On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> wrote: > You would have to replicate then not only the dynamics of neurons, but every > biomolecule in the neurons, and don't forget about the oligoastrocytes and > other glial cells. Many enzymes for instance to multi-state systems, say in > a simple case where a single amino acid residue of phosphorylated or > unphosphorylated, and in effect are binary switching units. To then make > this work you now need to have the brain states mapped out down to the > molecular level, and further to have their combinatorial relationships > mapped. Biomolecules also behave in water, so you have to model all the > water molecules. Given the brain has around 10^{25} or a few moles of > molecules the number of possible combinations might be on the order of > 10^{10^{25}} this is a daunting task. Also your computer has to accurately > encode the dynamics of molecules -- down to the quantum mechanics of their > bonds. > > This is another way of saying that biological systems, even that of a basic > prokaryote, are beyond our current abilities to simulate. You can't just > hand wave away the enormous problems with just simulating a bacillus, let > alone something like the brain. Now of course one can do some simulations to > learn about the brain in a model system, but this is far from mapping a > brain and its conscious state into a computer.
Well maybe, but this is just you guessing. Nobody knows the necessary level of detail. Telmo. > LC > > > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:31:56 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> 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. -- 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.
