From: Phillip Huggan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 06 2006 - 12:21:20 MDT
Human neural synchronizations are an entirely different class of phenomena than are the computer programming variety. I cringe when I hear attempts to equate each neuron with a bit. There is no computer programming equivalent to our amygdala. There is no computer programming equivalent to the chemistry hardware our brains run off of. There is no neural equivalent to computer software (the laying down of memories?!). Computers don't utilize quantum effects. Any quantum computers we can envision engineering seem to top out around 150-200 Q-bits. Computers don't use chemistry, brains do.
I suspect a computer = brain approach might yield some clues to the way our minds integrate sensory info, but that it will quickly stall when the model encounters behaviours emerging from some of the deeper recesses of our minds. Our brains are the most complex objects in the universe. Computers are just giant abacuses.
Charles D Hixson <email@example.com> wrote:
Because I'm a programmer, and I know how synchronizations work. Mind you, I
also believe I attended a talk where a neurologist was talking about the
structures of neural fibers, and some of the axons took a winding path so
that the signals would sync when they were evaluated...but I wouldn't have
believed that was significant without prior reason.
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 04:16 pm, Phillip Huggan wrote:
> Why do you think some neurons are nothing more than time delay loops?
> Which neurons?
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 20 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT