5 ms·

Face It, Your Brain Is a Computer

• johansch 11y ago
  The only way I can explain the (almost entirely american) backlash at the idea of the human brain being a computer that we can emulate is that a lot of them are religious. That is sad.
  • return0 11y ago
    In academic circles most of it comes from philosophers of mind, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
    • johansch 11y ago
      Who in their right mind would go to philosophers to get an understanding on how the human brain works at a physical level? Why not go to your priest instead? Same level of understanding.
      • Terr_ 11y ago
        Perhaps less: Priests may have more direct experience with a variety of minds :p
      • Osmium 11y ago
        I think that's somewhat unfair to philosophers. Besides the fact that science grew out of philosophy, even today philosophers are very good at defining problems and finding logical inconsistencies. As a scientist, that seems very useful indeed. To understand the brain on a "physical level", we have to know what questions we're asking first.
        • return0 11y ago
          My experience is that philosophy of mind has almost nothing to offer to modern neuroscience. The questions being asked are the unhelpful ones and signify a general obsession with semantics, subjectivity and language tricks.
      • DanWaterworth 11y ago
        Do you know what philosophy is? Do you know what science is?
        • dang 11y ago
          The GP was not a high-quality comment, but please don't make things personal.
          • DanWaterworth 11y ago
            You only think that I'm making things personal because you think those questions, "what is philosophy?", "what is science?" are basic questions that it would be an embarrassment not to know the answers to.
            • dang 11y ago
              That's sort of true, but misses my point. I'll try to be clearer. Such questions are commonly used as rhetorical weapons, so if you don't mean them that way, it's incumbent on you to make the distinction. In this case that might mean (a) providing enough information to explain why escalating the question is necessary to the discussion, as opposed to a closet insult, and (b) using impersonal language. For example, you already changed your wording from "do you know what science is" to "what is science". That's a big difference.
              • DanWaterworth 11y ago
                OK, I appreciate your feedback.
• abledon 11y ago
  Hmmm, They don't cover an important fact: Our intestinal microbiome of bugs that live inside our stomach, affecting our moods and behaviour [1]. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141114-autism-gut-brain-probiotic-research-biology-medicine-bacteria/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141114-autis...
  • johansch 11y ago
    I could think of another 10 things that affect humans moods and behavior that is not mentioned in this article. Your point being?
    • abledon 11y ago
      That its an important part of how our brain is influenced in working, and might have been mentioned in the article to give the reader a better understanding of underlying mechanisms.
• guyzero 11y ago
  It's totally a computer! Not like how 99% of the world uses the word "computer" but it computes things and is vaguely like a FPGA so it's a computer! Not serial but parallel! Like computers!@ But not parallel like the computer you have. Like a computer that doesn't actually exist. But it's a computer!
• logician76 11y ago
  As long as science keeps thinking this, we won't have to worry about the singularity any time soon.
  • nirai 11y ago
    The problem here is that the so called singularity does not necessarily depend on machines having the so called qualia.
• linschn 11y ago
  The only serious counter-argument I've heard against the hypothesis that the brain goes further than a Turing machine is that the brain does not implement an algorithm, with one input, some processing steps, and one output. Instead, it processes information as it comes, this information comes during the processing of previous information and the output partly loops back to the input. Short-circuits everywhere, no clock, etc. I'm unconvinced but I could not refute the argument formally. Note that this does not contradict the Church-Turing Hypothesis : if you restrict the brain to one input, some processing steps with a pen and paper without arrival of new information, and an output, then it is very possible that the brain can only work out Turing-computable problems.
  • guard-of-terra 11y ago
    'information comes during the processing of previous information and the output partly loops back to the input" Computers do this all the time. Simplest example is "cancel" button everywhere.
    • linschn 11y ago
      The point is that out definition of the computability of a function is too narrow, and does not take into account the real-time all connected nature of the computation the brain does. Therefore, we lack formal way of satisfactorily compare the brain to a Turing Machine.
      • guard-of-terra 11y ago
        I don't see why. Your computer reacts to keyboard and mouse in the real time, also for network packets going in and out. And it's plain turing machine. It does so by regarding every input as they become available, one by one. Information comes to brain via neurons, and those have finite speed, it's not as they had quantum-like properties. Signal in; signal out, with delay and altered magnitude.
