On Computing the Brain and Mind

gib

In neuroscience, a biological neural network is a series of interconnected neurons whose activation defines a recognizable linear pathway. The interface through which neurons interact with their neighbors usually consists of several axon terminals connected via synapses to dendrites on other neurons. If the sum of the input signals into one neuron surpasses a certain threshold, the neuron sends an action potential (AP) at the axon hillock and transmits this electrical signal along the axon.

Biological neural networks have inspired the design of artificial neural networks.

OK . . . this caught my eye :laughing: you do not have to be a dualist for this to be the case. Let us say that the mind(software) is running on the computer hardware(brain).

It is necessary to look at it this way because some very special things take place.

The computer has an assembly language that sits on top of the logic - the logic is in the biological neural networks(axon terminals, synapses, dendrites, blah, blah, blah :laughing: ) - next the assembly language has to be gradually translated to the language of mind(the silent language or English or both) - when you program in C# eventually your instructions are executed by internal logic(via assembly language) within the electronic circuits even though a lot of English is taking place in your code:

// Hello1.cs public class Hello1 { public static void Main() { System.Console.WriteLine("Hello, World!"); } }
Now for the assembler:

[code]format PE64 GUI

entry start
section ‘.text’ code readable executable

start:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp

xor rcx, rcx
lea rdx, [szText]
lea r8, [szCaption]
xor r9d, r9d
call [MessageBoxA]

xor rax, rax
leave
ret

section ‘.idata’ import data readable
dd 0, 0, 0, RVA user32, RVA user_table
dd 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

user_table:
MessageBoxA dq RVA _MessageBoxA
dq 0

user32 db ‘USER32.DLL’, 0

_MessageBoxA dw 0
db ‘MessageBoxA’, 0

section ‘.rdata’ data readable
szText db 0x77, 0x69, 0x72, 0x65, 0x6d, 0x61, 0x73, 0x6b, 0x00
szCaption db ‘Hello, World!’, 0[/code]
That is a complete 64 BIT program using the FASM assembler. Scroll to the bottom to see Hello World.

The most significant difference between these two programs, is one prints to the console, and the other opens a little Windoze MessageBox.

So these example are not connected - as in the C# is not connected to the FASM - so I need to reiterate:

The computer has an assembly language that sits on top of the logic - the logic is in the biological neural networks(axon terminals, synapses, dendrites) - next the assembly language has to be gradually translated to the language of mind(the silent language or English or both).

What you are aware(Conscious) of is the language of mind, not the assembly language or internal logic.

I know I am getting a little sidetracked but I am enjoying myself at the moment.

<<< >>>

Lets use some of our designer logix.

<<< >>>

MatterSet = particles <∫> atoms <∫> molecules <∫> brain <∫> biological neural networks

MindSet = assembly language <∫> language of mind <∫> English

MatterSet <∫> MindSet

<<< >>>

Not dualistic but rather some stems.

<<< >>>

Let us remember that the MatterSet can affect the MindSet and the MindSet can affect the MatterSet - neuro-plasticity and such.

<<< >>>

What about the old saying? Mind over Matter . . .

:smiley:

encode_decode wrote:

Goodness no, that is not my stance - I firmly believe the mind and body are two different things - to me they are connected. That was an invitation for those that believe otherwise - to which they still do not have good proof. The proof that I see is that the brain responds to the mind.

I like to express it by saying that the brain is the flower and the mind is its scent in a manner of speaking.

How are YOU using the term responds to here? It is kind of ambiguous to me but that may just be me.

Three smiles for you . . .

Good point, I should have said it both ways - the brain responds to the mind and the mind responds to the brain.
They are dependent on each other . . .

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

surreptitious75

I am aware of that - that is why I used the words “can be” and “for the sake of our exploration”.
Some dictionaries do not make the distinction - strangely enough - I am not certain why.

For me they are distinct - but not in a dualistic way.

lol Gees, it wasn’t really six minutes. It was less than one. What are you, a satellite?

So another word for respond in this case might be that they affect one another?

Mind is a function of the brain or to be more precise the function of the brain because
a brain without mind cannot function at all because every thing the brain does is mind

gib

This sentence is an example of a pattern that has gone beyond inception, knowing and now has meaning.

Whereas . . .

Sentence this is fully not yet formed, to contain context full but the Bot some understanding has.

