BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> New Research States Brain Is An Interface
dt1
post Feb 04, 2013, 12:16 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory.

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics.

These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarity with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener.

Just remove the spaces at the beginning of the below URLs to access the articles.

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/01/18/16585884-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-1

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/02/04/16839714-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-2
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Feb 05, 2013, 05:59 PM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



Using the information presented in the first two articles, the biological basis of operation of the taser is demonstrated.

The article shows how a radio wave disrupts the electromechanical behavior of motor neurons.

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/02/05/16857625-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-3

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodConsciousness
post Feb 06, 2013, 07:39 AM
Post #3


Demi-God
*****

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 865
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Member No.: 5683



thanks for sharing this!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Feb 07, 2013, 11:22 AM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



No problem, does anyone have any questions or comments?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Feb 12, 2013, 12:58 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



Quote...

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch.

I thought that computers were based on switches albeit electronic.

Does this quoted information therefore also mean that computers cannot process, data transfer, store or logically construct?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Feb 12, 2013, 02:37 PM
Post #6


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(rhymer @ Feb 12, 2013, 08:58 PM) *

Does this quoted information therefore also mean that computers cannot process, data transfer, store or logically construct?


I think you have misunderstood the work. There is no logical representation of data in the brain. Just the movement of particles.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mway
post Feb 20, 2013, 08:04 PM
Post #7


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 07, 2010
Member No.: 33293



QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 05, 2013, 06:16 AM) *

As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory.

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics.

These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarity with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener.

Just remove the spaces at the beginning of the below URLs to access the articles.

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/01/18/16585884-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-1

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/02/04/16839714-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-2


These articles are full of nonsense. Neurons can be conceived as simple computational switches, sure, but to posit that neurons & synapses cannot be used to store information or do computation is ridiculous. Spike neural networks have been shown to be able to perform all computations that regular computers can. I mean the amount of literature out there is enormous, just do some reading.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Feb 24, 2013, 10:47 PM
Post #8


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(mway @ Feb 21, 2013, 04:04 AM) *

QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 05, 2013, 06:16 AM) *

As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory.

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics.

These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarity with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener.

Just remove the spaces at the beginning of the below URLs to access the articles.

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/01/18/16585884-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-1

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/02/04/16839714-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-2


These articles are full of nonsense. Neurons can be conceived as simple computational switches, sure, but to posit that neurons & synapses cannot be used to store information or do computation is ridiculous. Spike neural networks have been shown to be able to perform all computations that regular computers can. I mean the amount of literature out there is enormous, just do some reading.


Well, if you feel like showing me the data, perhaps I will agree with you. I work with neural networks, write the software and no they do not store information or process it. They merely select what the output shall be.

I have a small program up on the site that uses a neural network, programmed by a genetic algorithm, to play a game of Pong. Study the code carefully, and you will see that the neural net is just a waterfall, nothing more.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dave C
post Feb 25, 2013, 05:30 AM
Post #9


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Feb 01, 2013
Member No.: 34869



I agree that the neuron is just a multi input switch and synapses and other parts of the brain you mentioned do not hold data. But the brain does store data.

The waterfall analogy is a very good one. Just like a real waterfall an individual drop of water will randomly flow down the waterfall with a majority going down the changing path in the rocks that has been worn down by the previous flow. Our brains store data similar to how the water flows down certain carved pathways.

The problem with computer waterfall analogy is that the programmed pattern does not change. But our brains patterns do change. Dendrites are constantly randomly gaining and losing branches. The branches form the paths that lead to certain stimulus patterns causing certain responses. The random pathways will eventually lead to the correct response but it is a learned process that requires positive feedback.

Memories are the stored pathways, that when followed, can re-stimulate the parts of the brain that receive information from the senses and stimulate the same physical or emotional response.

David C.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Feb 25, 2013, 02:01 PM
Post #10


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(Dave C @ Feb 25, 2013, 01:30 PM) *

I agree that the neuron is just a multi input switch and synapses and other parts of the brain you mentioned do not hold data. But the brain does store data.

The waterfall analogy is a very good one. Just like a real waterfall an individual drop of water will randomly flow down the waterfall with a majority going down the changing path in the rocks that has been worn down by the previous flow. Our brains store data similar to how the water flows down certain carved pathways.

The problem with computer waterfall analogy is that the programmed pattern does not change. But our brains patterns do change. Dendrites are constantly randomly gaining and losing branches. The branches form the paths that lead to certain stimulus patterns causing certain responses. The random pathways will eventually lead to the correct response but it is a learned process that requires positive feedback.

Memories are the stored pathways, that when followed, can re-stimulate the parts of the brain that receive information from the senses and stimulate the same physical or emotional response.

David C.


Our views on this are very similar, we both recognise that the pathways are critical and that the pathways can be stimulated to retrieve memories. It is just that I have traced through these pathways and eliminated them as the storage or processing mechanism itself. In terms of physics and communication theory, it does not make sense.

I am beginning to see where the confusion is arising. The "pathways" you described are not "storage". That is, they in themselves are not data. They are merely pathways or routes along which molecules are delivered. The "data" must be at the point of termination, or where those pathways lead, and the "data" is stimulated by chemical or particle delivery. This is a process of classification.