        • linschn 11y ago
• themgt 11y ago
  I think the key fail is hidden beneath this statement, 'many “digital” computer switches are built out of analog components and processes'. In fact obviously, all computers are built out of analog components, in the sense that the entire universe is analog. However, this is the problem. Computers are designed to interpret or translate the messy analog world where nothing is exactly 1 or 0, into a precise, deterministic digital world where everything is either 1 or 0. And I think it's highly likely that the brain does not work in this manner whatsoever, and that in fact, in the translation of reality into 1s and 0s, you've lost far too much to properly "compute consciousness" Would it be possible to build a synthetic brain out of some form of "analog computer", capable of consciousness? Almost certainly. But since we have no idea what sort of architecture or paradigm that would use, or how we would program it or whether it would even "execute instructions" in a way remotely similar to digital computer software, such a declaration becomes meaningless.
  • linschn 11y ago
    You can approximate any analog value to arbitrary precision using a (by nature binary) Turing Machine, therefore you can bring the loss of information as low as needed. The question is whether the brain offers a more complete framework than all the models of computation we know today (which are equivalent to one another). To put it another way : is there a function that the brain can compute that a Turing Machine cannot. We know of no such function now, but have ruled out yet that there is none, although most computer scientist agree with the Church-Turing hypothesis.
    • themgt 11y ago
      But this is effectively begging the question. If you assume that reality can be completely described by functions that compute on natural numbers, then obviously anything within reality, including consciousness, can be simulated by a Turing machine. Unless I've missed something, it's not actually been shown that the universe itself is Turing-computable, therefore there's no reason to assume everything within the universe could be equivalently simulated on a Turing machine. It could also be that in theory, consciousness is Turing computable, but not in practice. For example just computing a protein fold for 1 millisecond takes hundreds of ASICs days of compute time. This might give some clue that complex physical wetware processes are not able to be efficiently simulated in real time on any realistic Turing machine.
• coldtea 11y ago
  I find the metaphor bad. My brain might work like a computer (computation et al), but the word computer evokes actual existing computers to a layman -- and my brain doesn't have a von neumann architecture, nor does it run something similar to our software. A neural network does computation of course, but we wouldn't call it a "computer" in the sense we use the word when dealing with, well, computers.
  • rndn 11y ago
    I agree, calling it a computer is the origin of a lot of confusion. Perhaps "information processing" is a better term.
  • electrograv 11y ago
    I agree; saying "the brain is a computer" is much like saying "the universe is a computer". We can simulate the universe with astounding accuracy on many levels (though not all) with computers. Furthermore, when studying the universe deeply we see astoundingly computer-like traits[1]. But to express this by saying the universe is a computer is very misleading. Similarly, artificial neural networks simulated by computers achieve huge strides in AI, accomplishing things many said would always be impossible (e.g. art[2]). Also, we see many computer-like traits in the brain. But to express this by saying the brain is a computer is very misleading. [1] http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+universe+is+a+computer+simulation http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+universe+is+a+computer+simulation [2] http://googleresearch.blogspot.ca/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html http://googleresearch.blogspot.ca/2015/06/inceptionism-going...
  • mcphage 11y ago
    > and my brain doesn't have a von neumann architecture "Computer" doesn't automatically equal "von neuman architecture". > nor does it run something similar to our software A lack of software-equivalent is a pretty good criticism, though.
    • coldtea 11y ago
      >"Computer" doesn't automatically equal "von neuman architecture". No, but that's what most people are familiar with (if they are familiar with computer architectures in the first place), so it pretty much equals that for them.
• avera 11y ago
  My closest belief is near similar as mentioned in article, that brain, at some level has some "computational primitive", which resembles transistor functionality. But that is only one level. There can be additional layers of function, which can be influenced by sub-atomic entities, like elementary particles. We still don't know how deep this goes. This is, what most likely, provides depth of our consciousness. Our biological hardware is built out of finite atoms. Consciousness unfolds out of "electrochemical circuits". Electricity == consciousness. We have what is called "human energy" - emotions are one example of expressions out of it. For AI, to be human like, it has to simulate physical behaviour of human energy. I see, that out of this energy behaviour simulations can emerge what I call "computational psychology". That is, computer could analyze and decode human behaviour and "understand" like psychologist does this. Thing is, that many people don't see these subtle patterns - they are learned over lifetime with different success rates. Once they are aware of these patterns, they can function more efficiently as a human. Such "psychologist as app in your pocket" potentially can raise overall quality of society.
  • stevenmays 11y ago
    You should read the book On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. Pay attention to Chapter 6, "How the cortex works". Our "consciousness" is derived of the same stuff in all animals, we just have more cortical layers. We also have fuzzy algorithms which allow the brain to recognize patterns, and associate x with y. http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/0805078533 http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/080507... I think to postulate that there's a yet undiscovered subatomic elementary particle that gives rise to consciousness is hogwash. "Consciousness" or awareness of self has been shown in other animals. Humans are distinct in their ability to couple self-awareness and toolmaking. There is no "human energy" it's the same material as in all other animals, we just have more of it. The "human energy" could be classified as distinct fuzzy algorithms found in humans which aid pattern recognition.
    • avera 11y ago
      Not one elementary particle, but whole interaction of many of them. Yes, animals have that same substance, but at lesser scale. I make distinction between pure intellect, which computer can do fine, and other component, which I doubt that it can be accessed by computer without connecting silicon with biological material.
• ScottBurson 11y ago
  I'll never forget hearing Jerry Lettvin [0] pronounce, in his slow, measured, way: "The brain is not a computer. The brain is a gland." I think he said it partly to tweak his MIT AI Lab audience (this must have been about 1982). But he had a point: a lot goes on in the brain that is not digital. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Lettvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Lettvin
  • guard-of-terra 11y ago
    My computer also doubles as fan and vacuum cleaner.
• gooseyard 11y ago
  An interesting opposing view http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511421/the-brain-is-not-computable/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511421/the-brain-is-not...
• samatman 11y ago
  This is entirely backwards. Computers are designed to emulate brains. More specifically, to perform a certain category of brain activity (calculation). To date, a brain is still needed to make a computer do anything. No brain, no software; no software, all we have is an inert lump of metals and plastics. We should be quite wary of reversing metaphors in this fashion. 19th century psychology contained a number of metaphors derived ultimately from the steam engine, for human consciousness, and for reality. All we've done is update the machine; the comparison is still backwards.
• noblethrasher 11y ago
  (1) A computer is anything that does computations, and a computation is just a set of states that are partially ordered with respect to a “next” state relation. (2) A universal computer is a computer that can simulate any other computer with some bounded slowdown in performance (the actual important thing about such computers is that they can simulate better computers). So, while the brain seems to have a universal computer (since it can design and run universal computers), it’s not obvious that a universal computer can simulate a brain without infinite slowdown. Some evidence against brains being equivalent to Universal Turing Machines is that some brains can perceive real numbers. Thus, it’s conceivable that even if the mind (the thing that is realized by a brain) is a partially ordered set of states, it’s possible that the states themselves are not computable. Now, I am not claiming that we cannot eventually build a brain, just suggesting that maybe the only thing that can simulate a brain is another brain.
• sukruh 11y ago
  Any reasonable definition of computer includes things that can do arithmetic, and since brains can do that, brains are computers. The distinction between analog and digital computers doesn’t seem to be so important to me. Any computation that an analog computer can do, can also be done with digital computers and vice versa. Digital computers can process continuous-time signals as precise as analog computers, and analog computers can do logic. Which kind of computer you use depends on convenience with respect to the resources and computational problem in hand. The “brains don’t download software” part also isn’t convincing. Brains are capable of manipulating symbols, but the rule set needs to be learned in the case of arithmetic, or selected, in the case of natural language according to inputs. Also, software doesn’t have to be like “1. Do this, 2. Do that, 3. End”, like the article implies. The brain can be running on a game loop, planning future actions according to some stochastic utility function. Also, I find it useful when thinking about brains to separate the functions that are done unconsciously from those that are not. To me, unconscious functions of the brain seem more like using specialised hardware. Of course, those parts are almost certainly doing computation to full their functions, but it is “not abstract symbol manipulation according to some learnable rules” that people associate with consciousness.