/sci/ - Science & Math

two neurons shooting at the same time

>>14658484
Could you elaborate ? I know how neurons work I just don't know what drives them to connect in a particular way to form a network

>>14658469
This board fucking suck... It's just /x/ and /pol/

>>14658597
nerd shit lmao

>>14658469
What a weird question. It's literally a whole field of study. Read basic organic chem, genetics, cellular biology and anatomy, then move on to basic neurology.
Here is a little sample of what makes neurons grow in one direction or another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R9SOtcSEuA&t=24s&ab_channel=PaulLetourneau

>>14658597
You can't expect answers for fundamental questions in extremely empirical subjects like biology, and specifically neurology. Studying the brain is difficult as fuck and it's also complex as hell.

>>14658469
>how does the brain 'learn'.
The true and simple answer is that nobody knows. Pop-neurology pseuds will shart out vague takes and feign knowledge, but a real neurologist will tell you straight that nobody knows.

>>14658864
>The true and simple answer is that nobody knows.
I know.

>>14658469
>>14658490
The neural net model, while fine in terms of the computational ideas, is clearly wrong from immediate experience with brains.

Neuroscientists by and large do not agree, and many of them believe that neurons strictly do a net computation still, although this opinion is likely changing, because it is obviously false.

The first observation is that the memory capacity of the brain is extraordinarily limited, in both time and memory. For example, if I glance at a street, and I see a car, it takes about 1/10th of a second for the visual processing to complete, and for me to identify the car. In that process, there are only 100 cycles of neural activity possible, in other words, the neurons can only fire 100 times. Each neuron holding a bit, even with the most efficient computation you can imagine, there is absolutely no way that you will identify the car and recall properties of cars, like "driving, there is a wheel, on the road, right side up" and all the innumerable little dormant things, from a trillion bits in 100 steps of a millisecond.

What you can do in this time is produce a unique pattern of firing that serves to uniquely identify the observation of a car, and bin the firing into the appropriate bin. This then can be used by something else to do the rest of the computation in thinking.

This is the problem of too-low computational capacity of neural nets. It cannot be improved by making brains bigger, because it is a problem of depth, not of breadth.

The second problem is that neural nets can't remember anything. Even if at one instant, the net sees the car, it must remember the pattern for the car at subsequent steps. This requires crazy "resonant circuits" which store the computational data. The resonant circuits means that the neurons excite other neurons and so on, in a loop, which stays active when you turn off the stimulus.

The loop idea leads to a serious problem--- neural nets with loops, as they are usually made, are unstable either to runaway activity, or to shutting off. If you activate neurons, and these activate others, the stable state is that all the neurons are either turned on or turned off. In order to get over this, you need a global control on neuron activity, which restricts the number which are turned on, and this global control is difficult to imagine.

In order to get around this, artificial neural nets just forbid loops. They make layers, where each neuron tells the next layer what to do. These layers are also observed in visual cortex, and they exist, but they are clearly impossible for storing memories. This only works for a quick run-through-once neural computation from input to output, not for steady-state thinking in closed loop.

The instability problem has not been satisfactorily addressed, although it is theoretically possible to do so. You can make complicated sum-rules for total firing, and try to get the computation to proceed naturally with these sum rules. But here, it is next to impossible to imagine how these resonant circuits recall distant memories, or do anything more than store the last immediate stimulus for a short time.

Furthermore, storing and transmitting a bit by making a neuron fire is ridiculously expensive on the biological scale. You need to pump ions to keep the neuron at potential, let these ions leak, and expend a huge amount of energy to pump the ions out at each firing. This requires mountains of ATP per bit, a cellular level of energy usage. The brain is already metabolically expensive, but in terms of energy cost per bit, it's thousands of ATP's per bit per millisecond, because to keep the bit in working memory, it must be kept going in a closed loop of firing. There is no permanent storage in this model which does not require horrendous energy expenditure.

The mechanisms of bit storage in the genetic level are very cheap in comparison. DNA stores lots of memory reliably for years with no energy expenditure. RNA stores memory reliably on the hour time scale, with no energy expenditure, and rewrites and writes are accoplished using only a few ATP per bit, and then only once.

This leads one to expect that the actual memory storage in the brain in intracellular, not cellular, and based on RNA.

Also, neural nets have no DNA programmable instincts. If you have RNA as the active component of memory, you can easily understand instinctive knowledge--- things that are not learned, but pre-programmed. In humans, this pre-programmed stuff includes face-recognition, walking, smiling, visual processing, certain language facilities, and a billion other invisible things that direct internal senses and processing.

If you have to encode these computations on the neural network level, you fail, because the neural net is removed by several layers from DNA. The DNA has to make RNA which makes regulatory RNA and proteins, which work to place the neurons, which then do the expensive neuron level switch and wire computation. It is obvious that the layers of translation required reduce the fidelity of the information, so that if there are only a few billion bits in the DNA, only a few kilobytes of instinct would remain. This is insufficient for any reasonable model of biological instinctive behavior.

This is another place where the current model is clearly wrong.

It is clear that there is hidden computation internal to the neurons. The source of these computations is almost certainly intracellular RNA, which is the main computational workhorse in the cell.

The RNA in a cell is the only entity which is active and carries significant bit density. It can transform by cutting and splicing, and it can double bind to identify complementary strands. These operations are very sensitive to the precise bit content, and allow rich full computation. The RNA analogous to a microprocessor.

In order to make a decent model for the brain, this RNA must be coupled to neuron level electrochemical computation directly. This requires a model in which RNA directly affects what signals come out of neurons.

I will give a model for this behavior, which is just a guess, but a reasonable one. The model is the ticker-tape. You have RNA attached to the neuron at the axon, which is read out base by base. Every time you hit a C, you fire the neuron. The recieving dendrite then writes out RNA constantly, and writes out a T every time it recieves a signal. The RNA is then read out by complementary binding at the ticker tape, and the RNA computes the rest of the thing intracellularly. If the neuron identifies the signal recieved RNA, it takes another strand of RNA and puts it on the membrane, and reads this one to give the output.

The amount of memory in the brain is then the number of bits in the RNA involved, which is about a gigabyte per cell. There are hundreds of billions of cells in the brain, which translates to hundreds of billions of gigabytes. The efficiency of memory retrieval and modification is a few ATP's per bit, with thousands of ATP's used for long-range neural communication only.

The brain then becomes an internet of independent computers, each neuron itself being a sizable computer itself.

John Mattick has pointed out that the biggest component of brain by weight, other than water, is genetic material. This is noncoding RNA which is actively transported up and down from dendrites, and is clearly doing something important. While it is not stated explicitly in his paper, it is clear that he expects the RNA to function along the lines suggested above.

This idea is not accepted in neuroscience. RNA memory was originally proposed in the 1950s, in a worm model, when it was found that RNA was capable of transmitting memory from worm to worm. This idea floated around in science fiction circles in the 1970s and 1980s, since the idea of RNA memory led writers to imagine a pill which stored knowledge in RNA, and then you take the pill and learn something. This is described on the Wikipedia page on RNA memory, and it is unfairly discredited. There is no substitute.

>>14658869
>Each neuron holding a bit
Stopped reading.

>>14658841
>>14658864
True but we probably have some hints
>>14658872
We literally know how to do loops using artificial neural networks, check some recurrent neural networks papers what you are saying is wrong also they have proven to be really effective to do speech processing which bring me to think you are even more wrong. Also artificial neural networks have proven that you can do huge calculations without needing "bits" of storage. A neuron in a neural network is simply a function activated if the input is superior to some stuf. The only stored information is the activation function itself.

>>14658916
>2022
>popsoi mouth breathers still comparing brains to neural networks
Forever stuck in the 60s.

>>14658921
yeah the brain is not a fucking computer. How do people not understand that?

>>14658886
You really just wrote 4 pages of pure bullshit based on the fact that you think we need "memory" to do calculations which is mathematically wrong. The question is not memory related too it's simply how does the neurons arrange themselves to obtain output Y from input X.

>You really just wrote 4 pages of pure bullshit based on the fact that you think we need "memory" to do calculations which is mathematically wrong. The question is not memory related too it's simply how does the neurons arrange themselves to obtain output Y from input X.

>>14658921
>>14658924
I do it just because the guy I am replying to is using this comparaison and made multiple mistakes on how they work so I am simply correcting

>>14658924
>yeah the brain is not a fucking computer.
Glad we agree that it's neither a neural network nor a computer. I don't know why you poorly educated pseuds keep posting.

>>14658936
see>>14658942

>>14658942
so what is the brain

>>14659501
>so what Dunning-Kruger human toys should i compare the brain to, huh??
>check-mate, atheists!!

>>14658469
empirically, it's not a difficult answer. if you are really interested in something some chemicals are released in your brain and you form a lasting connection.
that's why nerds learn all kind of stupid factoids, even though they are not necessarily intelligent.
a psychologist might say: you learn because you have intrinsic motivation to learn, and they would be right.

>>14659787
>empirically, it's not a difficult answer
Then why can't you provide one?

>>14659791
I did, you form a lasting connection because you have intrinsic motivation to learn. the process is irrelevant, just some chemicals or whatever.

>>14658597
Lmao!
It’s worse. Add in a bunch of redditors and pseuds and you got /sci/
All arguing and fighting over bs. I just like shitposting here and adding fuel to the fire. Judging by the quality of other posts, I am not alone.

>>14659812
>I did
You didn't. Literally nothing about your zero-information post explains anything.

>>14658869
>Neuroscientists by and large do not agree, and many of them believe that neurons strictly do a net computation still, although this opinion is likely changing, because it is obviously false.
Partly because it is not known where the final source and continumn conclusion source conclusion source conclusion of conciousness is located?

Is conciousness in each neuron? Outside each neuron, in-between each neuron, on the boundries of the neuron realm which recieved the EM signatures from the neuron activity as video and image?

>>14658872
So it seems like there are a bunch of seperate techniques, neural nets, machine learning, regular computers, but you haven't found the right technique of sticking them all together and making them work symbiotically to smoothly more than the sum of parts.

It seems that obviously will be the direction towards success, hooking up the many as one, the more the merrier, two brains are better than one

>>14658872
>n make complicated sum-rules for total firing, and try to get the computation to proceed naturally with these sum rules. But here, it is next to impossible to imagine how these resonant circuits recall distant memories, or do anything more than store the last immediate stimulus for a short time.
Need to make different style, dedicated neurons, and a hierarchy of them. And maybe spread the different ones throughout;

A type only deals with accessing memory, a class only deals with creativity, a class only deals with motor skills,

But maybe they each do have some leway. But also all classes are always surrounded by all others, so there is lateral signature detecting and corroborating. Each little grouping having all types of classes (like in rpgs, swordsman, gun man, mage, medic, scout) moves in packs and clusters and relates to other surroundings

>>14658869
>no way that you will identify the car and recall properties of cars, like "driving, there is a wheel, on the road, right side up" and all the innumerable little dormant things, from a trillion bits in 100 steps of a millisecond.

Thank god, sounds dizzying.

Believe it or not, why does a person want their head filled with so much shite; the aspect of pleasure, does not need a fountain of information. For the brain to evolve for this strictly is bollocks. A nerd's pipe dream.

Sensation is equally important. If I lob a brick at your head, you will feel the pain. Now you can calculate the bricks velocity, trajectory, no. of sides it has, you can fucking think to you're blue in the face. Ain't ridding the pain.

>>14658884
im not reading that nigger

>>14658876
thats quite the argument you got there too bad im not gonna read it

>>14658884
your a retard nigger monkey when a transistor turns on and off is it aware of what its doing? Of course not retard nigger monkey so why would a neuron the smallest and most basic part of the circuit need to know any of that retard nigger monkey when the adjacent cells could just tell it what the fuck to do

>>14658469
Research microglia and their sculpting of the brain. That's atleast one part part of the bigger picture.

One of the obvious things is the role EM radiation might play.

Light moves so fast!

Light moves so fast!

Matter moves slower. Our bodies are made of different moving speeds of matters.

And light moves so fast between the parts of our brain and bodies. Refresh rate, near continumn

The EM field is Omnipresent and has subtle grooves that are encoded and read like the groves in vinyal records or braille

>>14658469
they don't want to be alone, so they touch each other

>>14658869
>Each neuron holding a bit, even with the most efficient computation you can imagine, there is absolutely no way that you will identify the car and recall properties of cars, like "driving, there is a wheel, on the road, right side up" and all the innumerable little dormant things, from a trillion bits in 100 steps of a millisecond.
>What you can do in this time is produce a unique pattern of firing that serves to uniquely identify the observation of a car, and bin the firing into the appropriate bin.
You may want to try and clarify what you mean by this part.

>>14658469

funny thing is even it the process was random, it would still work as proven by artificial neural networks

>>14660651
(OP here) based on this video you seem to be right https://youtu.be/ySgmZOTkQA8 . To answer my question they actually connect randomly kek. The important factor seems to be how do they "choose" what activation threshold not how they connect.

>>14658884
>In order to make a decent model for the brain, this RNA must be coupled to neuron level electrochemical computation directly. This requires a model in which RNA directly affects what signals come out of neurons.
Sounds like G-Protein-coupled receptors something something (I don't know anything about neuroscience though).

>>14660775
My mind is nothing but neurons?

I see nothing but video stream and images presented to me (and formed by my imagination) of "reflections of reality"

Neurons make videos and images?

>>14658469
synapses adjust to repeated stimuli over time

>>14660997
Neurons are like screen pixels, but more complex than rbg.

Or no, neurons are like screen pixels + the software hard ware computer chips that allow pixels on a computer screen to have meaning and be moved. Nerons are the pixels of a 4d screen

>>14660997
>>14661402
Your thoughts?

>>14660997
I think not. There's also some chemicals in the play like dopamine that influence your mood / ways you think

>>14661288
Do you have any sources ? I am really interested by why you said

the consciousness that traverses them is guided by its own innate desire and necessity for connection with other aspects of itself, and it utilises the neurons as vehicles for this objective

>>14662555
Shut up + go back to your containment board you fucking retard

>>14662260
But mind is overwhelmingly raw visualization? Of outside stream, memories, imagination/thought realm, and this is overwhelmingly the work of neurons?

My thoughts are words/images/video. My memory is words/images/video.

I'm constantly interacting with words/images/video.

This is overwhelmingly, purely neurons?

>>14662758
no

>>14658869
How do you explain then natural/survivalism fears/reactions smart ass

>>14660311
>>14660326
>>14660345
>>14660532

>>14660532
Meds

>>14658469
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05181

>>14658469
Just by using them. Learn and practice good knowledges.

>>14664122
Will respond in ouno momentom poor farver

pondering about the strangeness of how clear and fast and perfect and consistent my vision and memory is yet it is these weird squishy cell neuron tubes.

That some how everything I've ever seen and experienced, my accessing memories, thought, and imagination, is all the motions and certain electric pulses and chemical reactions or neurons.


Have robot/ai's been made with continual internal monologue?
Have robot ai's been told after their training, given a few hours every day to 'do whatever they want with what they learned'
As I was given free time as a kid to have internal monologue and external dialogue with my dol- I mean actions figures.

It's possible theres a certain array of materials, mirrors, crystals, gels, em signals, storage access, hologram, neural net, machine learning process, where the robot will just learn enough and experience enough continual quick progressive oscillations and corroborations of a forward arrow of time building and building upon meaning and useful experience, accessing memories and skills for it's own desire, to learn and explore, that eventually in it's head it will be an entity hood experiencing it's entityhoodness

>>14665530
Like we have only ever been looking at the inside of our heads, our eyes are like periscopes.

How am I seeing my thoughts and imagination? Am I seeing neurons, neurons just spray EM waves everywhere against the cell walls of the brain, and the cell walls corroborate an image?

It's gotta do with em waves, this is so largely how visual information is given to us, and our memory is so much visual, and the relation of visual to words. But how quickly and subtle em waves are.

You see an apple from across the room, it's shape and color. You close your eyes. How are you seeing an apple in your head? Where is the seeing taking place?

This is some video imagery technology, is it part digital part analog, the em waves singe the apple shape and color onto photo sensitive material in my head, and then the cells, go to repair the singe, and encode this shape and details. Beautiful mystery, we will solve it, we are very close

>>14658469
your sensory organs are hard wired at birth to discharge signals into the net. eventually your brain wires a network to deconstruct the signals into sensory information. eventually higher level structural networks are developed based on patterns. at some point you become aware of yourself. The process is obscenely complex like the way we don't even understand how our artificial intelligence neural networks do half the shit they do.

>>14664167
Much appreciated

>>14658884
>It is clear that there is hidden computation internal to the neurons. The source of these computations is almost certainly intracellular RNA, which is the main computational workhorse in the cell.
its not RNA it's engrams you dumb fucken idiot

>>14665530
>>14665534
Yoooo someone respond to this

>>14666668
Will do in a bit

So if I close my eyes and see an apple.

A golden retriever.

A bicycle

A pink rose

The Eiffel tower.

I exist somewhere in my brain, among neurons. And different nuerons are acting like pixels on a screen, to light up the shapes and colors of these images; after referencing the related qualities and ways these imagery memories were stored among neurons?

Where is the shape and color of an apple located in my head? And a pink rose.

I have seen a pink rose, light reflected off it and entered my head.

The shape and color was etched into my head, and filed away under the words: Pink Rose.

When I am thinking about an example for this discussion, I think, Flower. Which flower, tulip, daisy, orchid, nah Rose.

So I choose pink rose, then close my eyes and concentrate to more fully and clearly see it. And I do. Inside my head, my attention my awareness my being, is taken up by this image. My neurons point their attention and power to hold up a projection of this shape and color, which long ago was etched into them by light, and classified under a language; Pink Rose

>>14665530
>>14665534
>>14667554
Huge retards thinking they are some kind of philosopher. Shut the fuck up this is a science board.

>>14667826
/sci/ mogged into a rage yet again

>>14667826
Crawl before you sprint or before you know it you may no longer be on solid ground

>>14660311
>Partly because it is not known where the final source and continumn conclusion source conclusion source conclusion of conciousness is located?
>Is conciousness in each neuron? Outside each neuron, in-between each neuron, on the boundries of the neuron realm which recieved the EM signatures from the neuron activity as video and image?

>>14660326
>So it seems like there are a bunch of seperate techniques, neural nets, machine learning, regular computers, but you haven't found the right technique of sticking them all together and making them work symbiotically to smoothly more than the sum of parts.
>It seems that obviously will be the direction towards success, hooking up the many as one, the more the merrier, two brains are better than one

>>14660345
>Need to make different style, dedicated neurons, and a hierarchy of them. And maybe spread the different ones throughout;
>A type only deals with accessing memory, a class only deals with creativity, a class only deals with motor skills,
>But maybe they each do have some leway. But also all classes are always surrounded by all others, so there is lateral signature detecting and corroborating. Each little grouping having all types of classes (like in rpgs, swordsman, gun man, mage, medic, scout) moves in packs and clusters and relates to other surroundings

>>14667554
How I see in my brain mind as neuron cells huhhhh

>>14671535
AHHHH HOW AM I NEURONS SEEING IN MY BRAIN AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>14658869
>>14658872
>>14658876
>>14658879
>>14658884
You have some good ideas here and you seem a little confused on some other points. Your example with the car is simply wrong. You absolutely can recognize objects near instantly. This has been proven time and time again with cognitive experiments in both humans and mammals.

I don't feel like writing an essay here but I will say I agree with the RNA/DNA memory idea. It's very controversial in neuroscience but I happen to agree with it. The neurons show unusual methylation activity. The methyl groups act like little tags on the base pairs and when you put it all together it really starts to look like a Turing Tape.

>>14671908
>RNA/DNA memory idea. It's very controversial in neuroscience
Why is it?

>>14665914
He’s saying rna is the engram

>>14658869
>>14658872
>>14658876
>>14658879
>>14658884
Hi Ron

>>14665530
Right now nn's are trying to learn top down kinda like brute force which is really kinda gay, to do it lower level you gotta solve for a nn that approximates the behaviour of a single neuron cell and then scan for the emergent properties it display when itneracting with its buddies.
But we could devise a simple physical environment with problems that would certainly require all those things like curiosity, logic, common sense, hyopthesis testing, ideas, play. Then it's a matter of maximizing the computability of this physical enviornment to test as many different neural networks governing the neuron in this new system.
Most of the processing would eventually go to effecientyl getting as many cycles as possible because we're testing for emergent properties of the relatively simple NN we're solving for.

tldr: solve for the best behaviour of the neurons

>>14665547
>>14672443
literally let's just figure out how the basic elements work, associate some neuro transmitters with certain events indicating pain or reward, and based on those values complex reasoning and planning and cracking this fuckin captcha system once and for all can arise

>>14658879
each neuron has an rna memory? where does it come from? i understand that it might be a memory mechanism but its definitely not an inherited directly

>>14658886
are you gonna tell us that the vacc*ne is a memory reprogrammer now? did the nanobot theory die out?

>>14672443
>>14672665
How many neuroscientests working with computer scientests are there in the world working ok solving the understanding of neurons?

How close are they, are they chicken with their heads cut off blindly leading blind without a paddle?

>>14671893
>AHHHH HOW AM I NEURONS SEEING IN MY BRAIN AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
This must be answered

>>14674061
>ok
*on

Why is there always some obnoxious schizo shitting up the brain threads

>>14658908
Yea, same feel.
Is it more like a stream of bits, no?
like an On/Off state in an analog circuit