I will be honest here, as far as I can see, I am now seeking one or more 'Bosons' at the point of termination. This leaves me with the Photon, Gluon, W and Z. The only one with enough range to "Bind" the entire mind is the Photon, but I am at a loss as how to explain that mechanism given current physics.

Every time I get to this level, I keep coming back to the idea that we have missed a 'Boson', or a range of 'Bosons'. We are also missing what those 'Boson(s)' are communicating with (i.e. us). Just to be clear, the answer is yes, I am saying that humans are not the biological construct we observe everyday.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dave C
post Feb 28, 2013, 09:40 AM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Feb 01, 2013
Member No.: 34869



QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 25, 2013, 02:01 PM) *


Our views on this are very similar, we both recognise that the pathways are critical and that the pathways can be stimulated to retrieve memories. It is just that I have traced through these pathways and eliminated them as the storage or processing mechanism itself. In terms of physics and communication theory, it does not make sense.

I am beginning to see where the confusion is arising. The "pathways" you described are not "storage". That is, they in themselves are not data. They are merely pathways or routes along which molecules are delivered. The "data" must be at the point of termination, or where those pathways lead, and the "data" is stimulated by chemical or particle delivery. This is a process of classification.

I will be honest here, as far as I can see, I am now seeking one or more 'Bosons' at the point of termination. This leaves me with the Photon, Gluon, W and Z. The only one with enough range to "Bind" the entire mind is the Photon, but I am at a loss as how to explain that mechanism given current physics.

Every time I get to this level, I keep coming back to the idea that we have missed a 'Boson', or a range of 'Bosons'. We are also missing what those 'Boson(s)' are communicating with (i.e. us). Just to be clear, the answer is yes, I am saying that humans are not the biological construct we observe everyday.

I conceder how the brain works to be a very interesting topic. I also had trouble using the word “storage.” We initially used the word to describe putting something physically away to be retrieved later. In the case of the computer the term is used to describe the presentence or absence of an electron flow through a gate, magnetic polarity, or hole in a laser disk. It is true the brain pathways do not “store” anything they simply pass it along but what is “stored” is the path itself. Perhaps a better description is to call it a “key” in the sense that if the proper inputs are stimulated it will cause certain pathways to be stimulated “unlocking” functions like moving a muscle or to release a chemical that make us feel good.

I assume when you talk about particles going down the path you mean the effect of electrons inside nerve cells that help propagate the reactions down the nerve.

When you say you traced the pathways did you conceder that while a majority of pathways remain that they also change. Did you consider the pathways can also stimulate multiple input parts of the brain or release chemicals that react with other pathways even if they are not touching?

Subatomic particles are also an interesting subject. I encourage you to study them. I am sorry to say that do not believe that sub atomic partials can be created by the brain since, with the possible exception of infrared photons, it takes way to much energy to create them. The only mechanisms, given current physics that I can think of, that could cause a subatomic particle to naturally appearing inside the brain is by a little known steady state theory of the universe. It has been a long time since I took Astronomy but as I remember the theory states that given the universe is expanding it will continue to expand until all of the hydrogen is used up and the universe “dies,” unless new mater is created. It does not elaborate on how mater is created but states that if mater is created randomly everywhere in the universe at a rate that the density of the universe does not increase that the universe will continue to expand but the new mater will provide hydrogen that will keep it “alive.” It goes on to state that if the matter is created at a rate that increases the density of the universe that it will eventually create so much gravity that the universe will stop expanding, and collapse back on itself. The problem with proving this theory is that the amount of new matter that is required to cause the universe to collapse is so small that it is impossible to measure. I also believe part of the string theory allows for multi dimensional partials to appear and disappear in our three dimensional (4 if you include time) space and appear to us as subatomic particles.

But even if these theory’s are true and a particle like a boson, photon, meson or whatever was created in the brain it would be a random event not caused by the brain. The fact is that the more energetic partials would be more likely have the effect of destroying cells or causing cancer.

I guess I see the present theory, with a few minor alterations, with uncountable possible paths as being sufficient to explain the mysteries of the brain and personally find the aspect of subatomic partials, (beside photons and electrons) being naturally synthesized by the brain as impossible.

That does not mean you should stop trying to figure out how the brain works. You are entitled to your opinions and just because other people like me might not agree, it does not mean even if it is wrong it will not lead to further incite and the correct answers.
David C
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Feb 28, 2013, 11:44 AM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(Dave C @ Feb 28, 2013, 05:40 PM) *

It is true the brain pathways do not “store” anything they simply pass it along but what is “stored” is the path itself.


This path is what I would define a "route". That is, it is the pathway to the next neuron in the chain. By stimulating neurons in particular sequences, this manifest a subjective experience or control of a bodily function.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Feb 28, 2013, 05:40 PM) *

I assume when you talk about particles going down the path you mean the effect of electrons inside nerve cells that help propagate the reactions down the nerve.


In this sense, I am talking about the interactions between various particles and molecules that propagate a signal throughout the chains of neurons. I am speaking in a collective sense in regards to the entire electromechanical process.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Feb 28, 2013, 05:40 PM) *

When you say you traced the pathways did you conceder that while a majority of pathways remain that they also change. Did you consider the pathways can also stimulate multiple input parts of the brain or release chemicals that react with other pathways even if they are not touching?


