5 ms·

I have a theory that the processing that happens in the brain does not all happen by physical means confined to the brain. I think that neurons either have quan

by x5n1 11y ago

I have a theory that the processing that happens in the brain does not all happen by physical means confined to the brain. I think that neurons either have quantum ability of using neurons in other dimensions or somehow have access to some of the machinery that runs the universe itself. That's how we get these ideas about the universe and everything in it, because the brain taps into the computer that runs the universe. If you look at really simple organisms with a few neurons doing really complicated things, it makes you think there is something more going on there than just a few neurons firing in a neural network.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Brains must be at least orchestrating those computations, or you couldn't explain all the various ways cognitive functions can be disabled with almost pinpoint accuracy by damaging the brain in specific regions. I think we know enough about brains of living things to be pretty sure all required computation is being done within the body. Last time I checked, we could pull something resembling a map of the environment out of rat's brain via fMRI.
- mathgenius 11y ago
  I think there is a valid counter argument to what you say here. Just because we hear sound come out of the radio does not mean that this sound is created by the radio. Disabling various regions inside the radio will also cause various malfunctions. > I think we know enough about brains of living things to be pretty sure... Did you read the article? Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    That's why I wrote that it must be at least orchestrated, in a way that a radio orchestrates the sound by tuning in on correct frequency, amplifying and decoding (digital) or doing FM->AM conversion. I'm not saying that the original comment is for sure 100% wrong. > Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain. Yes and no. Our understanding is very selective; we definitely lack the details on everything, but we know the general picture and details of some parts - which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works. We know for instance that if brain is in fact just an antenna, it's not for anything that goes over EM spectrum, and most likely neither by any particle known to us. Otherwise we'd have figured it out already by accident - people would drop dead underground or close to (shielded) nuclear reactors. On the other hand, we can pull things that look like intermediate computation results out of brains via fMRI. This does not discard original comment's hypothesis, but lets us classify it as "extremely, extremely unlikely".
    - mathgenius 11y ago
      > which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). At the other bottom (and this is perhaps a more orthodox concern) is "chaoplexology", emergent phenomena and all of that. If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? (btw i'm not suggesting this is literally how we evolved, but just to give a different perspective on evolution as we currently conceive it.)
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). No matter how many more levels are down there, everything has to add up to normality. When we discovered relativity, apples didn't suddenly start to fall up. We may discover new ways of looking at the world, or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit, but the world will work in the same way the day after such discovery as it worked the day before. Unless the fundamental laws of the universe have conditionals that branch on cognitive state of human beings, at which point all bets are off and you can assume anything can happen. We have hovewer no evidence that would suggest that hypothesis over the usual one, that the world works the way it works whether we know how or not. > If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? I would be able to work something out. For starters, that I'm dealing with a computational device. It's hard to imagine what would be the level of technology four billion years old aliens, nor what problems would they be trying to solve - but I'm pretty sure that if you travelled back in time and dropped Isaac Newton a PC with a nuclear battery (and infinite supply of spare parts) he'd figure out some basics of how it works and why it does the thing it does. The very process by which humans do that is called "science". I guess my point is - we definitely don't know everything, but that doesn't allow us to assume "shit's magic" and every point of view is equally valid. There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others.
mathgenius 11y ago
It seems really interesting to consider connections between "computation" (or thought/creativity) and the physics of the universe. This is also related to the question of Platonism, ie. does mathematics exist outside of our own contemplation? For a long time I thought this was ridiculous, but recently I've been seriously wondering if the mere _structure_ of calculation (mathematical discourse as we understand it) could in fact be also driving the shape (what we see) of the universe. To some extent this is obviously true: mathematics does seem to underlie the physics we observe, unreasonably so. Does this suggest that the universe is a giant thought?
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  It's the other way around: mathematics is derived from physics.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
> I have a theory that the processing that happens in the brain does not all happen by physical means confined to the brain. I think that neurons either have quantum ability of using neurons in other dimensions or somehow have access to some of the machinery that runs the universe itself. Bunk. >That's how we get these ideas about the universe and everything in it, because the brain taps into the computer that runs the universe. No, we get ideas about the universe by looking at it.

by x5n1 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Brains must be at least orchestrating those computations, or you couldn't explain all the various ways cognitive functions can be disabled with almost pinpoint accuracy by damaging the brain in specific regions. I think we know enough about brains of living things to be pretty sure all required computation is being done within the body. Last time I checked, we could pull something resembling a map of the environment out of rat's brain via fMRI.

mathgenius 11y ago
I think there is a valid counter argument to what you say here. Just because we hear sound come out of the radio does not mean that this sound is created by the radio. Disabling various regions inside the radio will also cause various malfunctions. > I think we know enough about brains of living things to be pretty sure... Did you read the article? Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's why I wrote that it must be at least orchestrated, in a way that a radio orchestrates the sound by tuning in on correct frequency, amplifying and decoding (digital) or doing FM->AM conversion. I'm not saying that the original comment is for sure 100% wrong. > Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain. Yes and no. Our understanding is very selective; we definitely lack the details on everything, but we know the general picture and details of some parts - which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works. We know for instance that if brain is in fact just an antenna, it's not for anything that goes over EM spectrum, and most likely neither by any particle known to us. Otherwise we'd have figured it out already by accident - people would drop dead underground or close to (shielded) nuclear reactors. On the other hand, we can pull things that look like intermediate computation results out of brains via fMRI. This does not discard original comment's hypothesis, but lets us classify it as "extremely, extremely unlikely".
  - mathgenius 11y ago
    > which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). At the other bottom (and this is perhaps a more orthodox concern) is "chaoplexology", emergent phenomena and all of that. If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? (btw i'm not suggesting this is literally how we evolved, but just to give a different perspective on evolution as we currently conceive it.)
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). No matter how many more levels are down there, everything has to add up to normality. When we discovered relativity, apples didn't suddenly start to fall up. We may discover new ways of looking at the world, or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit, but the world will work in the same way the day after such discovery as it worked the day before. Unless the fundamental laws of the universe have conditionals that branch on cognitive state of human beings, at which point all bets are off and you can assume anything can happen. We have hovewer no evidence that would suggest that hypothesis over the usual one, that the world works the way it works whether we know how or not. > If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? I would be able to work something out. For starters, that I'm dealing with a computational device. It's hard to imagine what would be the level of technology four billion years old aliens, nor what problems would they be trying to solve - but I'm pretty sure that if you travelled back in time and dropped Isaac Newton a PC with a nuclear battery (and infinite supply of spare parts) he'd figure out some basics of how it works and why it does the thing it does. The very process by which humans do that is called "science". I guess my point is - we definitely don't know everything, but that doesn't allow us to assume "shit's magic" and every point of view is equally valid. There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others.

mathgenius 11y ago

It seems really interesting to consider connections between "computation" (or thought/creativity) and the physics of the universe. This is also related to the question of Platonism, ie. does mathematics exist outside of our own contemplation? For a long time I thought this was ridiculous, but recently I've been seriously wondering if the mere _structure_ of calculation (mathematical discourse as we understand it) could in fact be also driving the shape (what we see) of the universe. To some extent this is obviously true: mathematics does seem to underlie the physics we observe, unreasonably so. Does this suggest that the universe is a giant thought?

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
It's the other way around: mathematics is derived from physics.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

> I have a theory that the processing that happens in the brain does not all happen by physical means confined to the brain. I think that neurons either have quantum ability of using neurons in other dimensions or somehow have access to some of the machinery that runs the universe itself. Bunk. >That's how we get these ideas about the universe and everything in it, because the brain taps into the computer that runs the universe. No, we get ideas about the universe by looking at it.