Human brain and programing

avgprogamerjoe · 08-24-2007, 04:17 PM

I find the human brain one of the most fascinating things in the world. It communicates to the body by electrical waves, and chemical reactions. Do you think that the human brain at all resembles programing, be it a structual, OOP, or the many other, known or unknown methods of programing? And more importantly do you think we can turn the "brain code" into readable code, then reproduce it? I'm not to sure on how accurate this, but I did see a show in the science channel where a paralyzed man had a probe in his head which he used to draw a circle on a computer screen.

I'm planning on doing a bit of research in this, so any articles would be helpful, but don't forget to voice your opinion and theories.

Joe

swgh · 08-24-2007, 04:57 PM

If anything and if it was at all possible.. you would have a base class called brain then have may other smaller classes interherited from that. Sort of a memory class, thought class, sense class, touch class etc etc..

Just one very small way of looking at it. It proberly possible to design a large console program that runs and operates like the human brain does. Just my two cents buts its a good suggestion and somthing I may attempt as an abitous side project

matsp · 08-24-2007, 05:00 PM

There's something called "neural networks", which is a programming model. It is based on the principles of the neural network in the brain.

But in general, the brain does not work like a computer program. It's much less structured and more able to "sort through large number of options and select the important ones".

--
Mats

zacs7 · 08-24-2007, 08:39 PM

Speaking of the human brain, apparently it can store 6TB of data? If so, what format are the images stored as? Is text compressed?

I would assume it's jpg or something - something lossy.

Rashakil Fol · 08-24-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zacs7

I would assume it's jpg or something - something lossy.

It's not jpg.

maxorator · 08-25-2007, 01:40 AM

Code:

struct BRAIN_DATACELL{
    int data;
    BRAIN_DATACELL* connections[50];
};

BRAIN_DATACELL brain[0x80000000];

The functions to handle the braincells are beyond my knowledge.

@nthony · 08-25-2007, 03:58 AM

Well I believe that for all intents and purposes the human brain is a machine, albeit a highly complex though ineffecient biological one. A computer (also a machine, which can be further reduced to a set of algorithms) today has a very ennumerable set of inputs, and thus the algorithms it employs to handle these inputs have heuristics that can also be logically ennumerated, making the outputs largely predictable. In contrast, a human brain has an incredibly large and complex set of inputs which, as of current cannot be ennumerated and thus a complete set of heuristics or algorithms for the brain are not yet known, making outputs anticipatable at best, but can never yet be fully predicted.

At the moment, the state of computers, AI and the set of inputs they can compute is barely able to approach that of lab mice, let alone humans. Input from sensory nerves such as optical, motor, and auditory common to even the most primitive of animals/mammals still greatly overshadow in number the amount of input a computer may receive at a time from its inputs such as its network and user. Even if all inputs from a mammal such as a mouse were to be replicated and fed into a computer, and a "mouse algorithm" existed that computed the appropriate output for each set of inputs, our technology today is not advanced enough to compute these outputs in an appropriate amount of time (even half the time of that mammal's natural brain).

As for true brain-computer interfacing, I would imagine that given about 200-400 more years of analysis, neuro-biological scientists and engineers will have discovered the role and function of every synaptic network in the brain and body and the sources of inputs for each network of each nerve in the brain, as well as what is needed to simulate them and how. Following this, what I like to call a "Synaptic Interface" will be developed, a device which splices inputs to major neural networks between their original sources of input and fabricated/emulated/foreign sources. This will give us the ability to interface directly with the brain, but before we will be able to employ this technology we will need to know how the brain stores its information and how to stimulate in such a way as to retrieve and/or supply information from/to it. This will be a task once again for neuro-biological scientists, and Computer and Informatic Engineers to figure out a way to relate the standard information format of the time to that of the our brain's (note that information of the future may not necessarily be binary).

Once a safe and proper translation method has been developed and worked into the design of the Synaptic Interface, assuming that every bit of information wanting to be expressed to the brain can be expressed in the standard information format of the time, we will be able to effectively interface directly with the brain. This will have marked a huge step in development such that any further hurdles in communication will probably be able to be overcome by brain modification. For example, multiple Synaptic Interfaces can be installed to facilitate higher transfer speeds of information (of course there would need to be checks and balances to prevent interference and accessing of networks at the same time (mutex's anyone?)). As another example, the capacity of the brain may be expanded by inserting a Synpatic Interface into the neural-network responsible for memory retrieval that is instead connected to a storage device. The possibilities are endless, which leads me to the next point.