:laughing:

Three more smiles . . .

Yes - and by the way - your way sounds much better.

Kill the brain and the mind ceases to be what is was and kill the mind and eventually the brain dies.

Then there is Neuroplasticity: The brain’s ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections throughout life. Neuroplasticity allows the neurons (nerve cells) in the brain to compensate for injury and disease and to adjust their activities in response to new situations or to changes in their environment.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Does it? I didn’t know that or at least I didn’t give it much thought.

How does that happen though, encode-decode?
You mean that the brain atrophies?

Muscles atrophy when they aren’t used or exercised BUT are you sure that the brain dies if the mind ceases its functioning? :-k

An inquiring mind wants to know.

I am curious how you would respond to this post Arc

That got you talking. It sure does and “atrophy is the word”. Coma comes in more than one form - the form where you are actually just dead and the other where you are more than likely to wake up.

I like saying controversial things.

Actually I will dig up what I am talking about and post it here - it is quite simple to understand.

I just cant think of the right words at the moment.

What you think and do on the other hand does change the structure of the brain.

Softens the brain: Now for something slightly off topic: In medicine, cerebral softening (encephalomalacia) is a localized softening of the brain substance, due to hemorrhage or inflammation. Three varieties, distinguished by their color and representing different stages of the morbid process, are known respectively as red, yellow, and white softening.


Stroke Brain (Similar to Cerebral Softening)

Cases of cerebral softening in infancy versus in adulthood are much more severe due to an infant’s inability to sufficiently recover brain tissue loss or compensate the loss with other parts of the brain. Adults can more easily compensate and correct for the loss of tissue use and therefore the mortality likelihood in an adult with cerebral softening is less than in an infant.

Source: Wikipedia

Great material gibinator

I am familiar with this stuff - we have a small amount of ambiguity to work through - I am digesting the way you see things here . . .

Here is something interesting and geeky for you: In a computer’s central processing unit (CPU), an accumulator is a register in which intermediate arithmetic and logic results are stored. Without a register like an accumulator, it would be necessary to write the result of each calculation (addition, multiplication, shift, etc.) to main memory, perhaps only to be read right back again for use in the next operation. << Which consequently happens in a stack machine . . .

You know we could compensate for the signal to jump across the synaptic gap in software . . .

Isn’t it fantastic that our imaginings leads to adders and other handy things?

Who knows? I do . . . the neural circuitry has no equivalent to the adder - that is a function of the mind - it also relates to your memes in the meaning thread

Respond to my meme comment - I beg you to.

Heuristics are also learnt - we could apply your memes here too . . .

I am going to come back to this post - from a different angle - just watch me lol - I saw an opportunity for meme commenting!

Peace man!

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

What can I say?

At least I am not:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx_m7Y9nGtU[/youtube]

8-[

encode_decode

What is your meaning here?

Yes, I know atrophy is the word. :blush: Oh, the mind so lags behind at times.

As for the former, can you actually say that you are just dead? Aren’t there still bodily functions going on then? The heart, lungs, kidneys, ad continuum.
I can understand though how YOU would consider one to be just dead. That’s a compliment. :laughing:

Give me another. :evilfun:

Actually I will dig up what I am talking about and post it here - it is quite simple to understand.

You mean for the likes of me - to understand? :stuck_out_tongue:

Oh, how the mind does lag behind. :evilfun:

I am quite aware of this. I watch Channel 50. There is this guy I cannot remember his name. Not sure. He might be a neuroscientist but what he has to say about the brain is indeed awe inspiring.
It really is the final frontier notwithstanding deep dark mysterious space.

I remember.


Stroke Brain (Similar to Cerebral Softening)

I realize this.
:sad-teareye: :sad-teareye: :sad-teareye:

So it’s like the scent of the rose - it gradually dissipates to barely anything?

gib

No need to respond to this post - I just want to expand a bit.

Now if we were to consider how the computer models GO compared to a brain I think that we would find the two very different. Our mind however would be similar and just a bit slower. I am still claiming that computers are a result of the mind and not the brain - but this can get ambiguous of course.

Man this is so cool!

Neurons themselves are quite a bit different to logic gates or even combinations of them. These gates are the AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, EXOR and EXNOR gates. Digital circuits are of course modeled using combinations of logic gates. When we are building a computer we are building a mass of gates - in many ways different to the brain. We can put software on the hardware. We have to do conversions from binary all the way up to English with many layers in between - these are called abstractions.

In machine learning, the perceptron is an algorithm for supervised learning of binary classifiers (functions that can decide whether an input, represented by a vector of numbers, belongs to some specific class or not >> think excitatory and inhibitory <<). It is a type of linear classifier, i.e. a classification algorithm that makes its predictions based on a linear predictor function combining a set of weights with the feature vector. The algorithm allows for online learning, in that it processes elements in the training set one at a time.

The perceptron algorithm dates back to the late 1950s. Its first implementation, in custom hardware, was one of the first artificial neural networks to be produced.


A diagram showing a perceptron updating its linear boundary as more training examples are added.

I think a biological neural network would make those complexes happen if they were needed - I mean the people who invented the NOT gate. AND, OR, NAND, NOR, XOR, XNOR must have had the networks in their brain. I know I would have them uploaded and installed in my brain :evilfun:

gib

Or however else one wants to divide things up . . .
. . . obviously it is these divisions that we work with when we discuss these sorts of things . . .
. . . the divisions are a matter of convenience and . . .
. . . standards are just divisions that we agree upon . . .

I like it - it is not quite what I was going for but it is perfect in a way.

Standards are good but we should not be too scared to make new divisions.

Standard divisions are more convenient for communicating to others who understand those standards.

We should now remember though, don’t take anything too literally because one never knows when one has a breakthrough because of an open mind.

gib

Again, another post I am not expecting a response to. Of course I am not hinting that you do not respond.

I understand the concept of lacking time for some things all too well . . .

Motive, analogy, memes, Hmm what else - see if you can think of more - if not ask me to . . .

What dictates our opinions may well form our opinions id est build biological neural networks full of opinions stored somewhere in the neocortex for more analogy and recall and refinements of our opinions. Our personal interests may change through life and offset our opinions further changing, forming and reforming.

Offset as in a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of an opposite one.
“widow’s bereavement allowance is an offset against income”

What is your opinion on that?

These arguments and justifications are perhaps also complemented by emotional response to these thoughts.

:-k

Some tidbits for you gib . . .

One hundred percent correct gib. We can also add to this and say that we potentially evolve throughout our life; potentially not definitely.

There is an old study whereby children dream of local monsters early in their life even if they have never seen them before.

Grizzly bears in the USA - Lions in Africa - Crocodiles in Australia . . . the list goes on.

Yes and the emotions that we choose.

And if so, what would be an example? Anger is not a chosen emotion in an Inuit culture for adults - children also grow out of it through socialization.

I can provide a few more examples if you like.

No problem, I can make it easier - say we have a whole bunch of Coke cans and a whole bunch of Pepsi cans and only one Sprite can and two 7UP cans- now we have these cans but we only want one of each - we discard all of the cans except for one of each. Lets change our original array to look like the following:

[code]Hi gib I am output from and array of cans!

P  C  C
C  P  7
7  C  P
S  C  P[/code]

Let C = Coke, P = Pepsi, S = Sprite and 7 = 7UP

Because we only want one of each lets now process to get the result

  • we know we only keep the first column which just so happens is a linear network in the array . . .

. . . the result looks like the following:

[code]Hi gib I am output from an array of cans!

P  ~  ~
C  ~  ~
7  ~  ~
S  ~  ~[/code]

Simple but significant to the brain. I only showed the functionality here - I will demonstrate further and gently at a later date.
We took away the active potential networks - the other knowns and unknowns.
We are left with unconfigured neurons - they will probably die

gib

This is possibly a little more advanced than the dialect you pointed out, however you are spot on with your observations . . .

Your sense is correct . . .

abstract impression = total sum[derivativeSimilarities]/newfound

answer = analogy derived from: abstract impression

integrated answer = answer ∫ newfound

integrated answer = meaning
You said: It reminds me of the Hegelian dialect: thesis → antithesis → synthesis. The synthesis will always derive newer higher meaning. ← Is this within the ball park? To which I would reply: This is well within the ball park - I am going to look up the Hegelian dialect now, thank you gib . . .

=D>

This thread has officially outrun me. I’m going to need to stop to catch my breath.

But I will read through it eventually.