Yes. In no way does any of this affect the following facts:

1. No data exists
2. No processing exist
3. No memory exists
4. No binding mechanism exists

None of the above basic requirements can be located in any of the structures present in the brain itself.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Feb 28, 2013, 05:40 PM) *

Subatomic particles are also an interesting subject. I encourage you to study them. I am sorry to say that do not believe that sub atomic partials can be created by the brain since, with the possible exception of infrared photons, it takes way to much energy to create them.


The human brain is saturated in ions that constantly move and are subject to sudden oscillations (such as the action potential). These complex motions produce a complex array of photons in the radio spectrum.

The motion of any lepton, ion or molecule will also produce a vast array of W and Z bosons.

Thus, every force carrier that we know of is produced in ample quantities by the human body. As I am unable to find the above 4 main functions, there is nowhere else to look but these force carriers. As such, I will not rule out the possibility that bosons with extremely light masses may have escaped detection to date and that they may play a role.

What is certain is that the force carriers cannot, in any way, lead to a system that satisfies the above 4 main functions. Thus, we are 100% seeking something that these particles are communicating with.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Feb 28, 2013, 05:40 PM) *

The only mechanisms, given current physics that I can think of...


There is no need to delve into this...and you should be getting the point that your feelings in regards to sub-atomic particles are wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dave C
post Feb 28, 2013, 11:27 PM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Feb 01, 2013
Member No.: 34869



QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 28, 2013, 11:44 AM) *


This path is what I would define a "route". That is, it is the pathway to the next neuron in the chain. By stimulating neurons in particular sequences, this manifest a subjective experience or control of a bodily function.

That is a very good description. I think the role of the neuron is a like a switch possibly waiting for a certain combination or total number of responses in a given amount or time before it “fires.” What do you think?
QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 28, 2013, 11:44 AM) *

None of the above basic requirements can be located in any of the structures present in the brain itself.

I think I am beginning to see your problem. I am glad I don’t have that problem with my model. I wish you good luck with your model.
QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 28, 2013, 11:44 AM) *

The human brain is saturated in ions

I never considered negative and positive ionized atoms or there oscillations. Do you have a model that includes electricity and switches. It might help me with my artificial intellect algorithm.
QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 28, 2013, 11:44 AM) *


There is no need to delve into this...and you should be getting the point that your feelings in regards to sub-atomic particles are wrong.

Sorry for babbling. I considered editing it down but I thought you should know the history since the theory has been eliminated from the main stream and you probably won’t find much information about it. I thought it might help you to know there are physical models that do allow for the creation of subatomic partials. And I was secretly hoping you could find a way the brain could influence the random locations that they appear.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Mar 01, 2013, 02:09 AM
Post #14


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 01, 2013, 07:27 AM) *

That is a very good description. I think the role of the neuron is a like a switch possibly waiting for a certain combination or total number of responses in a given amount or time before it “fires.” What do you think?


I use the term switch colloquially to refer to an "E-field Controlled Multi-Valued Logic Gate", which is a more accurate description of the neuron.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 01, 2013, 07:27 AM) *

I think I am beginning to see your problem. I am glad I don’t have that problem with my model. I wish you good luck with your model.


You don't??? Then I feel you have misinterpreted what you are looking at. I would like to see each of the 4 main functions I described in an earlier post. If you could point them out that would be great.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 01, 2013, 07:27 AM) *

I never considered negative and positive ionized atoms or there oscillations. Do you have a model that includes electricity and switches. It might help me with my artificial intellect algorithm.


You would need to be more specific. What are you trying to do???
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mway
post Mar 02, 2013, 03:59 AM
Post #15


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 07, 2010
Member No.: 33293



QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 01, 2013, 05:44 AM) *

Yes. In no way does any of this affect the following facts:

1. No data exists
2. No processing exist
3. No memory exists
4. No binding mechanism exists

None of the above basic requirements can be located in any of the structures present in the brain itself.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. It is clear that your understanding of a computer and software have been limited by your misinterpretation of modularising a regular desktop computers architecture.

1. Data

I am assuming you are looking for a hard drive type of analogue in terms of neurobiology, which is your first mistake. Data is just a representation. We label particles in a hard drive as data, simply because we choose to. Just as I label a set of particles as representing a photo of myself, you can look at neural spikes under the same light. When I flex my bicep, particular neurons spike, which represent tendon length for example. This is data.

2. Processing

Processing is just a transformation of inputs to outputs. As you said you have some experience with neural networks (I am assuming older first generation neural nets), then hopefully you are aware of the xor problem. This simple neural network is able to perform the xor processing on input data.

3. Memory

This is confusing, because I see no difference between memory and data, other then perhaps that you could argue that data doesn't have to be considered persistent. So if you run with persistence, then you simply need to show what mechanisms in the brain can have persistent alterations. Synaptic strength is the first thing that comes to mind (although there are other aspects). It has been shown that STDP can be used to train a spike network to store persistent sequences, which should be considered memory.

4. The binding problem

The binding problem is a red herring, which sits atop some common misunderstandings of synchronised parallel computation. If you examine phenomenon like consciousness antedation, the assumptions about the binding problem start to break down.


It seems to me that you are in the boat of people that desire a fantastical explanation of the brain, and are exercising cognitive bias while studying. There is plenty of literature out there that shows implementations of spike networks that can perform all the operations of a standard desktop computer. There is plenty of literature on mechanisms like STDP that account for persistent memory formation.

I think you need to start visualising computers in their entirety, and in a running state, not as static parts that we have labelled as memory, or processing, etc. When you press the 'a' key on your keyboard, you too are igniting a cascading waterfall which results in LEDs flickers on your screen.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Mar 02, 2013, 04:57 AM
Post #16


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. It is clear that your understanding of a computer and software have been limited by your misinterpretation of modularising a regular desktop computers architecture.


Well, let's see if you understand this shall we.

QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

I am assuming you are looking for a hard drive type of analogue in terms of neurobiology, which is your first mistake. Data is just a representation. We label particles in a hard drive as data, simply because we choose to. Just as I label a set of particles as representing a photo of myself, you can look at neural spikes under the same light. When I flex my bicep, particular neurons spike, which represent tendon length for example. This is data.


No. I am seeking information moving from one point to another within the brain. Your example is pretty close, but let's focus on inputs, rather than outputs to muscle. This will demonstrate the problem more clearly. You have referred to the "neurons spike", or in the case of neural activity "Neural coding", as being the "data".

What we see as neural coding, or as electrical brain activity, is really the byproduct of a chemical reaction within the neuron. The action potential is the process of adding sodium to the reaction, then pumping in-and-out potassium as a coolant. The potassium transduces the energy of the reaction into controlled kinetic motion and a brief radio wave emission. This dissipates the heat.

The thermal control of this reaction is ultimately what controls the output of the neuron. I know you are thinking of this in terms of depolarisation, but it amounts to the same thing. The depolarisation is thermal control.

Anyway, all this means is that chemical are delivered around the body in hops between neurons. The chemicals themselves don't mean anything, they are just fuel for a chemical reaction that occurs within the neuron. This reaction dictates the next neurons to be stimulated.

So, what happens when I say "Hello" to you?

Well, no data representing the word "Hello" is moved around the brain at all. There is no "packet" or "packets" of information with the word "Hello" modulated in some fashion moved around the brain. A series of chemical reactions send chemicals to a specific points in the brain and there is a sudden leap to the perception of the word "Hello" and the meanings it conveys.

So, without data, how can we have that sudden leap? One way is to have a lookup table and use an index to find things. In this case, our index would be the fact that particular neuron was activated.

That leaves a major problem. Where is this lookup table and how are these elements in the lookup table combined into a singular subjective experience. What is the backend communication???

So, it would appear that your problem is that you do not have a clear understanding of what we mean by "data", "representation" or "communication".


QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

Processing is just a transformation of inputs to outputs. As you said you have some experience with neural networks (I am assuming older first generation neural nets), then hopefully you are aware of the xor problem. This simple neural network is able to perform the xor processing on input data.


No. A transformation of inputs to outputs is what we call "routing". Processing involves the temporary storage, comparison, accumulation (counting) of inputs. It also includes what to do with those "results".

Since we have no "data" as an "input", anywhere in the brain, we thus can have no processing either. Examining the structure of the brain's neural net confirms this.

QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

This is confusing, because I see no difference between memory and data, other then perhaps that you could argue that data doesn't have to be considered persistent. So if you run with persistence, then you simply need to show what mechanisms in the brain can have persistent alterations. Synaptic strength is the first thing that comes to mind (although there are other aspects). It has been shown that STDP can be used to train a spike network to store persistent sequences, which should be considered memory.


Memory of where to send chemicals, is not the same as "data storage". In other words, the route to the memory is not the memory itself and this distinction is highly important. It would be like claiming that the bus that leads to the RAM, is the RAM itself and this is quite clearly absurd.

Perhaps that is the best way to describe the human brain in terms everyone will understand, it is a "bus" and the neurons control "routes" on that "bus".

What is clear is that the route is important in terms of memory and this brings us back to this idea of a "lookup table", with each element in this table being at the end of a particular route.

The problem is that we need something that connects each element in the "table". I know you are thinking, "is this not what the synapses do?", but the answer is no. This physical network merely controls the sequence in which each element in the "lookup table" should be referred to. This is the source of synchronous activity in the human brain.

We need something that connects the "lookup table" and this brings us to your next point...the Binding Problem.


QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

The binding problem is a red herring, which sits atop some common misunderstandings of synchronised parallel computation. If you examine phenomenon like consciousness antedation, the assumptions about the binding problem start to break down.


No. The misunderstanding is entirely yours. You have failed to understand the basic requirements in communication, what is meant by data and what is required for a functional process.

QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

It seems to me that you are in the boat of people that desire a fantastical explanation of the brain, and are exercising cognitive bias while studying. There is plenty of literature out there that shows implementations of spike networks that can perform all the operations of a standard desktop computer. There is plenty of literature on mechanisms like STDP that account for persistent memory formation.

I think you need to start visualising computers in their entirety, and in a running state, not as static parts that we have labelled as memory, or processing, etc. When you press the 'a' key on your keyboard, you too are igniting a cascading waterfall which results in LEDs flickers on your screen.


I don't feel that obeying the laws of physics and the requirements of communication can be described as fantastical. If anything, you are asking that we adhere to a "magical" explanation that ignores even the basic requirements of scientific principles.

