Originally posted by: firewolfsm
No matter how fast the theory evolves and how early we think we're ready for it, computers won't come close to being able to keep track of every chemical reaction in the brain and how those reactions interact with each other for at least a hundred years.
Only then can we start researching how to begin.
I agree, human brains GROW new kinds of "switches" and organize themselves in complex fractal patterns. No computer can do this. Not until nanomachines will we see computers destroying and re-organizing their own circuitry and even then, you'd need a "food source" / material source for the machines to work on a fully operating computer in real time.
No one here realizes the processes that go on in the brain while their brains are operating, trillions of operations per second throughout the body are going on without anyones conscious awareness of it. The brain is connected to every part of the body via nerve systems far beyond the complexity of the modern internet.
Real brains are growing new neurons and destroying old ones, with a complexity far beyond our current technology.
Some evidence for information processing by the microtubules comes from studies of paramecia which seem to show that they can learn:
For example, a number of studies have observed paramecia swimming and escaping from capillary tubes in which they could turn around. In general, results showed that with practice the ciliates took successively less and less time to escape, indicative of a learning mechanism ( French, 1940; Applewhite and Gardner, 1973; Fukui and Asai, 1976). Many other experiments suggest paramecia can learn to swim in patterns and through mazes and have a short-term memory, although some of these behaviors depend on their environment ( Applewhite, 1979
. [Hameroff et. al. 1993]
If neurons are responsible for learning in multi-celled animals it is hard to explain how a one-celled animal with NO neurons can learn. The theory is that the cytoskeleton is the nervous system of the paramecium and the cytoskeleton is a miniature computer. The gist of the article quoted above is to explore ways of doing computing using microtubules without considering quantum mechanical effects. The authors of that article also estimate that a paramecium (or a neuron or some other cell) could move around bits at the rate of 10^13 bits per second. Thus every cell with microtubules (this is almost all cells) may contain a computer. A human brain counting only the use of 10^11 neurons and allowing for some redundancy would move around 10^23 bits per second according to this article. Another estimate I've seen is 10^28 bits per second. In either case this is rather a lot more than a digital computer can manage at this time and if this is what is going on then it will be a while before digital computers can compete with the brain. (There is an online article by Joel Henkel where he speculates how quantum effects could account for learning in paramecia, again more than I can follow but for the sake of people who may be interested I think I should list it.)
Facebook
Twitter