Is the brain a computer?

[zarc]

Associating the brain with a computer does nothing except for create a scenario where we ask the wrong questions. The truth is, they have totally different processes on how they came to exist, and it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to make any type of assumption they can be somehow correlated to being the same thing.

...............

This is my opinion on the way scientists/philosophers will go about understanding the brain. Feel free to tear it apart and put me in my place if it doesn't resonate with you...

I don't know if you read all or the majority of the posts but dissonance (the OP starter) amended the Thread's title in a much later post. S/he said that the question should have been something similiar to "Does the brain function like a computer?" But since you'll probably not like a different formation as it doesn't change the comparison or association, I'll continue as it seemed to clearly upset or frustrate you. Firstly, no one is correlating the brain-computer analogy to being the *same* thing. It's been, as far as I remember, being compared as a *similiarity* Biiiiiig difference, buddy lol We have instincts to primates (and all animals) but we say we're similiar and not the the same. No one has either stated that the computer would work or even emulate in a personal function as the brain does with secretion of hormones etc. But people in RL are trying to get computers to *emulate* us with advances in that arena. Is it the same, no, but it'd be somewhat simliar in mimicry.

Yes, we created computers and we don't have complete knowledge as to why our brain functions the way it does, yes, but bear with me. We also don't know why we exist, aside from the brain that comes with , and a whole bunch of crapshot explanations from religion to w/e else comes with. The one, I'd hope, most people are more likely in believing is in the Theory of Evolution. However, it's still a theory. I recently figured that out after listening to Ron Paul say he still believes in Creationism but admited that both Creationism and Evolution are both theories , he just prefers the other choice--yea, this coming from a Doctor. Now, I'm not even American but I want him to be their president even after I thought he was crazy for saying that...but then realised he's actually right (alongside that he'll never win). Evolution is still a theory, it just seems more plausible and logical than some crazy nut or nuts from a holy text that dictate why we're here or what to do and randomly decides to execute babies for sins of Fathers or piss a flood to get rid of us when it/s angry but I digress (sorry if you believe, though I doubt but still in case, or anyone reading this who believes in religion--).

So, back to the comparisons. I don't think comparison leads to the wrong questions but perhaps can open new ones on evolution (if you read my posts you'll get what I mean) and if this theory still holds true in future lol. Nacopascy says below, computers may be an accidental projection of how we might work or wanting to understand that--so, no we don't know but it's insightful to look into it and see the comparisons instead of just writing it off because it seems so ridiculous. Most things in life are ridiculous or were considered ridiculous. Most scientists who ever became prominent long ago were called 'crazy' or were written off because they couldn't be understood at the time. It was several years after they passed or while they were still alive before they were accepted and their ideas were expounded upon. You might be thinking, that's science regarding science and this is regarding technology, but all things in life are interrelated or interdependent. We wouldn't be here existing if otherwise, neither science nor the technology b/c we created these means of understanding and improving our lives. Lastly, discoveries on science and probably even technology came from something treated as mysterious (look at my lovely siggie quote from Einstein <-- ). Humans have been and mostly still are arrogant creatures believing in w/e they think is right and disregarding things merely b/c it doesn't make sense to them at the time. Newton, supposedly, got konked on the head by an apple or watched it dropped and developed his theory on universal gravitation. Random events or acts can inspire so much beautiful results within civilisation, from art to social customs and even amongst science.

I'm not saying you'll eventually believe in the worth of the brain-computer analogy, either. But perhaps you can appreciate it for what it is, something that might further incite new discovery or perhaps even help us to understand the brain, however unrelated it seems. Not so literaly, either. So many things in life seem so totaly unrelated but we make it relatable for w/e reason (or not even knowing it but doing it anyway). Bridging systems of everything from majors (I knew someone with a Drama-Chemistry major ) to mixing *races* and species intermixing to create new ones to mixing even the aforementioned psychologies of evolution to philosophy to biological etc.

I'd ask if you have time to read/shred my posts a few below yours (there are 2 crazily lonnnnng and 1 semi-long ones strictly on the brain-computer (router + internet + more) comparisons, disregard the others I made unless you want to

So, tell me your thoughts (as no one has done so yet as I think they were just too long for most and my feelings are hurt ~)and then if you think they're ridiculous (and no, that's not me with more hurt feelings, just curious you can dismiss it all as you please

 

[nightning]

I didn't realize this thread is still active... I thought people came to an agreement, I guess not.

Associating the brain with a computer does nothing except for create a scenario where we ask the wrong questions. The truth is, they have totally different processes on how they came to exist, and it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to make any type of assumption they can be somehow correlated to being the same thing.

I guess the main question would be what's the objective of this comparison? For understanding how the brain works? Or someone might project that to seeing the differences between processes of a brain vs a computer, would having a computer emulate neural networks makes it more efficient? Obviously the brain works completely different than a computer... that's been stated way back in the beginning of the discussion.

When concerning a possible route to understanding the brain, there really is no choice but to speculate on how it might be possible in the future. Basically we don't understand hardly any of the 'why' questions concerning the brain, which makes it very difficult to interpret the objective data.

Correct


If I were in charge of the world, my approach to understanding the brain would be as follows:

1) Evolutionary approach to the brain - Agree... assuming the theory of evolution is correct. The question is how does something macroscopic like evolution drives the microscopic formation of more efficient neural networks? You can say via random mutation and survival of the fittest... But how does that really help us understand the brain? Random mutation doesn't really translate into how neural networks function. Essentially there's a huge gap between what we know about how simple isolated neuron prep works compared to how human thinking works. And evolution isn't going to bridge that really.

2) Emperical approach

c) The nature of the scientific method makes testing behavior in parts of the brain very ambiguous and makes it hard to properly interpret concrete results. (ie we know the amygdala is related to anger, and the hippocampus to learning... but to actually sit down and agree on concrete results concerning the relationship with these behaviors relating to the rest of the brain would be painstakingly difficult, and we can never really know all the exact variables that are causing the behavior we feel is being produced) - Agree mostly... also problems with converting concrete experimental results into interpretations of how the system work. Too many unknown variables involved. Even for amygdala being related to emotions (activation in an angry person), the hippocampus related to spatial learning. We don't know what exactly is going on. For example, yes the hippocampus is involved in spatial learning... but what about patients with right parietal damage? Their spatial learning is also impaired... How does the two related? Don't know. How do you make something concrete when there's so many holes? I think that's one reason why nobody can sit down and agree to much. There are too many opposing theories and not enough data to refute them.

d) We would need to agree that we understand all the physical processes that are causing the results that we see. Things like LTP are 'thought' to be involved in certain neurobiological functions like memory, but there really is no idea how it works, even though the chemical mechanism is understood... we just notice a superficial correlation between the mechanism and memory. - Oh the good old LTP vs LTD. *nods* Nobody knows what they really mean other than ideas that it might be related to memory since it's found in the hippocampus and the theory of synaptic plasticity seems to 'fit'.

3) Genetics vs environmental determinents - Well I think (hope anyhow) in the future, people will start to deal more with interactions of the two. Areas such as asthma research are already heading into that... how people can be predisposed to getting asthma but require environmental triggers in order to get it at a molecular level... DNA histone binding, strand methylation etc. Hopefully more fields will start doing that once they understand the basics of individual variables.

This is my opinion on the way scientists/philosophers will go about understanding the brain. Feel free to tear it apart and put me in my place if it doesn't resonate with you...

I believe most scientists will agree with what you've said. But in the end... there's just far too much unknown. I'm not sure we'll ever figure out every single nuance of the brain. Afterall, the brain's there to help us survive... not for us to figure out how it works.

 

[zarc]

I believe most scientists will agree with what you've said. But in the end... there's just far too much unknown. I'm not sure we'll ever figure out every single nuance of the brain. Afterall, the brain's there to help us survive... not for us to figure out how it works.

Agreed with post. And LOLOL the brain is just there, alright. I'll say, however, that it's perception of consciousness that's the root cause of why we wanna figure anything out along with why/how the brain works.

 

[cdal233]

Hey guys I'm sorry I didn't realize the thread was dead.

I didn't realize that the thread's title changed either, and I read all the posts before posting, but I guess I was in the mindset of looking for ideas while reading and skimming everything else... my bad.

I wasn't mad, I just felt like bringing my objective way of looking at it to the table. The discussion seemed to really lack the angle concerning scientific philosophy.

EDIT: Also, from my experience, these ideas don't really represent the scientific community. Everyone has their own views on how to put the pieces together that differs from the others.

Thanks for your thoughts/opinions though

But in the end... there's just far too much unknown. I'm not sure we'll ever figure out every single nuance of the brain. Afterall, the brain's there to help us survive... not for us to figure out how it works.

Yes Yes Yes...

 

[zarc]

Hey guys I'm sorry I didn't realize the thread was dead.

I didn't realize that the thread's title changed either, and I read all the posts before posting, but I guess I was in the mindset of looking for ideas while reading and skimming everything else... my bad.

I wasn't mad, I just felt like bringing my objective way of looking at it to the table. The discussion seemed to really lack the angle concerning scientific philosophy.

Thanks for your thoughts/opinions though

The title didn't change but dissonance mentioned it should've been in a later post. However, come to my thread if you want. It expounds on the analogies albeit much differently. I wager it'll interest you.