As I mentioned previously, from its function, form, and previous discoveries, I think it is concludable that (even though today it may be better than a computer) the human brain is ineffecient for its weight-to-size ratio, as is agreeable with many discoveries in biology that biological structures in general tend to lack effeciency (i.e. there are many components in biological structures that have little or no practical function or are grossly under- or over-sized, etc). Based on this, it is forseeable that as in the scenerio described above, people will slowly replace parts of their brain with more effecient and capable implementations. It is then not unfathomable to imagine a "human" without a "human brain", a human who has been completely digitized (not necessarily binary though) so as to increase his/her ("its" see below as to why) overall effeciency and capabilites.

Why did I use "it" above? Well in tandum and perhaps well before all of the aforementioned developments in brain interfacing, we will have done so already with the body (as the body is an infinitely less complex structure). Even today, there are machines capable of emulating human body parts (albeit poorly), so it is reasonable to forsee that in the future very little to none of our bodies may still be composed of organic (weak/ineffecient) materials. Thus, if you have a "body" and a brain that are no longer "human", are you still really "human"?. From here on, the line has been "fuzzed".

I won't complete the rest of my theories here otherwise it will quickly become a t;dr if it is not already... but suffice to say from this, you may see where I draw the conclusion that in the distant future the existance of humanity will be as a single entity:
If everyone is digitized, their representative information can be transfered across networks and submitted to a globally accessible repertoire; thus everyone will be able to acquire everyone else's information. To minimize dispersion across individuals, a "collective" will be maintained that is the representation of all information known by the entirety of humanity. Since the only thing that makes us definatively unique is the information we posess, if everyone has access to this collective, everyone will have access to everyone else's information, resulting in esentially a large amount of copies of the same individual. It follows then that for effeciency, you will only need the one copy: the singular collective consciousness of humanity.

maxorator · 08-25-2007, 05:01 AM

People should never ever try to connect to brain or try to program a duplicate of it. I don't think they'll ever succeed it either.

psychopath · 08-25-2007, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxorator

People should never ever try to connect to brain or try to program a duplicate of it. I don't think they'll ever succeed it either.

Mhmm. Good, forward thinking.

What about paralyzed people? I'm pretty sure they think being connected to a computer that they could make do stuff their body can't anymore would be awesome.

maxorator · 08-25-2007, 06:14 AM

Or put microchips into people which solve complex mathemathical expressions for the brain...

DavidP · 08-25-2007, 10:04 AM

I am interested in research in this area, but there is one thing that I am most interested at this current point in time: the image format that the eye sends to the brain.

Now, I am not interested in what goes on in the brain once the electrical impulses reach the brain that come from the eye...I just interested in analyzing the actual electrical impulses that move through the optic nerve from the eye to the brain, and then interpreting them. They are not anything like digital signals...but they are still electrical signals with a waveform...spikes...troughs...crests...etc.

I would like to analyze these waveforms, interpret them, and try to figure out how the eye sends image data to the brain. If we can figure this out, then we could replicate it...a technology that would be useful to many different things - such as helping those who are now blind to see through a computer-operate eye that sends those same electrical impulses to the brain. (It would not cure blindness in everybody because some people are blind as a result of a problem in the brain, and not in the eye, but it would help out some people).

BobMcGee123 · 08-25-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

human brain at all resembles programing

No, not in the slightest. The human brain transmits signals slowly (about 120 m per second) along nerve fibers across relatively large distances, but this occurs asynchronously amongst billions of neurons. All programming of which you speak is linear, non organic, and signals transmit at, roughly, the speed of light.

Human brain != 'programming'

Quote:

And more importantly do you think we can turn the "brain code" into readable code, then reproduce it?

No, there would be no 'C' equivalent

Quote:

I'm not to sure on how accurate this, but I did see a show in the science channel where a paralyzed man had a probe in his head which he used to draw a circle on a computer screen.

You should read 'Age of Spiritual Machines' by Ray Kurzweil...whilst powerful scanning techniques and brain-wave detection hardware and experiments exist, they are not approaching turning 'brain code' into readable code. I also saw, on the discovery science channel, where a user was able to play a driving type game simply by 'thinking.' The computer car was connected to a device which measured brain-waves, and based on this input, was able to steer the car left or right.

Quote:

It is based on the principles of the neural network in the brain.

But, they still ultimately process the network linearly...to establish a programming model which attempts to simulate an asynchronous neural network, such as the human brain, you need to update the entire network as often as the fastest-updating neural, and make the assumption that the entire network is not interrupted whilst you are evaluating the values present amongst all of the neurons. The reality is that the human brain behaves in an asynchronous manner with 'recursive interrupts,' not in a linear fashion, which is why the linear-processing computers today cannot possibly even begin to run a reliable model of the human brain, generate 'brain code' or the like, etc.

avgprogamerjoe · 08-25-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

I am interested in research in this area, but there is one thing that I am most interested at this current point in time: the image format that the eye sends to the brain.

