I'm afraid the brain has to be a digital computer, if it's a computer at all, since neuronal firing is all or none (on/off or 1/0).

I don't think so. We have anthropomorphized machines and have in turn mechanized people. Thus we swap parts with computers. But a brain is a biological system, not a mechanical one.

It's one thing that we tend to find it easy to think of things in a computational manner on/off, etc. It's another thing to say that what we are describing is actually computational in nature. People do computations, but they do many other things as well.

Can we say the brain is an analogue computer being able to simulate all physical processes in thd world, even a lightning flash? — Prishon

I can imagine a supernova, let alone imagine a lightning flash. I have curiosity. For instance, when I wrote this response, I wrote "lightening"; that's what I say when I describe an electrical discharge in the clouds. Then I noticed how you spelled it. "Hmmm," I thought; "which one is correct." It turns out your spelling is correct. "Lightening" is the present participle of lighten, or reduce the darkness of something. All these years (I'm 75) I've been saying it wrong,

A computer can not ask itself whether it is right or wrong, and can not 'feel' anything, either way.

Senses, reflexes and learning mechanisms – this is what we start with [at birth], and it is quite a lot, when you think about it. If we lacked any of these capabilities at birth, we would probably have trouble surviving.

But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don’t develop them – ever.

We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve information or images or words from memory registers. Computers do all of these things, but organisms do not. — The Empty Brain, Robert Epstein

We can if we want -- there's nothing that absolutely forces us to, however.

There can be doubt, philosophically, that we even truly know we have brains. (Though I admit we do have smarts.)

Um...I think we need to remember, though, that we're not just brains -- we're these whole bodies, we really are. The fact that we are bodies is and isn't contained in the brain. And if the body is a computer, it's a robot.

But since we imagine robots with free will, we should give ourselves the benefit of the doubt that our inner experience is richer than any mundane vision of mechanism -- it's not just wholly expendable, it's worth something more than any sum of its parts. That is, if one chooses to define the parts as ordinary...

Can we say the brain is an analogue computer being able to simulate all physical processes in thd world, even a lightning flash? — Prishon

I certainly am not an expert on this, but it is my understanding that an analog computer works by modelling a specific process using an analogous process, e.g. the flow of water modelled using the flow of electricity. I don't think a single analog set-up is capable of doing multiple sets of calculations the way a digital computer can using software. Analog computers are much more limited than digital ones are.

Someone please correct the errors in my understanding.

But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don’t develop them – ever. — The Empty Brain, Robert Epstein

We don’t develop rules, knowledge, lexicons and representations?

Yes good point. Have a look at the essay.

off — TheMadFool

"I'm afraid the brain has to be a digital computer, "

Why are you afraid? It can be an analogue one too.

software — T Clark

"modelling a specific process using an analogous process, e.g. the flow of water modelled using the flow of electricity. I don't think a single analog set-up is capable of doing "

Exactly.

nature — Manuel

"not a mechanical one."

Why not?

↪Prishon I'm afraid the brain has to be a digital computer, if it's a computer at all, since neuronal firing is all or none (on/off or 1/0). — TheMadFool

This!




The article does well in showcasing how the narrative and context of our time changes the way how we see ourselves. However, discrediting such a brain-computer metaphor is not necessary in my opinion. Here's the deal: It's all about language.

The metaphors that are used might not be accurate - but they're not exactly wrong either in the process they're trying to describe. I'd say they're simply appropriate in the time and place they came to be used. They're the best the language, powered through the knowledge of that time, had to offer. It's simply that the brain works in reference and comparison - it can not evaluate something which is completely unknown, which it has no comparable experience to. So it makes sense to me that we'd use our newest and most complex framework and the language it provides to describe the processes of our brain.

It's perfectly viable then to break down the brain into computer lingo. Your brain might not work exactly like a computer but a computer has enough complexity to reflect the workings of the brain. It's not just that either: The thing is that programming languages are just that - languages. And they're constructed in a way so you can express any process, similar to how we use our own language every day.

Then I noticed how you spelled it. "Hmmm," I thought; "which one is correct." It turns out your spelling is correct. "Lightening" is the present participle of lighten, or reduce the darkness of something. All these years (I'm 75) I've been saying it wrong,

A computer can not ask itself whether it is right or wrong, and can not 'feel' anything, either way. — Bitter Crank

Let's take this as a little example:


1. Brain continuously runs a thread (process) called "SensoryInput".
2. The SensoryInput thread recognizes a new object of the type "Text".
3. Every letter, every word, as well as the whole sentence, get passed over by SensoryInput to
a function named "compare".
4. The compare function checks the object of type Text with the internal reference archive. If a word is in that archive, we'll have a meaning to it. In the same way, this is where our spelling would be stored. In this case, we realize the difference between our own internal archive and the text we have as input (lightning/lightening).
5. The compare function, having found a discrepancy, calls the function "check". We look up the correct spelling for the word lightning.
6. We see that our spelling of lightning was incorrect. The function check calls the function "learn" and updates our internal archive with the correct spelling.

check — Hermeticus

"Your brain might not work exactly like a computer but a computer has enough complexity to reflect the workings of the brain"

Not exactly? Exactly not! Enough complexity? Not even a zillionth!

I sometimes daydream how my brain works. It's fun for a while.

The thing is, we have no access to how our brain produces "us". Most of the brain's activities are sub- or non-conscious. The conscious mind is cut out of all the internal traffic -- or at least, 99.9%. This isn't a defect--it's a feature. It enables us to attend to what we wish to attend to consciously, or what is forced upon us. We don't have to deal with both the action on the baseball diamond and the details of digestion, proprioception, and keeping our heart and lungs operating all at the same time.

We can observe something about the brain with EEGS and fMRIs, which are still a very far cry from observing our brain producing "us".

99.9 — Bitter Crank

Can't I upvote your comment?:smile:

1. Brain continuously runs a thread (process) called "SensoryInput". — Hermeticus

The brain receives a lot of input all the time, from internal and external sources. A lot of what passes through seems to be unexamined. Sometimes it's appalling how much, sometimes important stuff, can pass along this flow of information and not be noticed. I didn't notice the revolution, but suddenly noticed that dog-shaped cloud.

There's nothing wrong with your flow chart; it looks like what you would put together if you were applying yourself to writing an input/output program. Maybe you composed the list using memory plus imagination. I bet you have no knowledge of how the brain actually delivered that material to your fingers so you could type it. I can't explain what part of my brain is generating the text I am now typing. (Sure, the language production area; saying so comes out of memory not experience.)

Most of the brain's activities are sub- or non-conscious. The conscious mind is cut out of all the internal traffic -- or at least, 99.9% — Bitter Crank

User Illusion

The user illusion is the illusion created for the user by a human–computer interface, for example the visual metaphor of a desktop used in many graphical user interfaces. The phrase originated at Xerox PARC.

Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. — Wikipedia

Was it Sigmund Freud, can't recall, who used the iceberg analogy for consciousness? It basically states that what we're aware of consciously is only 10% of all the brain processing at any one time.

N.B. Only 10% of an iceberg is visible above the water. The rest, a huge 90%, is underwater.

Not exactly? Exactly not! Enough complexity? Not even a zillionth! — Prishon

See:

The thing is that programming languages are just that - languages. And they're constructed in a way so you can express any process, similar to how we use our own language every day. — Hermeticus

The thing is, we have no access to how our brain produces "us". Most of the brain's activities are sub- or non-conscious. — Bitter Crank

It's true that the process of the brain is intangible.

As the Upanishads put it:
"You cannot see That which is the Seer of seeing; you cannot hear That which is the Hearer of hearing; you cannot think of That which is the Thinker of thought; you cannot know That which is the Knower of knowledge. This is your Self, that is within all; everything else but This is perishable.”"

This stands true for an intelectual and psychological point of view. However, through science, we can now take a physical look at the brain. For instance, we now know about neurotransmitters and synapses. We know synapses have a sort of treshold. They have to gain a signal of X "strength" to let the neuron cross the synaptic cleft and reach either the next neuron or a cell itself. This is precisely what you're describing:

The brain receives a lot of input all the time, from internal and external sources. A lot of what passes through seems to be unexamined. — Bitter Crank

It's not as if it seems to be unexamined. Certainly stimuli are actually unexamined because sensory input isn't strong enough to pass through "presynaptic evaluation". In recent years, it even came to light that this process is a two-way street. Based on experience the brain will adjust these synaptic thresholds. The brain programs its own operation based on what it experiences.


In this sense, our thinking apparatus can be equated to a self-improving algorithm.

I bet you have no knowledge of how the brain actually delivered that material to your fingers so you could type it. I can't explain what part of my brain is generating the text I am now typing. — Bitter Crank

It's like this: I can't actually have a peek into the "source code" but by comparing my inputs with the results that they deliver, over time, I can make rather accurate guesses as to how that source code might look.


Ultimately my point is: No, our brains are not exactly computers. But much of the processes are comparable. And I reckon it's fair to describe the happenings in technological terms for the sake of discussion. It's just a matter of taste. All words in the end are an attempt to infuse a certain meaning into communicational interaction.

certain — Hermeticus

But the question is: is it an analogue one? As I think.

But the question is: is it an analogue one? — Prishon

Truth be told, our brains seem capable of grasping multivalent and fuzzy logic and that seems to suggest some kind of analog nature to it. However, even digital computers seem as able, which undermines any conclusions that our encephalon is analog in form and/or function.

that — TheMadFool

" seem as able"

Indeed, seem. The brain functions on completely different priciples as those for a digital computer. If I think of a chess board there is litteraly an analogue pattern in the brain.

This! — Hermeticus

...not quite. Neurons do indeed tend to "fire" or "not", but they quite often fire at frequencies which can increase and decrease. Furthermore, neural firings are affected by their local chemistries, and there's a lot of chemistry going on in the brain. Said chemistries often work at the level of individual gates on the neurons affecting the relative concentration of ions across the cell barrier. It's overly simplistic to conclude that neurons must be digital just because they fire all or none.

It's overly simplistic to conclude that neurons must be digital just because they fire all or none. — InPitzotl

It has nothing to do with simplicity.

An analog computer uses an analog signal. It means that I have a continuous input in some shape and form - be it a mechanical motion or an electric current.

A digital signal on the other hand is a sequence of isolated values within a certain range. Neurons must be digital precisely because they fire all or none. It's binary. It falls under the definition of a digital signal.

Here's the difference visualized:


Neurons firing and changing in frequencies only means just that: A sequence. A pattern. Do my senses communicate me "00100100" or "10101010"?

Furthermore, neural firings are affected by their local chemistries, and there's a lot of chemistry going on in the brain. Said chemistries often work at the level of individual gates on the neurons affecting the relative concentration of ions across the cell barrier. — InPitzotl

Now this is where the interesting things happens. Neurons just go "true" or "false". But these "gates" decide what to do with the true or false. This is where the programming, the algorithm of the brain lies.

analog — Hermeticus

"Now this is where the interesting things happens. Neurons just go "true" or "false". But these "gates" decide what to do with the true or false. This is where the programming, the algorithm of the brain lies.

There is no programming. In the sense that a program is going on somewhere in other parts of the brain and that directs the flow of information, like in a digital computer. The information just follows a path of least resistance and this resistance is contained in connection strengths between neurons.

A further difference is that 1's and0's in a computer are driven by an external potential or voltage and current source. The potential peaks traveling in the brain don't need these (there are just out- and inflows of positive ions through ion channels along the dendrites). A totally different mechanism.

There are no machines in nature. This point was proved decisively when Newton discovered action at a distance, which shows that there need not be physical contact between objects for there to be motion.

Prior to that, it was thought that the world was essentially a giant clock, working in essentially a mechanistic manner.

Now with the newer physics, the world is even less machine like than ever. I don't see what is particularly computer like about the brain. People can "compute" things, and do many other things as well.

essentially — Manuel

"There are no machines in nature. This point was proved decisively when Newton discovered action at a distance."

Isn' t the connected couple human body and brain (emerged in Nature, insomuch you can still speak of Nature) a machine? Not one made by humans but just evolved slowly. I dont see why action at a distance proves there are no machines. Action at a distance is matter "dominated". What forms the content of matter will always remain a mystery. Though we can feel it!!!

Machines are something we attribute to nature. They aren't found in nature.

Action at a distance disproved the world is machine because mechanistic materialism thought the world worked like giant clock, based on contact mechanics. The idea behind this being "if we can build it, we can understand it."

But it turns out the world does not work like a giant clock, there can be action with direct mechanistic contact.

But many people still stipulate that the brain is a machine, or aspects of the universe a machine. But they aren't. Machines happen to be a common way people think about things.

Chomsky and E.A. Burrt go over this history quite thoroughly. It can be found to some extent in Russell too. The brain aspect is covered quite well by Tallis.

thought — Manuel

Isn't the planetary system like a giant clockwork. Without the planets being in contact? In that respect, my brain looks more like a clockwork. The BIG difference being that there is no spring (the voltage source in digital computers) driving the parts.

machine — Manuel

It depends how you view a machine. It is not nessesarily something made from parts and subsequently put in motion. People cant construct people. The brain is not set in motion at some point.

There is no programming. In the sense that a program is going on somewhere in other parts of the brain and that directs the flow of information, like in a digital computer. The information just follows a path of least resistance and this resistance is contained in connection strengths between neurons. — Prishon

And does the brain not direct the flow of information? The programming in this sense is the brains chemistry. Sensory input is received, a neuron signal is fired, synapse checks if the condition to jump this particular gap is true or false and if true lets the neuron pass into a cell. The cell then in accordance to the received signal runs a function of its own.

My point again: It's all just a metaphor anyway. A brain is a brain. A computer is a computer. I do believe the mechanics are quite similar. But even if they weren't I could construct a metaphor of it being so because programming languages were made for exactly that: describing any process.

A further difference is that 1's and0's in a computer are driven by an external potential or voltage and current source. — Prishon

Also an external power source is not a criteria for being a digital system. It depends on the signal structure as I explained above. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an internal power source. Yes, our biology does create energy - but why do you think you have to take in sustenance to stay alive?