Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • As far as I know, I said that they do pulse (all or nothing) like transistors bu

    As far as I know, I said that they do pulse (all or nothing) like transistors but that they vary in frequency, which is the substitute for amplitude and change across time.

    Depending upon whether you interpret my use of transistors as an analogy (switch) to neurons in their function in the brain or more rigorously as a thing that changes and retains state rather than, as neurons, changes and returns to state – then you might be correct or not. I’m willing to believe you were attempting to add clarity more so than disagree. But your subsequent appeal to the quantum caused me to equate the two claims rendering both false. Instead of the possibility that you were correct regarding the exactness of the similarity between neurons (on-of) vs transistors (on-or-off). Producing this effect requires additional electronic components, usually Flip-Flops or PLC’s.

    Neurons communicate primarily through release of action potentials, which are indeed “all-or-nothing” pulses. When a neuron fires an action potential (usually called a spike), it momentarily reverses the electric potential across its cell membrane, which then rapidly returns to its resting state.

    This process is similar to an electrical pulse and is indeed all-or-nothing—either the neuron reaches the threshold to trigger an action potential, or it does not.

    Next, neurons use what we call “rate coding” where the information is not carried in the amplitude of the action potential (since all action potentials are roughly the same size and shape in a given neuron) but rather in the frequency and timing of these spikes:

    … Frequency: A higher rate of firing (more action potentials over a given time period) can indicate stronger intensity or a different type of stimulus. For example, a sensory neuron might fire more rapidly in response to a brighter light or a louder sound.
    And;
    … Timing: The timing of action potentials can also be crucial, especially in neural circuits where precise timing between the firing of multiple neurons encodes information.

    Therefore, my statement that neurons “vary in frequency, which is the substitute for amplitude and change across time” is correct in the context of how information is processed and conveyed by neural action potentials.

    Neurons modulate the rate and pattern of these pulses to represent various types of sensory input, motor commands, and other information within the nervous system.

    This method of communication differs from how devices like transistors function, as transistors modulate amplitude or turn on/off as switches without an intrinsic “all-or-nothing” pulse similar to action potentials.

    Cheers 😉

    Reply addressees: @MatthewParrott


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 20:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785038107726811139

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785034037091782759

  • QUANTUM MAGIC IN THE BRAIN? UM. NO. No there is no evidence of it, no need of it

    QUANTUM MAGIC IN THE BRAIN? UM. NO.
    No there is no evidence of it, no need of it, and I dunno what Penrose is putting in his tea when he pulls this nonsense out of thin air. Nor do I grasp why people treat the quantum background as mysterious. It’s not.

    We are very close to overcoming the mathiness pseudoscience that cantor, einstein, bohr inserted into physics, and the nonsense decades that resulted from the fiction of ‘space time’. As far as I can tell … is correct in that the universe is quite simple (see Neil Turok) and we’ve been lost in mathiness (me) and particles (him) meaning ‘words and pictures’ instead of materials and models – which we then describe with mathematics at least at the high level. Since at some point mathematical reducibility ends (See Wolfram) – which I think we have already seen in models of the quantum background (see Derek B. Leinweber).

    It’s true bioelectricity is finally gaining attention (See Michael Levin) in the cellular use of charge to assist in cellular organization and specialization. But this is just another example of (a) there are only so many forces and realistically, they’re all emergent from one cause (b) evolution isn’t picky and it will make use of ANY and EVERY means of information transformation and persistence it can discover – with my favorite examples being the number of ways cells can communicate across and thru walls, and the number of ways neurons can advertise, discovery, connect, and cooperate and then constantly modify to service neural economy – which is just mind-boggling in complexity. I probably consider it my favorite subject in neuroscience. Infinite computability is amazing.

    As for quantum effects – the present woo woo vehicle – there is ‘no room’ so to speak for information to travel through the medium but other than the means we already understand. Each emergent layer of complexity of organization effectively filters out variability within it, which is why evolution can maintain persistence despite lacking memory and intelligence of other than the structure of the dipoles>waves> particles>elements> molecules etc. (See Lee Cronin)

    The emergent effects of the brain are obvious, which is why even our primitive computers today, using analogous structures are demonstrating just how fast and powerfully higher faculties originate from nothing other than the universal law of grammar: continuous recursive disambiguation.

    I’ve been working on this nonsense since the 70s and endured each AI winter. But none of our assumptions, even from the 1950s have been wrong. It just took vastly more computing power to produce a simple equivalent, and none of us imagined we could brute force intelligence BACKWARD by massive training from textual data on the internet.

    That little bit there, even if it ends up being just an interface to agents that do all the challenging reasoning, calculating, and computing, was something even the guys who tried it didn’t know would work. And it worked far better than any of them imagined.

    Anyway. At this point I think we’ve almost overcome (at least at the developmental edge of research and development) the postwar venture into pseudoscience – not just in psychology, social science, economics, and political science, but in physics and mathematics as well.

    The one thing I find fascinating is the dethroning of math in favor of computation because of the greater reducibility of computation vs mathematics.

    The importance of this reform, which should have come from babbage in the 1830’s but didn’t, can’t be overestimated. Because we have wrongly treated mathematics as the gold standard and the number of conceptual negative consequences of losing greek geometry and engineering to the influences of persian astronomy and algebra. The profundity of that metaphyscal difference was very costly – repaired by Descartes and destroyed again by Cantor Einstein Bohr and their followers.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @MatthewParrott


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 16:40:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784986055986319360

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784975178901987334

  • The universe wants to achieve a lower energy state which is concieveable as lowe

    The universe wants to achieve a lower energy state which is concieveable as lower pressure. As far as we know, that state is achieved by expansion. Whether that expansion consists of space or occurs within space is a question. I favor the former as it’s the simplest solution.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 03:39:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783702306329919736

    Reply addressees: @SaitouHajime00 @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783658547366224045

  • Dunno. I do science. 😉

    Dunno. I do science. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-24 15:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783157914154181118

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783157281451864223

  • Well, no, not really. There are plenty of selection pressures that end in extinc

    Well, no, not really. There are plenty of selection pressures that end in extinction. So what you’re imagining is different from what Darwin imagined. And you’re closer to right than he. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:34:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782840422219284514

    Reply addressees: @Adan74137049 @BretWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782839510625075435

  • No. Selection occurs but is directionless. It isn’t a matter of fitness but simp

    No. Selection occurs but is directionless. It isn’t a matter of fitness but simple reproductive success in whatever environment it survives in the moment.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:29:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782839284338176215

    Reply addressees: @Adan74137049 @BretWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782837857880580390

  • Scott, Sorry, but you’re confusing two properties of Darwinian evolution: 1. Nat

    Scott,
    Sorry, but you’re confusing two properties of Darwinian evolution:
    1. Natural Selection does exist (ex: human neotenic evolution)
    2. Survival of the Fittest does not exist – at least as dominantly as Darwin suggested.
    In other words, other than a bias in favor of…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:23:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782837712162017702

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782543278958846444

  • Scott is overstating the case. Natural Selection does exist. He’s confused. It’s

    Scott is overstating the case. Natural Selection does exist. He’s confused. It’s that ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t exist.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:19:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782836808646083040

    Reply addressees: @BretWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782639877311594584

  • I understand but that’s not the question, and relativity is a description not an

    I understand but that’s not the question, and relativity is a description not an explanation. I’m curious about the explanation.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:15:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782835650456142122

    Reply addressees: @jwilson1717 @Rasterdingus

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782834897050058976

  • I’m not quite sure which thing you’re saying, but if you mean that given the bas

    I’m not quite sure which thing you’re saying, but if you mean that given the base rate (assuming there is one), then accounting for gravity and velocity should (and does) end up with rate unequal everywhere, but if you compensate for gravity and velocity, then yes you should find the base rate everywhere. (Though it’s almost impossible to totally sum gravity and velocity outside of one’s reference frame.)
    WHich like most relativity makes one’s head hurt. 😉

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:08:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782833962039005184

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782832984074187179