The different ways in which we study human consciousness are fascinating to me, as many try to explain it
through observations and personal experience (psychology), while others try and
understand the mechanics of the brain as an organ (neuroscience). Throughout
history there have been paradigm shifts in the study of the brain, with
discoveries fostering great achievements in both science and art, as for
example, the mental and artistic images of the brain that are currently shaped by
modern technology (example below).
Screenshot from Professor Victoria Vesna's YouTube lecture on Neuroscience. |
I feel that there could be another
paradigm shift in the understanding of the brain, as the computer revolution has
made computer modeling of complex systems an attainable goal (numerical weather
prediction). The ability to model the brain with a computer program could have
enormous consequences as for example AI could one day have conscious thoughts,
we could tweak the brain model to simulate possible solutions to mental
problems without having to test on humans, and in general we can make changes
to the brain model to facilitate our understanding of process’ in the brain.
Illustration of a climate computer simulation (Wikipedia). |
Artistic rendering of a computer brain (Nature) |
While all this sounds good in
theory there are many people who doubt the ability of computers to be able to
model the brain as it would require too much computing power, or simply that
the human brain is “noncomputatble” (Penrose). Penrose believes
that there are quantum feedback cycles happening in the microtubules in the
brain that make the brain noncomputable and existing in some sort of chaotic,
mystical, and unknown fashion, however there is very little work to support
this and his argument seems to be rooted in intuition rather than science. While
I agree that a model of the brain can't be perfect, “essentially, all
models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box), there have been many people who
have successfully modeled quantum effects.
In fact there have been several
attempts at modeling the brain including a recent simulation of the human brain
on a Japanese supercomputer computed a second of brain activity in 40 minutes
(Sparkes), and the Human Brain Project spearheaded by Henry Markram recently
received 1 billion euros from the European Union to construct a computer model
of the brain (Honigsbaum). However this highly ambitious project has come under
heavy scrutiny for its lack of governance, scientific direction, and
polarization of the neuroscience community, which could spell the end for the
project (Nature). That being said I believe modeling the human brain could
still be a valuable project (maybe in smaller chunks) and one day it will be a
reality.
Box,
George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response
Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN
0-471-81033-9.
Honigsbaum, Mark. "Human Brain Project: Henry Markram Plans
to Spend €1bn Building a Perfect Model of the Human Brain." The
Guardian. Neuro Science/ The Observer, 15 Oct. 2013. Web.
"Human Brain Project Needs a Rethink." Scientific
American Global RSS. Nature Magazine, n.d. Web. 18 May 2015.
"Numerical Weather Prediction." Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 May 2015.
Sparkes, Mathew. "Supercomputer Models One Second of Human
Brain Activity." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 13 Jan.
2014. Web. 18 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "Neuroscience-pt1.mov." YouTube.
YouTube, 17 May 2012. