This week, Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks and biomedical engineer Yuri Danilov persevered their discussion of splendid functions of the brain with the question, “Is what we knew approximately the mind all incorrect?” A preliminary reaction is probably: We should by no means be afraid to ask the query:
Here’s an excerpt on how close AI is (or isn’t) to simulating the herbal mind [14:30]: Robert J. Marks: My field is artificial intelligence, artificial neural networks—and Dr. Danilo just rolled his eyes. And I likely trust you. But how close is synthetic intelligence to simulating the wonderful things that happen within the mind?
Yuri Danilov: Maybe in fifty years I can answer this query, how near you’re. But from my angle, synthetic intelligence is a notable course with a superb future; however, they have nothing to do with the herbal brain.
It’s artificial intelligence in my eyes. It’s a first-class try to emulate or imitate recognized—recognized—characteristics of the human brain. Because to copy the brain is impossible. Or at least, inside the close to future, it’s now not even close.
Robert J. Marks: Do you watched the mind as just a totally, very complex laptop that would truly be simulated, assuming a massive enough laptop… ? Yuri Danilov: It is not a computer. The brain isn’t always doing any programming.
- Robert J. Marks: But is it following a set of rules?
- Yuri Danilov: No.
- Robert J. Marks: It isn’t?
- Yuri Danilov: No.
- Robert J. Marks: That is charming.
Yuri Danilov: Again, it’s miles a separate discussion, excruciating for plenty, but it’s far something this is going on right now. Remember, I talked nowadays about our technological development morphing how our information of the brain works. And the try to make a parallel among the brain and a pc is a result of our evolution if you desire. Because… in the Seventies … it was a transistor and anyone notion it changed into very simple. The concept that every neuron is a transistor.
- Robert J. Marks: Yes.
- Yuri Danilov: Then it changed into, “Each neuron is a microchip.”
- Robert J. Marks: Yes.
- Yuri Danilov: Then every neuron is a microprocessor.
- Robert J. Marks: Yes.
Yuri Danilov: Right now, human beings are pronouncing; every synoptical connection is a microprocessor. So if it’s a microprocessor, you have got 1012 neurons, each neuron has one hundred and five synapses so that you have … you may compute how many parallel processing units you’ve got within the mind if each synapse is a microprocessor.
There is no programmer within the brain; there are no algorithms inside the brain. But as quickly as you assume that each neuron is a microprocessor, you expect that there’s a programmer. Here are excerpts and links from the 2 advanced podcasts featuring Robert J. Marks and Yuri Danilov:
Do we truly recall the entirety? Neuroscience proof suggests that our actual problem isn’t with remembering matters but locating our memories while we need them. One of a pioneer neurosurgeon’s instances featured an affected person who ought to, unaccountably, talk historical Greek. The explanation becomes now not occult, but it became truly extraordinary for what it suggests approximately memory.
And
Aging brains need exercise, not sofas for neurons. Biomedical engineer Yuri Danilov reassures seniors, we do no longer lose neurons as we age. (This is Part 1 of Yuri Danilo’s discussion with Robert J. Marks.) Further analyzing on neuroplasticity and the realistic hope for the restoration of mind accidents:
How the Injured Brain Heals Itself: Our Amazing Neuroplasticity Jonathan Sackier is a pioneer in non-invasive strategies for speeding the restoration of annoying mind accidents. If Thinking Can Heal, Why Do We Need Antidepressants? J.P. Moreland, who struggles with anxiety disorders, likens medicinal drugs to engine oil for the mind Mind-controlled robot mind wishes no brain implant. The placebo effect is actual, now not a trick. But the truth that the mind acts at the body issues materialists. Such data, they are saying, require revision.