On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Lawrence Crowell < [email protected]> wrote:
> *Yes, and if you replace the entire brain with technology the peg leg is > expanded into an entire Pinocchio. Would the really be conscious? It is the > case as well that so much of our mental processing does involve hormone > reception and a range of other data inputs from other receptors and > ligands.* I see nothing sacred in hormones, I don't see the slightest reason why they or any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult to simulate through computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's an example of Evolution's bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are better ways of sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a message in a bottle thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse to its random target. I'm not interested in chemicals only the information they contain, I want the information to get transmitted from cell to cell by the best method and so I would not send smoke signals if I had a fiber optic cable. The information content in each molecular message must be tiny, just a few bits because only about 60 neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, norepinephrine and GABA are known, even if the true number is 100 times greater (or a million times for that matter) the information content ofeach signal must be tiny. Also, for the long range stuff, exactly which neuron receives the signal can not be specified because it relies on a random process, diffusion. The fact that it's slow as molasses in February does not add to its charm. If your job is delivering packages and all the packages are very small and your boss doesn't care who you give them to as long as it's on the correct continent and you have until the next ice age to get the work done, then you don't have a very difficult profession. I see no reason why simulating that anachronism would present the slightest difficulty. Artificial neurons could be made to release neurotransmitters as inefficiently as natural ones if anybody really wanted to, but it would be pointless when there are much faster ways. Electronics is inherently fast because its electrical signals are sent by fast light electrons. The brain also uses some electrical signals, but it doesn't use electrons, it uses ions to send signals, the most important are chlorine and potassium. A chlorine ion is 65 thousand times as heavy as an electron, a potassium ion is even heavier, if you want to talk about gap junctions, the ions they use are millions of times more massive than electrons. There is no way to get around it, according to the fundamental laws of physics, something that has a large mass will be slow, very, very, slow. The great strength biology has over present day electronics is in the ability of one neuron to make thousands of connections of various strengths with other neurons. However, I see absolutely nothing in the fundamental laws of physics that prevents nano machines from doing the same thing, or better and MUCH faster. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
