4 ms·

I'd argue that the line between software and hardware isn't as clear in neuro as someone with an IT background would like to think, specifically because the ele

I'd argue that the line between software and hardware isn't as clear in neuro as someone with an IT background would like to think, specifically because the electro-chemical activities going on are both, hard and soft, at the same time. This isn't some abstract process running on a biological computer, the biological computer is the sum of the processes that constitute itself. (That's the fascinating thing about bio) To form a memory is something completely different than to store data in a db, as it involves lots and lots of encoding factors. If anything is actually stored, it's not the memory itself, but the perception at time T in relation to the expectations for T, i.e. a delta (think of the times when you listen to a song from the old days and it hurts, because the emotional connotation from back then doesn't match the current situation). Retrieving this delta would be meaningless unless you have the matching interpreter, the entire status machine.

erikerikson 6y ago
I have a background in both. Both are implemented in physical mediums. The gating and current flow are similarly physical as are magnetic field changes on disk mediums. There is a greater diversity in the brain which uses field effects ala hormones, ion movement, transmitter diffusion, and direct electrical connection. The physical/informational duality is present in both so I would suggest that the building out of the hardware using the ambient materials (i.e. trophic factor) is the more specific difference you're looking for rather than the duality. You transition to a difference in encoding which is a significant but separate consideration. I think the thrust of your statement agrees with the science but quickly nice into speculation and undue specificity that to me reads as though you are declaring fact. Language and good communication are hard.
- d110af5ccf 6y ago
  > The physical/informational duality is present in both A very important distinction is that a computer has clean separation between physical data representation (magnetic bits) and physical device implementation (transistors & etc). As an analogy to a biological system I'd suggest an FPGA running a self modifying program that's also reconfiguring the FPGA on the fly. No sane engineer would design such a system (I hope).
  - erikerikson 6y ago
    Self modifying programs have totally been a thing. :D They were hard to reason about so fell by the wayside but still... For ion flow through dendrites and axons, the separation of information transmission from the protein assemblies of neurons is similarly separated. For neurotransmitters the particles are literally packed into bundles and separated from the ionic transmission that causes their release and cell boundaries at the synapse until re-up take. For electric transmission, the electricity is definitely separate from the axon and junction. I think the distinction is a little more in how a single computer's hardware is constrained to a (relatively) small set of finite states outside of outside modification. The brain can expand and contract the set of states that it's physical parts can enter on top of being, for better and worse, less discrete. If our computers could grow their silicon wafers and lay new circuits then we would have something similar.
    - d110af5ccf 6y ago
      Self modifying programs exist, sure, but (as you note) aren't much used. Meanwhile the "software" layer in biology is a tangled mess. > If our computers could grow their silicon wafers and lay new circuits then we would have something similar. Yes, that's why my analogy included reconfiguring the FPGA (ie hardware) that's running the program on the fly. You highlight a number of examples where a reasonably clear line between the biological "hardware" and "software" can be drawn at a given point in time. However, you fail to explicitly mention any of the biological mechanisms involved in reconfiguration, some of which I would consider to blur those lines! The addition and removal of synapses over time is an obvious but fairly slow and boring example. The software is very slowly modifying the hardware by small amounts, but the two are still clearly separate. Epigenetics is more interesting. Any number of convoluted signalling pathways feeding back on the machinery that controls gene expression, with (in some cases) heritable effects. The distinction here remains fairly clear to me at any given point in time. The proteins are the hardware, the DNA the storage, and the program is manipulating the storage so as to modify the synthesis of future hardware components. Easy enough. ... or is it? Often the quantity of some component that gets synthesized is itself used as a signal. Does synthesis being used in this manner mean that the hardware has become part of the software? How far do things have to go before the hardware can be considered to be part of the software? But things get even weirder! > the separation of information transmission from the protein assemblies of neurons is similarly separated Not always! Ever come across GPCR heteromerization? This happens at your synapses (among other places), more or less in real time, in response to various convoluted signalling pathways. It can change how the receptor responds to a given ligand, or even allow it to respond to entirely different ligands. So in some cases, an important part of the "logic" for the neurotransmitter response is being played out by the physical configuration of the receptors. From my perspective, it looks decidedly as though the receptor (ie hardware) has become an integral part of the software. Other examples abound, but this comment has gotten quite lengthy so I digress.

erikerikson 6y ago

I have a background in both. Both are implemented in physical mediums. The gating and current flow are similarly physical as are magnetic field changes on disk mediums. There is a greater diversity in the brain which uses field effects ala hormones, ion movement, transmitter diffusion, and direct electrical connection. The physical/informational duality is present in both so I would suggest that the building out of the hardware using the ambient materials (i.e. trophic factor) is the more specific difference you're looking for rather than the duality. You transition to a difference in encoding which is a significant but separate consideration. I think the thrust of your statement agrees with the science but quickly nice into speculation and undue specificity that to me reads as though you are declaring fact. Language and good communication are hard.

d110af5ccf 6y ago
> The physical/informational duality is present in both A very important distinction is that a computer has clean separation between physical data representation (magnetic bits) and physical device implementation (transistors & etc). As an analogy to a biological system I'd suggest an FPGA running a self modifying program that's also reconfiguring the FPGA on the fly. No sane engineer would design such a system (I hope).
- erikerikson 6y ago
  Self modifying programs have totally been a thing. :D They were hard to reason about so fell by the wayside but still... For ion flow through dendrites and axons, the separation of information transmission from the protein assemblies of neurons is similarly separated. For neurotransmitters the particles are literally packed into bundles and separated from the ionic transmission that causes their release and cell boundaries at the synapse until re-up take. For electric transmission, the electricity is definitely separate from the axon and junction. I think the distinction is a little more in how a single computer's hardware is constrained to a (relatively) small set of finite states outside of outside modification. The brain can expand and contract the set of states that it's physical parts can enter on top of being, for better and worse, less discrete. If our computers could grow their silicon wafers and lay new circuits then we would have something similar.
  - d110af5ccf 6y ago
    Self modifying programs exist, sure, but (as you note) aren't much used. Meanwhile the "software" layer in biology is a tangled mess. > If our computers could grow their silicon wafers and lay new circuits then we would have something similar. Yes, that's why my analogy included reconfiguring the FPGA (ie hardware) that's running the program on the fly. You highlight a number of examples where a reasonably clear line between the biological "hardware" and "software" can be drawn at a given point in time. However, you fail to explicitly mention any of the biological mechanisms involved in reconfiguration, some of which I would consider to blur those lines! The addition and removal of synapses over time is an obvious but fairly slow and boring example. The software is very slowly modifying the hardware by small amounts, but the two are still clearly separate. Epigenetics is more interesting. Any number of convoluted signalling pathways feeding back on the machinery that controls gene expression, with (in some cases) heritable effects. The distinction here remains fairly clear to me at any given point in time. The proteins are the hardware, the DNA the storage, and the program is manipulating the storage so as to modify the synthesis of future hardware components. Easy enough. ... or is it? Often the quantity of some component that gets synthesized is itself used as a signal. Does synthesis being used in this manner mean that the hardware has become part of the software? How far do things have to go before the hardware can be considered to be part of the software? But things get even weirder! > the separation of information transmission from the protein assemblies of neurons is similarly separated Not always! Ever come across GPCR heteromerization? This happens at your synapses (among other places), more or less in real time, in response to various convoluted signalling pathways. It can change how the receptor responds to a given ligand, or even allow it to respond to entirely different ligands. So in some cases, an important part of the "logic" for the neurotransmitter response is being played out by the physical configuration of the receptors. From my perspective, it looks decidedly as though the receptor (ie hardware) has become an integral part of the software. Other examples abound, but this comment has gotten quite lengthy so I digress.