Did you not notice that your description of how the brain works is completely non-functional???
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mway
post Mar 02, 2013, 07:27 AM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 07, 2010
Member No.: 33293



QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 02, 2013, 10:57 PM) *

No. I am seeking information moving from one point to another within the brain. Your example is pretty close, but let's focus on inputs, rather than outputs to muscle. This will demonstrate the problem more clearly. You have referred to the "neurons spike", or in the case of neural activity "Neural coding", as being the "data".

What we see as neural coding, or as electrical brain activity, is really the byproduct of a chemical reaction within the neuron. The action potential is the process of adding sodium to the reaction, then pumping in-and-out potassium as a coolant. The potassium transduces the energy of the reaction into controlled kinetic motion and a brief radio wave emission. This dissipates the heat.

The thermal control of this reaction is ultimately what controls the output of the neuron. I know you are thinking of this in terms of depolarisation, but it amounts to the same thing. The depolarisation is thermal control.

Anyway, all this means is that chemical are delivered around the body in hops between neurons. The chemicals themselves don't mean anything, they are just fuel for a chemical reaction that occurs within the neuron. This reaction dictates the next neurons to be stimulated.

So, what happens when I say "Hello" to you?

Well, no data representing the word "Hello" is moved around the brain at all. There is no "packet" or "packets" of information with the word "Hello" modulated in some fashion moved around the brain. A series of chemical reactions send chemicals to a specific points in the brain and there is a sudden leap to the perception of the word "Hello" and the meanings it conveys.

So, without data, how can we have that sudden leap? One way is to have a lookup table and use an index to find things. In this case, our index would be the fact that particular neuron was activated.

That leaves a major problem. Where is this lookup table and how are these elements in the lookup table combined into a singular subjective experience. What is the backend communication???

So, it would appear that your problem is that you do not have a clear understanding of what we mean by "data", "representation" or "communication".

What you are talking about had nothing to do with data. To paraphrase, you are asking how do vibrations in the air translate to the conscious experience of hello. First the cochlea acts like a fourier transform (among other things) on the vibration, encoding frequency bins as rate codes. These rate codes enter a cortical hypergraph (basically a large recurrent network capable of representing hierarchies and sequences, etc), which over the course of your life has self organised to represent things like 'hello'. This representation isn't purely just a tag for 'hello', but a representation for the experience of hearing hello.

I explain conscious experience here: mattway.xxx/qualia-article/

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

No. A transformation of inputs to outputs is what we call "routing". Processing involves the temporary storage, comparison, accumulation (counting) of inputs. It also includes what to do with those "results".

Since we have no "data" as an "input", anywhere in the brain, we thus can have no processing either. Examining the structure of the brain's neural net confirms this.

There IS input to the brain as I explained above. Tendon length is an input. Processing as I said is simply transformation between input and output.

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

Memory of where to send chemicals, is not the same as "data storage". In other words, the route to the memory is not the memory itself and this distinction is highly important. It would be like claiming that the bus that leads to the RAM, is the RAM itself and this is quite clearly absurd.

Perhaps that is the best way to describe the human brain in terms everyone will understand, it is a "bus" and the neurons control "routes" on that "bus".

What is clear is that the route is important in terms of memory and this brings us back to this idea of a "lookup table", with each element in this table being at the end of a particular route.

The problem is that we need something that connects each element in the "table". I know you are thinking, "is this not what the synapses do?", but the answer is no. This physical network merely controls the sequence in which each element in the "lookup table" should be referred to. This is the source of synchronous activity in the human brain.

We need something that connects the "lookup table" and this brings us to your next point...the Binding Problem.

You need to get the lookup tables concept out of your head, because it is an archaic way of thinking about computation. You keep splitting things like bus and memory, when it is certainly not absurd to look at them as a single circuit. The primary difference at this level between brains and computers, is that computers have clearly defined boundaries for these concepts, where as in brains, the things completely overlap.

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

No. The misunderstanding is entirely yours. You have failed to understand the basic requirements in communication, what is meant by data and what is required for a functional process.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 02, 2013, 11:59 AM) *

Did you not notice that your description of how the brain works is completely non-functional???

I would very much like you to elaborate on this statement, as I don't see where I gave a description of how the brain works, but I would be happy to answer any of your questions about it.

------------------------------

Look, this isn't some speculatory discussion. How do you account for all the examples of regular computation that have been done using spike neural networks as the medium? You are practically ignoring vast amounts of observable experiments that show your assertions to be completely false. I urge you to continue research, as it's a great field with lots of work that needs to be done.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Mar 02, 2013, 07:40 AM
Post #18


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 03:27 PM) *

What you are talking about had nothing to do with data. To paraphrase, you are asking how do vibrations in the air translate to the conscious experience of hello. First the cochlea acts like a fourier transform (among other things) on the vibration, encoding frequency bins as rate codes. These rate codes enter a cortical hypergraph (basically a large recurrent network capable of representing hierarchies and sequences, etc), which over the course of your life has self organised to represent things like 'hello'. This representation isn't purely just a tag for 'hello', but a representation for the experience of hearing hello.


Thanks for this, but I will end the conversation here. You have a limited understanding of this topic and it would take years of training to bring you up-to-speed.

In short, the above description is a partial explanation which only covers basic classification of input and fail to address, in its entirety, how we move from classification to subjective experience and synchronisation of input. It is this latter element that my research deals with.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mway
post Mar 02, 2013, 08:11 AM
Post #19


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 07, 2010
Member No.: 33293



QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 03, 2013, 01:40 AM) *

Thanks for this, but I will end the conversation here. You have a limited understanding of this topic and it would take years of training to bring you up-to-speed.

In short, the above description is a partial explanation which only covers basic classification of input and fail to address, in its entirety, how we move from classification to subjective experience and synchronisation of input. It is this latter element that my research deals with.

If you actually read my post, you would find a link to a detailed explanation. What research are you doing exactly? My career is also in computational neuroscience, so I find it quite hilarious to propose I have a limited understanding from a few forum posts.

Considering that you said earlier that you have delved into neural nets, making one that plays a simple game through GA, I have to say that I doubt you know much about spike networks. Have you ever built a network with say, STDP?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Mar 02, 2013, 09:16 AM
Post #20


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(mway @ Mar 02, 2013, 04:11 PM) *

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 03, 2013, 01:40 AM) *

Thanks for this, but I will end the conversation here. You have a limited understanding of this topic and it would take years of training to bring you up-to-speed.

In short, the above description is a partial explanation which only covers basic classification of input and fail to address, in its entirety, how we move from classification to subjective experience and synchronisation of input. It is this latter element that my research deals with.

If you actually read my post, you would find a link to a detailed explanation. What research are you doing exactly? My career is also in computational neuroscience, so I find it quite hilarious to propose I have a limited understanding from a few forum posts.

Considering that you said earlier that you have delved into neural nets, making one that plays a simple game through GA, I have to say that I doubt you know much about spike networks. Have you ever built a network with say, STDP?


I read the explanation and whilst it is clear that you understand the problem, you are getting lost when it comes the issue of "data" and "data representation". You don't seem to grasp what it would require to go from the inputs of a sensory system, to a subjective experience at a completely physical level. That is, particle exchanges. I have noticed this quite a bit in my research of neuroscience, so its nothing that is particular to yourself.

It would appear that it is common problem in the education system in regards to foundations of logic, mathematics, representation (i.e. perception/interpretation) and physics. I would have a solid background in this, so it is second nature to me.

If you are really interested, I could take you through abstract examples of circuits and highlight the issues. I think people get overwhelmed by the complexity of the brain and are unable to reduce it to simple examples that can highlight issues effectively.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Magister Hayk
post Mar 02, 2013, 01:49 PM
Post #21


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 410
Joined: Sep 12, 2011
Member No.: 33583



QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 05, 2013, 12:16 AM) *

As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory.

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics.

These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarity with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener.

Just remove the spaces at the beginning of the below URLs to access the articles.

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/01/18/16585884-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-1

deepthought . newsvine . com/_news/2013/02/04/16839714-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-2


Very serious conclusions representing very significant scientific value that should scrutinized by researchers in the field.

I do expect that this shall turn into full scale scientific article and researches elaborating this particular issue shall get significant funding all over the world.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mway
post Mar 02, 2013, 10:17 PM
Post #22


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 07, 2010
Member No.: 33293



QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 03, 2013, 03:16 AM) *

I read the explanation and whilst it is clear that you understand the problem, you are getting lost when it comes the issue of "data" and "data representation". You don't seem to grasp what it would require to go from the inputs of a sensory system, to a subjective experience at a completely physical level. That is, particle exchanges. I have noticed this quite a bit in my research of neuroscience, so its nothing that is particular to yourself.

It would appear that it is common problem in the education system in regards to foundations of logic, mathematics, representation (i.e. perception/interpretation) and physics. I would have a solid background in this, so it is second nature to me.

If you are really interested, I could take you through abstract examples of circuits and highlight the issues. I think people get overwhelmed by the complexity of the brain and are unable to reduce it to simple examples that can highlight issues effectively.

Would you care to elaborate on what your research actually is? Also as I asked before, have you had any experience with spike neural networks, STDP, etc?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Mar 03, 2013, 12:11 AM
Post #23


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(mway @ Mar 03, 2013, 06:17 AM) *

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 03, 2013, 03:16 AM) *

I read the explanation and whilst it is clear that you understand the problem, you are getting lost when it comes the issue of "data" and "data representation". You don't seem to grasp what it would require to go from the inputs of a sensory system, to a subjective experience at a completely physical level. That is, particle exchanges. I have noticed this quite a bit in my research of neuroscience, so its nothing that is particular to yourself.

It would appear that it is common problem in the education system in regards to foundations of logic, mathematics, representation (i.e. perception/interpretation) and physics. I would have a solid background in this, so it is second nature to me.

If you are really interested, I could take you through abstract examples of circuits and highlight the issues. I think people get overwhelmed by the complexity of the brain and are unable to reduce it to simple examples that can highlight issues effectively.

Would you care to elaborate on what your research actually is? Also as I asked before, have you had any experience with spike neural networks, STDP, etc?


My research is in a new area of Neuroscience, as such it would not yet have a defined title. Its basically dumping the computational aspect and replacing it with physics. So, perhaps the best title at this point would be "Particle Neuroscience".

In regards to your question about STDP, you do realise that none of these techniques change how a neural net functions? They only effect the feedback mechanisms which changes the outputs (or routes). So, regardless of what method you employ, the end result is always the same in a practical sense. As such, they are irrelevant in terms of this research as its sole function is to modify the biological structure to get particles to the the point of termination.