Another show I saw on the science channel, was a camera that sent an image to the human brain. Though the image was only 16 pixels, you could tell if something was moving, and the color of something. You could recognize big from small, etc. but not one person from another. I thought you might be interested in that.

BTW That would make video game maps able to hold a lot more data, thus having cooler maps

indigo0086 · 08-25-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avgprogamerjoe

BTW That would make video game maps able to hold a lot more data, thus having cooler maps

Yeah, why bother with disks and memory when you can just clear out some poor sap's brain for your enjoyment. I love it.

Yarin · 08-25-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by @nthony

Well I believe that for all intents and purposes the human brain is a machine, albeit a highly complex though ineffecient biological one. A computer (also a machine, which can be further reduced to a set of algorithms) today has a very ennumerable set of inputs, and thus the algorithms it employs to handle these inputs have heuristics that can also be logically ennumerated, making the outputs largely predictable. In contrast, a human brain has an incredibly large and complex set of inputs which, as of current cannot be ennumerated and thus a complete set of heuristics or algorithms for the brain are not yet known, making outputs anticipatable at best, but can never yet be fully predicted.

At the moment, the state of computers, AI and the set of inputs they can compute is barely able to approach that of lab mice, let alone humans. Input from sensory nerves such as optical, motor, and auditory common to even the most primitive of animals/mammals still greatly overshadow in number the amount of input a computer may receive at a time from its inputs such as its network and user. Even if all inputs from a mammal such as a mouse were to be replicated and fed into a computer, and a "mouse algorithm" existed that computed the appropriate output for each set of inputs, our technology today is not advanced enough to compute these outputs in an appropriate amount of time (even half the time of that mammal's natural brain).

As for true brain-computer interfacing, I would imagine that given about 200-400 more years of analysis, neuro-biological scientists and engineers will have discovered the role and function of every synaptic network in the brain and body and the sources of inputs for each network of each nerve in the brain, as well as what is needed to simulate them and how. Following this, what I like to call a "Synaptic Interface" will be developed, a device which splices inputs to major neural networks between their original sources of input and fabricated/emulated/foreign sources. This will give us the ability to interface directly with the brain, but before we will be able to employ this technology we will need to know how the brain stores its information and how to stimulate in such a way as to retrieve and/or supply information from/to it. This will be a task once again for neuro-biological scientists, and Computer and Informatic Engineers to figure out a way to relate the standard information format of the time to that of the our brain's (note that information of the future may not necessarily be binary).

Once a safe and proper translation method has been developed and worked into the design of the Synaptic Interface, assuming that every bit of information wanting to be expressed to the brain can be expressed in the standard information format of the time, we will be able to effectively interface directly with the brain. This will have marked a huge step in development such that any further hurdles in communication will probably be able to be overcome by brain modification. For example, multiple Synaptic Interfaces can be installed to facilitate higher transfer speeds of information (of course there would need to be checks and balances to prevent interference and accessing of networks at the same time (mutex's anyone?)). As another example, the capacity of the brain may be expanded by inserting a Synpatic Interface into the neural-network responsible for memory retrieval that is instead connected to a storage device. The possibilities are endless, which leads me to the next point.

As I mentioned previously, from its function, form, and previous discoveries, I think it is concludable that (even though today it may be better than a computer) the human brain is ineffecient for its weight-to-size ratio, as is agreeable with many discoveries in biology that biological structures in general tend to lack effeciency (i.e. there are many components in biological structures that have little or no practical function or are grossly under- or over-sized, etc). Based on this, it is forseeable that as in the scenerio described above, people will slowly replace parts of their brain with more effecient and capable implementations. It is then not unfathomable to imagine a "human" without a "human brain", a human who has been completely digitized (not necessarily binary though) so as to increase his/her ("its" see below as to why) overall effeciency and capabilites.

Why did I use "it" above? Well in tandum and perhaps well before all of the aforementioned developments in brain interfacing, we will have done so already with the body (as the body is an infinitely less complex structure). Even today, there are machines capable of emulating human body parts (albeit poorly), so it is reasonable to forsee that in the future very little to none of our bodies may still be composed of organic (weak/ineffecient) materials. Thus, if you have a "body" and a brain that are no longer "human", are you still really "human"?. From here on, the line has been "fuzzed".

I won't complete the rest of my theories here otherwise it will quickly become a t;dr if it is not already... but suffice to say from this, you may see where I draw the conclusion that in the distant future the existance of humanity will be as a single entity:
If everyone is digitized, their representative information can be transfered across networks and submitted to a globally accessible repertoire; thus everyone will be able to acquire everyone else's information. To minimize dispersion across individuals, a "collective" will be maintained that is the representation of all information known by the entirety of humanity. Since the only thing that makes us definatively unique is the information we posess, if everyone has access to this collective, everyone will have access to everyone else's information, resulting in esentially a large amount of copies of the same individual. It follows then that for effeciency, you will only need the one copy: the singular collective consciousness of humanity.

Thus the dawn of The Matrix and Borg.

Unless you belive that we where created rather than "evolved", your making your self look stupid by saying "the human brain is a machine". Webster's definition of machine is "any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks". Device is the subject word here, and it's defenition is "an instrumentality invented for a particular purpose". As you can see, a machine must be invented, it can't evolve.

08-24-2007, 04:17 PM	#1
avgprogamerjoe NotSoAvgProgrammer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia, U.S. Posts: 57	Human brain and programing I find the human brain one of the most fascinating things in the world. It communicates to the body by electrical waves, and chemical reactions. Do you think that the human brain at all resembles programing, be it a structual, OOP, or the many other, known or unknown methods of programing? And more importantly do you think we can turn the "brain code" into readable code, then reproduce it? I'm not to sure on how accurate this, but I did see a show in the science channel where a paralyzed man had a probe in his head which he used to draw a circle on a computer screen. I'm planning on doing a bit of research in this, so any articles would be helpful, but don't forget to voice your opinion and theories. Joe
avgprogamerjoe is offline

08-24-2007, 04:57 PM	#2
swgh Its hard... But im here Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: England Posts: 1,467	If anything and if it was at all possible.. you would have a base class called brain then have may other smaller classes interherited from that. Sort of a memory class, thought class, sense class, touch class etc etc.. Just one very small way of looking at it. It proberly possible to design a large console program that runs and operates like the human brain does. Just my two cents buts its a good suggestion and somthing I may attempt as an abitous side project __________________ I'm just trying to be a better person - My Name Is Earl
swgh is offline

08-24-2007, 05:00 PM	#3
matsp Kernel hacker Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Farncombe, Surrey, England Posts: 15,686	There's something called "neural networks", which is a programming model. It is based on the principles of the neural network in the brain. But in general, the brain does not work like a computer program. It's much less structured and more able to "sort through large number of options and select the important ones". -- Mats
matsp is offline

08-24-2007, 08:39 PM	#4
zacs7 Woof, woof! Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,295	Speaking of the human brain, apparently it can store 6TB of data? If so, what format are the images stored as? Is text compressed? I would assume it's jpg or something - something lossy. __________________ "I.T. gets the chicky-babes" - M. Kelly bakefile \| vim
zacs7 is offline

08-25-2007, 01:40 AM	#6
maxorator Reverse Engineer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 2,260	Code: struct BRAIN_DATACELL{ int data; BRAIN_DATACELL* connections[50]; }; BRAIN_DATACELL brain[0x80000000]; The functions to handle the braincells are beyond my knowledge. __________________ The duck is irrelevant to my point. Last edited by maxorator; 08-25-2007 at 01:44 AM.
maxorator is offline

08-25-2007, 03:58 AM	#7
@nthony Registered Abuser Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 584	Well I believe that for all intents and purposes the human brain is a machine, albeit a highly complex though ineffecient biological one. A computer (also a machine, which can be further reduced to a set of algorithms) today has a very ennumerable set of inputs, and thus the algorithms it employs to handle these inputs have heuristics that can also be logically ennumerated, making the outputs largely predictable. In contrast, a human brain has an incredibly large and complex set of inputs which, as of current cannot be ennumerated and thus a complete set of heuristics or algorithms for the brain are not yet known, making outputs anticipatable at best, but can never yet be fully predicted. At the moment, the state of computers, AI and the set of inputs they can compute is barely able to approach that of lab mice, let alone humans. Input from sensory nerves such as optical, motor, and auditory common to even the most primitive of animals/mammals still greatly overshadow in number the amount of input a computer may receive at a time from its inputs such as its network and user. Even if all inputs from a mammal such as a mouse were to be replicated and fed into a computer, and a "mouse algorithm" existed that computed the appropriate output for each set of inputs, our technology today is not advanced enough to compute these outputs in an appropriate amount of time (even half the time of that mammal's natural brain). As for true brain-computer interfacing, I would imagine that given about 200-400 more years of analysis, neuro-biological scientists and engineers will have discovered the role and function of every synaptic network in the brain and body and the sources of inputs for each network of each nerve in the brain, as well as what is needed to simulate them and how. Following this, what I like to call a "Synaptic Interface" will be developed, a device which splices inputs to major neural networks between their original sources of input and fabricated/emulated/foreign sources. This will give us the ability to interface directly with the brain, but before we will be able to employ this technology we will need to know how the brain stores its information and how to stimulate in such a way as to retrieve and/or supply information from/to it. This will be a task once again for neuro-biological scientists, and Computer and Informatic Engineers to figure out a way to relate the standard information format of the time to that of the our brain's (note that information of the future may not necessarily be binary). Once a safe and proper translation method has been developed and worked into the design of the Synaptic Interface, assuming that every bit of information wanting to be expressed to the brain can be expressed in the standard information format of the time, we will be able to effectively interface directly with the brain. This will have marked a huge step in development such that any further hurdles in communication will probably be able to be overcome by brain modification. For example, multiple Synaptic Interfaces can be installed to facilitate higher transfer speeds of information (of course there would need to be checks and balances to prevent interference and accessing of networks at the same time (mutex's anyone?)). As another example, the capacity of the brain may be expanded by inserting a Synpatic Interface into the neural-network responsible for memory retrieval that is instead connected to a storage device. The possibilities are endless, which leads me to the next point. As I mentioned previously, from its function, form, and previous discoveries, I think it is concludable that (even though today it may be better than a computer) the human brain is ineffecient for its weight-to-size ratio, as is agreeable with many discoveries in biology that biological structures in general tend to lack effeciency (i.e. there are many components in biological structures that have little or no practical function or are grossly under- or over-sized, etc). Based on this, it is forseeable that as in the scenerio described above, people will slowly replace parts of their brain with more effecient and capable implementations. It is then not unfathomable to imagine a "human" without a "human brain", a human who has been completely digitized (not necessarily binary though) so as to increase his/her ("its" see below as to why) overall effeciency and capabilites. Why did I use "it" above? Well in tandum and perhaps well before all of the aforementioned developments in brain interfacing, we will have done so already with the body (as the body is an infinitely less complex structure). Even today, there are machines capable of emulating human body parts (albeit poorly), so it is reasonable to forsee that in the future very little to none of our bodies may still be composed of organic (weak/ineffecient) materials. Thus, if you have a "body" and a brain that are no longer "human", are you still really "human"?. From here on, the line has been "fuzzed". I won't complete the rest of my theories here otherwise it will quickly become a t;dr if it is not already... but suffice to say from this, you may see where I draw the conclusion that in the distant future the existance of humanity will be as a single entity: If everyone is digitized, their representative information can be transfered across networks and submitted to a globally accessible repertoire; thus everyone will be able to acquire everyone else's information. To minimize dispersion across individuals, a "collective" will be maintained that is the representation of all information known by the entirety of humanity. Since the only thing that makes us definatively unique is the information we posess, if everyone has access to this collective, everyone will have access to everyone else's information, resulting in esentially a large amount of copies of the same individual. It follows then that for effeciency, you will only need the one copy: the singular collective consciousness of humanity. __________________ MSDN knows exactly what you're looking for...
@nthony is offline

08-25-2007, 05:01 AM	#8
maxorator Reverse Engineer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 2,260	People should never ever try to connect to brain or try to program a duplicate of it. I don't think they'll ever succeed it either. __________________ The duck is irrelevant to my point.
maxorator is offline

08-25-2007, 06:14 AM	#10
maxorator Reverse Engineer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 2,260	Or put microchips into people which solve complex mathemathical expressions for the brain... __________________ The duck is irrelevant to my point.
maxorator is offline

08-25-2007, 10:04 AM	#11
DavidP l'Anziano Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,630	I am interested in research in this area, but there is one thing that I am most interested at this current point in time: the image format that the eye sends to the brain. Now, I am not interested in what goes on in the brain once the electrical impulses reach the brain that come from the eye...I just interested in analyzing the actual electrical impulses that move through the optic nerve from the eye to the brain, and then interpreting them. They are not anything like digital signals...but they are still electrical signals with a waveform...spikes...troughs...crests...etc. I would like to analyze these waveforms, interpret them, and try to figure out how the eye sends image data to the brain. If we can figure this out, then we could replicate it...a technology that would be useful to many different things - such as helping those who are now blind to see through a computer-operate eye that sends those same electrical impulses to the brain. (It would not cure blindness in everybody because some people are blind as a result of a problem in the brain, and not in the eye, but it would help out some people). __________________ My Website "Circular logic is good because it is."
DavidP is offline

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode