The human brain - the perfect argument for anarchy?

[MBrischuk]

I found this in a book by Michio Kaku called ‘The Future of the Mind’. Fun read. Lots of cool facts. But he goes a little overboard with his predictions on the future of AI, etc.

Anyway, the following is from page 220.

 

‘Where did we go wrong? For the past fifty years, scientists working in AI have tried to model the brain by following the analogy with digital computers. But perhaps this was too simplistic. As Joseph Campbell once said, “Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.” If you remove a single transistor form a Pentium chip, the computer will crash immediately. But the human brain can perform quite well even if half of it is missing.

This is because the brain is not a digital computer at all, but a highly sophisticated neural network of some sort. Unlike a digital computer, which has a fixed architecture (input, output, and processor), neural networks are collections of neurons that constantly rewire and reinforce themselves after learning a new task. The brain has no programming, no operating system, no Windows, no central processor. Instead, its neural networks are massively parallel, with one hundred billion neurons firing at the same time in order to accomplish a single goal: to learn.’

 

Now read it again and replace ‘neurons’ with ‘individuals.’ Replace ‘network’ and ‘brain’ with ‘society’ and you’ve got yourself a pretty solid argument for removing governments (or as Michio words it, ‘central processor’) and letting individuals find their own ‘neural paths’ through trial and error.

Perhaps the most important word in the above is the term ‘parallel’. The goal he notes (to learn) could be replaced with 'achieve', though both are virtuous enough.

If this system of networking is good enough for the human brain, the most intelligent entity on the face of the earth to date, then why not try to emulate it?

[ofd]

Unlike a digital computer, which has a fixed architecture (input, output, and processor)

 

This is exactly how a brain works.

 

The brain has no programming

 

The brain is organized like a *nix system with subsystems doing one thing, and one thing only. In addition to that, there are some hardwired programs.

 

Instead, its neural networks are massively parallel, with one hundred billion neurons firing at the same time

 

If that was the case you'd have an epileptical seizure evey time you learn something.

 

If this system of networking is good enough for the human brain, the most intelligent entity on the face of the earth to date, then why not try to emulate it?

 

Because it's not an accurate description of the brain nor can society ever be parallel, unless you want to go back to primitive times with no division of labour.

[Mrdthree]

This is exactly how a brain works.

 

Most  agree that the brain has a functional input output structure with genetically preferred paths but the brain does not have a fixed architecture ( https://youtu.be/eMfw3rGOkCQ?t=44).

 

The Brain has an adaptive architecture so that after learning, consolidation, or recovery from injury completely different brain regions can end up solving the same task ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqwhr4vJIW4 http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4602).

 

Most computational scientists believe that your video card's massively parallel GPU is better analogy for how the brain works than a CPU ( silly link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P28LKWTzrI  https://youtu.be/EhPpxsK2Ia0?t=73 )

 

Many think the core units of parallel computation are neurons or networks that engage in the equivalent of Bayesian inference https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/are-brains-bayesian/

that can be repurposed for function approximation.

[thebeardslastcall]

Michio Kaku is a string theorist and gets plenty wrong. I find him grating to listen to. He's pretty ungrounded, which is probably what enabled him to write a book called "Physics of the Impossible" and why he's been stuck on string theory for decades and why he's overconfident about having debunked some of Einstein's ideas with quantum physics.

 

Why the brain specifically as opposed to an animal's biology and body in general as a model? The body has to deal with many rogue elements and has many specialized and different areas that a group of neurons doesn't. The brain is a model of intelligence, which will naturally help to guide towards intelligent organization and behavior, but the mind is not nearly as diverse as humans are and is way more internally aligned than most large groups of people. Also all the neurons can't fire at once, that would be insane.

 

Also if the mind is a great argument for anarchy, why does it feel a lot like a dictatorship? When many feel as one, then you have a settled mind. When many feel as many, you don't have such an intelligent and well behaved  and aligned anarchy. Also many people, where this "perfect model" is represented, go crazy or do all sorts of horrors. The mind is the pivotal element for the best and the worst of us. The brain was spawned from originating cells to all be as a team, but the problem with countries is they lack this alignment to begin with as they specifically disable freedom of association to varying degrees.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

I found this in a book by Michio Kaku called ‘The Future of the Mind’. Fun read. Lots of cool facts. But he goes a little overboard with his predictions on the future of AI, etc.

Anyway, the following is from page 220.

 

‘Where did we go wrong? For the past fifty years, scientists working in AI have tried to model the brain by following the analogy with digital computers. But perhaps this was too simplistic. As Joseph Campbell once said, “Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.” If you remove a single transistor form a Pentium chip, the computer will crash immediately. But the human brain can perform quite well even if half of it is missing.

This is because the brain is not a digital computer at all, but a highly sophisticated neural network of some sort. Unlike a digital computer, which has a fixed architecture (input, output, and processor), neural networks are collections of neurons that constantly rewire and reinforce themselves after learning a new task. The brain has no programming, no operating system, no Windows, no central processor. Instead, its neural networks are massively parallel, with one hundred billion neurons firing at the same time in order to accomplish a single goal: to learn.’

 

Now read it again and replace ‘neurons’ with ‘individuals.’ Replace ‘network’ and ‘brain’ with ‘society’ and you’ve got yourself a pretty solid argument for removing governments (or as Michio words it, ‘central processor’) and letting individuals find their own ‘neural paths’ through trial and error.

Perhaps the most important word in the above is the term ‘parallel’. The goal he notes (to learn) could be replaced with 'achieve', though both are virtuous enough.

If this system of networking is good enough for the human brain, the most intelligent entity on the face of the earth to date, then why not try to emulate it?

 

 

Is brain activity in any meaningful sense "good for neurons" or is it all just serving the collective's (mind's) purposes?

[JoinOrDie]

 

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:55 PM, Mrdthree said:

 

I found this in a book by Michio Kaku called ‘The Future of the Mind’.

 

Fake News. Along with any notion of human anarchy. Individuals can be anarchist, societies cannot. Any attempt at anarchist society only brings more lawlessness, violence, and ultimately oppression. Anarchist utopia is impossible given human nature.

Those passages and analogies focus only on the structure of the brain/society and has some very debilitating flaws.

1)  Neurons are ultimately working toward the same common goal. Individuals do not

2) All Neurons are happy to be little workers forever. Individuals are not.

3) Neurons have no power lust to control the brain. Individuals do.

3) Neurons do not kill each other. Individuals do.

4) The brain always strives for self preservation, societies do not.

and maybe most importantly...

5) There is no competition amongst neurons for resources. They are all fed equally, by someone else.