My research focuses on what happens when it gets to the point of termination. For example, when a signal indicating pain gets to the area of the brain that becomes active in response to pain, what happens then?? what is that feeling of pain?? how is this integrated with other information??

This is the area modern neuroscience glosses over and I have already managed to rule out every physical structure present in the brain as being involved in this process. The brain is just a post office, or interface, or complex router...nothing more. All the real action appears to at the quantum level and beyond.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dave C
post Mar 03, 2013, 12:21 AM
Post #24


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Feb 01, 2013
Member No.: 34869



QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 01, 2013, 02:09 AM) *

I use the term switch colloquially to refer to an "E-field Controlled Multi-Valued Logic Gate

Can you define E-field, do you mean just the election flow or do you think the electromagnetic force is also influential? What values do you think are required to make the gate to open?
QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 01, 2013, 07:27 AM) *


I think I am beginning to see your problem.


QUOTE(dt1 @ Feb 28, 2013, 11:44 AM) *

1. No data exists
2. No processing exist
3. No memory exists
4. No binding mechanism exists


QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 01, 2013, 07:27 AM) *

I am glad I don’t have that problem with my model.

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 01, 2013, 02:09 AM) *

You don't???... ...I would like to see each of the 4 main functions I described in an earlier post. If you could point them out that would be great.

Let me start with no processing exists. As I mentioned before in my model the route is the “storage.” Imagine the brain is a city filled with roads where the city crews repair and upgrade the roads that are being used. At the same time all the roads degrade with the ones that are not used removed. If the cars start at an input of the brain and do not know where to go then most of the cars will probably follow the best roads. And if one of them takes a route that leads to the correct destination then it can send out a lot of cars to randomly drive around. When some of them get back to the where they started it repeats the route over and over upgrading the route or “storing” a route that will influencing the path of future cars. The “process” is the city crews that upgrade the roads used. Like a muscle that grows bigger when it is exercised.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by binding mechanism but if you mean keeps us doing the same things over and over that is because the cars have a greater likelihood to follow the best route over and over.

The term “data” works great when describing a string of information stored in a computer. My brain model is less definitive and more complicated.

Let me take the example of smelling a rose. The rose emits a number of different chemicals we can sense with our specialized odor receptors. Imagine each different receptor sending a car to the brain each time it senses a particular molecule. Depending on the number of cars arriving in a given time, (or frequency), from one receptor, the neuron will allow a car to go through like the signals in a traffic light. When a car is realised it runs into a parking lot full of cars and makes them all to leave by different routes and mix with cars from different odor receptors neurons parking lots. The cars mix and arrive at other neurons that depending on frequency of cars again release lots of cars repeating the process over and over with different neurons. This is a filtering process that detects a certain ratio of odor receptor signals. Eventually this leads to a categorizing neuron that only releases a car when we smell a rose, this car realises a parking lots full of cars. Since these cars are only realised only when the same ratio of chemicals are received by the odor receptors this like a piece of “data” specific to the smell of a rose.

At the same time other inputs may be sensing is the colour, (Canadian spelling), texture, a warm spring day, the pleasure of receiving it as a gift from a spouse, or a painful prick from a thorn. Each of these inputs is also categorized emitting a parking lots of “data” cars of their own. These cars mix with “data” cars that were released when the smell of the rose was detected. And send many cars out with some of them going back to the input parts of the brain repeating the routes and upgrading the routes including the routes that interlinked all of the different senses turned on by the rose. This combines with the pleasure of the emitted chemicals that make us feel good.

Now imagine some time later we just smell the rose without seeing it. The smell is again categorized only this time lacking other real inputs the cars travel down the best roads including the interlinked routes and out to the input sections of the brain that previously sensed the colour, texture, pleasure or pain of the rose allowing us to remember the colour of the rose, warns us not to touch the stem, and releases the chemicals that make us feel the joy. In other words it is a “memory”.

This is just a simplified model of only part of the brain. I hope you can see that since there are 100 billion neurons, to categorize, release chemicals, receive and send information, and countless “roadways” connecting them that I am satisfied with this model.

David C.

P.S. I just read the posts from Matt Way and I think the STDP could be the key to improving the routes since I do not know what improves the routes and don’t really care. I am just trying to use my brain architecture theory for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) program and figuring out how the brain works is just part of that process.

Matt what do you think, is the neuron the key to directing which route is used or is the fact that the neuron has already fired and the late arrival leads to a dead end that the route itself is not upgraded? What do you think of my route analogy? Do you have a better model that I could use for an AI Program?
QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 01, 2013, 07:27 AM) *

I never considered negative and positive ionized atoms or there oscillations. Do you have a model that includes electricity and switches. It might help me with my artificial intellect algorithm.

QUOTE(dt1 @ Mar 01, 2013, 02:09 AM) *

You would need to be more specific. What are you trying to do???

I am writing a computer algorithm that duplicates a simplified version of the brains architecture. I want it to start with no knowledge and be able to learn by receiving random correct information. Since computers use silicon switches with holes like positively charge ions and electricity like negatively charged ions I though your theory on how ions affect the brain might give me an incite allowing me to improve my algorithm. Does you model use electricity with switches that open and close depending on external input like a gate?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dt1
post Mar 03, 2013, 01:48 AM
Post #25


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Feb 04, 2013
Member No.: 34877



QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 03, 2013, 08:21 AM) *

Let me start with no processing exists. As I mentioned before in my model the route is the “storage.”


