuracy and like connectionism, a major goal is to account for behavior.

In other words, using Marr's (1982) nomenclature, CCN strives to develop models that can simultaneously satisfy the algorithmic and implementation levels. One main advantage of CCN is that it offers many more constraints on the resulting models than more traditional approaches.

As a result, two researchers independently modeling the same behavior are more likely to converge on highly similar models with this new approach, and for this reason the resulting models should have a permanence that is unusual with older approaches.

A growing number of researchers build and test CCN models (e.g., Anderson, Fincham, Qin, & Stocco, 2008; Ashby, Ell, Valentin, & Casale, 2005; Frank, 2005; Hartley, Taylor, & Taylor, 2006; Leveille, Versace, & Grossberg, 2010), and an annual CCN conference is now included as a satellite to the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society.

2. A brief history

The field of computational neuroscience became popular with Hodgkin and Huxley's (1952) Nobel Prize winning efforts to model the generation of action potentials in the giant squid axon. Most models in this field include, at most, only a single neuron.

For example, a common computational neuroscience approach, called compartment modeling, models a neuron's axons and dendrites as cylinders and the soma as a sphere.

Next, partial differential equations that describe the propagation of action potentials are written for each of these compartments. A standard application will try to account for patch-clamp data collected from a variety of locations on the cell. Some compartment models are extremely accurate and complex. For example, some single-cell models have hundreds or even thousands of compartments (e.g., Bhalla & Bower, 1993; Segev & Burke, 1998). Historically, computational neuroscience models have almost never tried to account for behavior. In most cases, such a goal is precluded by the complexity of the single-cell models that are used.

more....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153062/

 

[Write4U]

Continuing on-topic .....
Can consciousness be explained by quantum physics? My research takes us a step closer to finding out
Brains and fractals

Our brains are composed of cells called neurons, and their combined activity is believed to generate consciousness. Each neuron contains microtubules, which transport substances to different parts of the cell. The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules are structured in a fractal pattern which would enable quantum processes to occur.

Fractals are structures that are neither two-dimensional nor three-dimensional, but are instead some fractional value in between.
In mathematics, fractals emerge as beautiful patterns that repeat themselves infinitely, generating what is seemingly impossible: a structure that has a finite area, but an infinite perimeter.

more .....
https://theconversation.com/can-con...-takes-us-a-step-closer-to-finding-out-164582

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I would submit that any data processing that produces a result, is a form of generic computing.

I have previously asked you to define what you mean by "data processing". So far, you haven't been able to define it. Therefore, your statements on the topic are largely worthless since you clearly have no clue about what you're trying to talk about.

If your definition of "computation" or "data processing" is so loose that essentially everything is a computation then in my opinion your definitions are not at all useful. Your answer to the question "is the brain a computer" is obviously "yes", because according to you everything is a computer.

Meanwhile, in the world the rest of us inhabit, we don't generally regard everything as a computer. When you turn on a tap in your bathroom and water comes out, almost nobody would refer to what is happening as "data processing" or a "computation". But you do, apparently, even though you can't define those terms. Maybe it's because you can't define those terms that you're lost on this topic.

permacomputing/ unconventional computing

Another random aside with no relevance to the thread topic. And, I'm betting, one more thing you don't understand at all.

CoPilot (GPT4) defines it this way:

And hence, you think you can outsource your thinking to a chat bot.

When will you put some effort into learning something?

IMO, computation isn't necessarily a human controlled process involving a computer. In a mathematical universe , every interaction that produces a result is a computation in and of itself.

Yes yes. Turning on a tap in the bathroom is a computation. Growing your hair is a computation. Wiggling your little finger is a computation. Watching paint dry is a computation. I get it.

Continuing on-topic .....
Can consciousness be explained by quantum physics? My research takes us a step closer to finding out
Brains and fractals

I get nothing from that article, other than that the author has carried out some experiments putting electrical currents through structures that are made to resemble various fractals. I don't understand what was done or what the significance was, from that article.

I don't for a minute think you do, either.

 

[Write4U]

Meanwhile, in the world the rest of us inhabit, we don't generally regard everything as a computer.

Really? "In the world of the rest of you" ? That statement is far worse than anything I have ever posted.

This person is not "one of you"?

Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer?
According to MIT professor Seth Lloyd, the answer is yes. We could be living in the kind of digital world depicted in The Matrix, and not even know it.

“According to Lloyd, everything in the universe is made of chunks of information called bits.”

A researcher in Mechanical Engineering at MIT, Lloyd is one of the leaders in the field of quantum information. He’s been with the field from its very conception to its sky-rocketing rise to popularity. Decades ago, the feasibility of developing quantum computing devices was challenged. Now, as quantum computation is producing actual technologies, we are only left to wonder—what kind of applications will it provide us with next?

What is the difference between regular and quantum computers? In a regular computer, information is encoded as bits interpreted as either 0 or 1. In a quantum computer, this information comes in slightly different variety – quantum bits, or “qubits”.

It is physically allowed for this qubit to be in one state, in another, or somewhere in between. They can encode a combination of 1 and 0, thus being able to store or process much more information than regular bits. Unlike the bit that needs to be connected to the entire system to relay information, the qubit collapses instantly to relay information. How does this help us?

A small number of particles in the superposition of both 1 and 0 readings can give us an enormous amount of information—100 particles in superposition would mean representing every number from 1 to 2100 (a very, very large number) (Aaranson, 2008).

A classical computer can be designed to read one combination of three bits at a time, while a quantum computer will read all possible combinations. This means that quantum computers can process information in parallel. A system with any number N qubits will process 2N calculations at once, giving us a completely new and incredibly fast means of computing, such as factoring large numbers or evaluating extremely complex algorithms used for data analysis in finance, science, or cryptography.

QUANTUM COMPUTING 101: A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULAR AND QUANTUM COMPUTERS IS THAT QUANTUM COMPUTERS USE QUBITS INSTEAD OF BITS. A QUBIT CAN BE A PARTICLE SUCH AS A “SPIN UP” ELECTRON (BLUE) SIGNIFYING 1, AND “SPIN DOWN” (RED) ELECTRON SIGNIFYING 0. THE ELECTRON CAN ALSO BE SPIN UP AND DOWN “SIMULTANEOUSLY” (ORANGE), BOTH 1 AND 0. A REGISTER IS A SET OF DATA STORED IN A COMPUTER. A CLASSICAL COMPUTER CAN PROCESS ONLY ONE SET AT A TIME, WHILE THE QUANTUM CAN PROCESS ALL EIGHT POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS.

But, first things first. In a round-table discussion with undergraduates, Lloyd speaks of his early days in the field with a touch of humor, irony, and most surprisingly—pride.

When he just started to research quantum information in graduate school, most scientists told him to look into other areas.

Scientists like you I presume?

In fact, out of the postdoctoral programs he considered, not many were too invested in researching of information in quantum mechanics. Most universities and institutes were reluctant to take up quantum computing, but Murray Gell-Mann accepted Lloyd for a position at the California Institute of Technology.

This is where many ideas behind quantum computation were born, and Lloyd is “excited by the popularity of the field today.”

https://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/

You seem to be way behind the times. And as rude as ever.
And would it not be nice if MT could perform quantum processing? Penrose seems to think so.
Is Penrose also not "one of you"? And who are you that you can make that claim?

 

[Write4U]

Could the Universe be a giant quantum computer?
Computational rules might describe the evolution of the cosmos better than the dynamical equations of physics — but only if they are given a quantum twist.

Edward Fredkin saw few limits to what computing might explain.Credit: School of Computer Science/Carnegie Mellon University

In 1981, however, history took a new turn, when Fredkin and Toffoli organized the Physics of Computation Symposium at MIT.
Feynman was among the luminaries present.

In a now famous contribution, he suggested that, rather than trying to simulate quantum phenomena with conventional digital computers, some physical systems that exhibit quantum behaviour might be better tools.

This talk is widely seen as ushering in the age of quantum computers, which harness the full power of quantum mechanics to solve certain problems — such as the quantum-simulation problem that Feynman was addressing — much faster than any classical computer can. Four decades on, small quantum computers are now in development. The electronics, lasers and cooling systems needed to make them work consume a lot of power, but the quantum logical operations themselves are pretty much lossless.

more .....
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02646-x

Feynman is not one of you? This is getting weird.

 

[Write4U]

If your definition of "computation" or "data processing" is so loose that essentially everything is a computation then in my opinion your definitions are not at all useful.

On the contrary. If everything is a computation then, instead of being meaningles, it is all encompassing and we should be able to simulate the process.
Today, Quantum computing is very much being pursued scientifically.

Your answer to the question "is the brain a computer" is obviously "yes", because according to you everything is a computer.

I have already given you my perspective on this years ago. And it is not according to me.
It is according to people who have spent years of study on the subject.
I don't do science. I report on what I believe is meaningful science.

Tegmark's hypothesis of a quantum-value based mathematical universe is becoming more and more evident in reality.
Note the use of the term "mathematical" in every presentation of scientific principles, which you conveniently seem to ignore.

 

[Write4U]

I have previously asked you to define what you mean by "data processing". So far, you haven't been able to define it. Therefore, your statements on the topic are largely worthless since you clearly have no clue about what you're trying to talk about.

You define it then! I challenge you to define data processing "in your own words". Lets see how far apart we are.

You stand challenged! En garde!

 

[DaveC426913]

You define it then! I challenge you to define data processing "in your own words". Lets see how far apart we are.
You stand challenged! En garde!

You once again miss the point of a moderate stance, and the folly a strong stance.

You are making black and white claims. "X is a computer. Y is data." You cannot defend these unless you can define the terms.

James et al. is not making black and white claims - except perhaps that the concept of what is and what is not a computer - is semantic waffling.
He is not obliged to make, have or provide hard definitions. In fact, his point is kind of that such hard definitions are meaninglessly philosophical.

The onus for defending their case always falls on the one making the hard claim.

 

[Write4U]

The onus for defending their case always falls on the one making the hard claim.

I agree, the problem lies mainly in the semantics. But that should not be fatal to the concept in a non-formal setting.
As I have said before, I don't do the science. I discuss the science.

I believe I have made a (relatively) persuasive argument in context of a mathematical universe and with reams of supporting evidence, which apparently no one seems to read.

My problem is that noone else seems willing or able to correct me with some (any) facts that prove otherwise. And that is uderstandable, as by all accounts quantum computing is a whole new field of science.

But telling me I am stupid is not a semantic or a factual correction on the science.
It is a sign of ignorance or fear of the "unknown".

My style of posting may seems definitive, but consider it "probative" and "exploratory".

AFAIK, all experiments start with an "assumption based on observation". IMO, the observable evidence for a mathematical aspect to universal physics and dynamics is overwhelming.

Max Tegmark: "In fact, there's no evidence right now that there's anything at all in our universe that is not mathematical."
Do We Live Inside a Mathematical Equation? | Science | AAAS

And I submit Tegmark knows more about this than most scientists. It is his area of expertise.

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest.

Springing simulations forward with quantum computing

The dynamics of coupled oscillators, such as those shown here, can be simulated faster with a new quantum algorithm. Credit: Nathan Johnson | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory© Provided by Phys.org

Though "coupled oscillations" may not sound familiar, they are everywhere in nature. The term "coupled harmonic oscillators" describes interacting systems of masses and springs, but their utility in science and engineering does not end there. They describe mechanical systems like bridges, the bonds between atoms, and even gravitational tidal effects between the Earth and the moon. Understanding such problems allows us to probe a correspondingly huge range of systems from chemistry to engineering to materials science and beyond.

more...
Springing simulations forward with quantum computing (msn.com)

Is the microtubule network similar to coupled oscillators - Search (bing.com)is the microtubule network similar to coupled oscillators - Search (bing.com)

1. • Microtubules are dynamic cytoskeletal structures composed of α- and β-tubulin subunits.
   • Coherent oscillations in microtubules can be explained by Fröhlich’s theory, which describes a system of oscillators with energy supply, linear and nonlinear coupling with a heat bath.
   • When sufficient energy supply is provided, energy condensation occurs in the lowest mode, leading to coherent excitation of microtubules2.
   • The synchronized oscillation of α- and β-tubulins generates a longitudinal electric field around the microtubule during polymerization.
   • This electric field is a result of the coordinated movement of tubulin subunits and resembles the behavior of coupled oscillators.

     In summary, both the microtubule network and coupled oscillators involve coordinated interactions and dynamic behaviors. While the contexts are different (germline growth vs. microtubule oscillations), the underlying principles of synchronization and communication play a crucial role in both systems. 12

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Really? "In the world of the rest of you" ? That statement is far worse than anything I have ever posted.

I simply stated that most people do not think that literally everything is a computation, which is what you are asserting.

If you want to imagine that the world is behind you on that, please go right ahead. But don't imagine you going to convince me without providing any relevant argument or evidence.

Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer?
According to MIT professor Seth Lloyd, the answer is yes.

This thread is supposed to be about "Is the brain a computer?"

Your answer, it turns out, is "yes, it is, because literally everything is a computer".

I disagree with you. I think it's insane to define "computation" so widely that literally everything becomes a computation. It makes the word useless.

On the topic of Seth Lloyd (whose name, I assume, you dredged up with another random google search or Copilot query as you frantically searched for something you imagine supports your position), I think that either (a) you have misunderstood what he's talking about, and/or (b) he's speaking metaphorically, not literally, but you didn't notice that. Another possibility - less likely, I imagine - is (c) that Seth Lloyd is off in fairy land with you.

You seem to be way behind the times. And as rude as ever.

The problem here, Write4U, is that you just make stuff up, then you believe it, then you go searching for anything that might support your belief, while ignoring everything that tends to refute it. It's confirmation bias writ large.

The bigger problem, however, is that you don't seem to understand anything you uncover in your web surfing. You're constantly misinterpreting things, usually because you extract them completely out of the context in which they originally appeared. You're only interested in the parts that use the words that sound similar to what you've already decided to believe, and you just ignore the rest. I think that, actually, you recognise that you just don't have the background to understand what you're reading, a lot of the time, but you imagine that you can pull the wool over other people's eyes by randomly cutting and pasting bits, so that maybe they'll be convinced that you actually understand that stuff. The problem you face is that, on this forum, you have a number of people (myself included) who are conversant enough with a lot of this stuff that they do understand it, and they can see that you don't.

You're constantly wasting the opportunity you have here to learn from people who have studied these topics you're interested in more than you have, because you just don't want to admit you don't understand things. Instead, you want to pretend that you do understand. You want to fake expertise. It's not working,Write4U.

You are in no position to decide whether I'm "behind the times". You're totally unqualified to judge that. Besides, you rarely even ask me what I think about anything. You just make assumptions, which usually turn out to be wrong. You should stop that.

Is Penrose also not "one of you"? And who are you that you can make that claim?

Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for Penrose, generally speaking. I think that with the microtubule stuff he's most likely barking up the wrong tree. I also disagree with the arguments he made against the possibility of artificial intelligence back in the 1980s, and I imagine he might be feeling a bit silly about some of that stuff these days (but maybe not). But I admire his work on black holes. His stuff on aperiodic tilings is fun and interesting, and a significant contribution to mathematics.

I'm not into your "us and them" attempt to create divisions in the playground, Write4U. People aren't as simple as that. They don't divide neatly into categories of good and evil, stupid and clever etc. A person can be right about one thing and barking mad about something else. One should not jump to conclusions.

You ask who I am to question the Great and Wonderful Penrose? I have news for you, Write4U. Science isn't a popularity contest. Science doesn't worship gurus. Even excellent scientists get things wrong from time to time; they are only human after all. Penrose isn't infallible. Neither was Feynman. Neither is Seth Lloyd. And guess what? Even Hammeroff and Tegmark are fallible human beings! Unthinkable, I know, but it's the truth.

What matters in science, Write4U, is whether one can support one's claims with solid arguments and evidence. What matters is whether the hypotheses can stand up to scrutiny. It's not about who you are.

So, your attempt to pull rank on me, through proxy of Penrose, is an utter failure. Even if Penrose 100% believed everything you believe, that would not advance your arguments. Those stand or fall on their merits.

Besides, for all you know I might be a Nobel prize winner myself. (Okay, I admit I'm yet to be awarded that prize. But Penrose doesn't have one either.)

Feynman is not one of you? This is getting weird.

Indeed, seeing as nobody has mentioned Feynman before now.

What on earth are you going on about?

 

[James R]

On the contrary. If everything is a computation then, instead of being meaningles, it is all encompassing and we should be able to simulate the process.

Any idea that claims to be "all encompassing" is more like the belief of a religious cult than a scientific theory.

You should stop looking for gurus to worship and start learning some science.

Today, Quantum computing is very much being pursued scientifically.

Yes. It's a very interesting and promising area of ongoing research.

Tegmark's hypothesis of a quantum-value based mathematical universe is becoming more and more evident in reality.

The hypothesis is becoming more and more evident? Or are you claiming that somebody (Tegmark?) is gathering actual evidence that supports the hypothesis? What's the latest evidence, then?

Note the use of the term "mathematical" in every presentation of scientific principles, which you conveniently seem to ignore.

It's not. And I don't.

You define it then! I challenge you to define data processing "in your own words". Lets see how far apart we are.

You first. I don't want you copying my work.

My problem is that noone else seems willing or able to correct me with some (any) facts that prove otherwise.

I'm endlessly pointing out your many errors. It doesn't get through to you. You don't want correction or facts.

But telling me I am stupid is not a semantic or a factual correction on the science.

Who told you that you are stupid? I mean, you've posted a lot of stupid things, but it's not too late to correct your errors.

IMO, the observable evidence for a mathematical aspect to universal physics and dynamics is overwhelming.

Nobody here disagrees with the proposition that there is a "mathematical aspect" to physics.

Surely you understand what the actual point of disagreement is, by now?

Why the weasel words? Can't you see what you need to do? You need to defend the proposition that is in dispute, not complain about something that everybody agrees on.

Max Tegmark: "In fact, there's no evidence right now that there's anything at all in our universe that is not mathematical."

I would suggest that there's ample evidence, because mathematics, on its own, can't cause any effects in the physical world. Tegmark is making a basic category error, mistaking ideas for physical things.

And I submit Tegmark knows more about this than most scientists. It is his area of expertise.

Is it? Are you sure?

Does Tegmark have a grant to research his mathematical universe?

Could it possibly be that it's a side project of his, outside of what's he's mainly paid to do?

Have you checked?

I'm confident that it is only correct to say that Tegmark knows more about the nature of our universe at its most fundamental levels than "most scientists" on the basis that "most scientists" aren't physicists. Among physicists, I don't think that Tegmark can be considered to have any special expertise or insight into the fundamental nature of reality, beyond what you average jobbing physicist has.

 

[Write4U]

I'm endlessly pointing out your many errors

A useless enterprise, because you always avoid positing your (correct?) "understanding" of the science.

 

[Write4U]

Could it possibly be that it's a side project of his, outside of what's he's mainly paid to do?

oh, man, I consider that a slanderous statement. (shivers)