In terms of thinking, we are not far off. Its the data in this "storage" I am more concerned with. In traditional computing, we "set" data in the storage. For example, a charge or magnetic field. In this case, it would appear that the data is already present, rather than being "set". We are building a route to it only.

Is that a better explanation?

This comes about because because no packets of information are delivered, just chemical building blocks. In my view, the chemical processes are stimulating the production of one or more bosons which interacts with the 'data' introducing it to the subjective experience.

What exactly this 'data' is, I haven't got a clue at this point but it communicates through bosons. Obviously this 'data' is us.

QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 03, 2013, 08:21 AM) *

I am not sure exactly what you mean by binding mechanism but if you mean keeps us doing the same things over and over that is because the cars have a greater likelihood to follow the best route over and over.


Technically, it is known as the Binding Problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

Anyway, if we have billions of chunks of 'data' in each of these areas of 'storage', we need to glue them together to get our near-real-time subjective experience. This requires some form of processing and communications backplane that is separate from the synaptic pathways.


QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 03, 2013, 08:21 AM) *

The term “data” works great when describing a string of information stored in a computer. My brain model is less definitive and more complicated.

Let me take the example of smelling a rose. The rose emits a number of different chemicals we can sense with our specialized odor receptors. Imagine each different receptor sending a car to the brain each time it senses a particular molecule. Depending on the number of cars arriving in a given time, (or frequency), from one receptor, the neuron will allow a car to go through like the signals in a traffic light. When a car is realised it runs into a parking lot full of cars and makes them all to leave by different routes and mix with cars from different odor receptors neurons parking lots. The cars mix and arrive at other neurons that depending on frequency of cars again release lots of cars repeating the process over and over with different neurons. This is a filtering process that detects a certain ratio of odor receptor signals. Eventually this leads to a categorizing neuron that only releases a car when we smell a rose, this car realises a parking lots full of cars. Since these cars are only realised only when the same ratio of chemicals are received by the odor receptors this like a piece of “data” specific to the smell of a rose.

At the same time other inputs may be sensing is the colour, (Canadian spelling), texture, a warm spring day, the pleasure of receiving it as a gift from a spouse, or a painful prick from a thorn. Each of these inputs is also categorized emitting a parking lots of “data” cars of their own. These cars mix with “data” cars that were released when the smell of the rose was detected. And send many cars out with some of them going back to the input parts of the brain repeating the routes and upgrading the routes including the routes that interlinked all of the different senses turned on by the rose. This combines with the pleasure of the emitted chemicals that make us feel good.

Now imagine some time later we just smell the rose without seeing it. The smell is again categorized only this time lacking other real inputs the cars travel down the best roads including the interlinked routes and out to the input sections of the brain that previously sensed the colour, texture, pleasure or pain of the rose allowing us to remember the colour of the rose, warns us not to touch the stem, and releases the chemicals that make us feel the joy. In other words it is a “memory”.

This is just a simplified model of only part of the brain. I hope you can see that since there are 100 billion neurons, to categorize, release chemicals, receive and send information, and countless “roadways” connecting them that I am satisfied with this model.


Very close, but you have left out quite a number of necessary systems. The main one being, what is experiencing this information??? In an abstract way, I have no issues with this view of classification, the problem is that we need to do something with that classified input.

The structures of the brain cannot do anything with that classified input. That's what I spotted.

This is the Binding Problem and the main focus of my research.


QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 03, 2013, 08:21 AM) *

P.S. I just read the posts from Matt Way and I think the STDP could be the key to improving the routes since I do not know what improves the routes and don’t really care.


Strange attitude for someone developing an A.I., since this is the basis of 'simulated learning' in a neural net.


QUOTE(Dave C @ Mar 03, 2013, 08:21 AM) *

I am writing a computer algorithm that duplicates a simplified version of the brains architecture. I want it to start with no knowledge and be able to learn by receiving random correct information. Since computers use silicon switches with holes like positively charge ions and electricity like negatively charged ions I though your theory on how ions affect the brain might give me an incite allowing me to improve my algorithm. Does you model use electricity with switches that open and close depending on external input like a gate?


The brain is just a classifier, so you won't get far with that approach. Also, strong AI is a solved issue and solved in the late 60's. The tech is just classified because it undermines capitalism. It was the ultimate communist weapon.

Its easy enough to do, but you would need massive resources. So, I wouldn't get to optimistic about your program unless you have a few billion to throw around. If you do have that type of resources, give me a shout and I'll sort something out for you. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dennis Sedov
post Jul 22, 2013, 04:37 AM
Post #26


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Jul 18, 2013
Member No.: 35238



Not sure if this has been discussed..

Brains and primarily its cortical area (if we're talking about memory, thought process etc) has one simple ability - to "train" in building and recognizing patterns in both spacial and temporal form. A wonderful book "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins as well as other research shows that the primary function of the neocortex is precisely that - learn and utilize patterns in our everyday life.

Because everything we do, see and experience can be represented as a temporal or spacial pattern - it is a building block of our intelligence.

Nevertheless, I'm in no way saying that there is nothing else happening inside of our brain - that would be absurd.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2017 - 03:59 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles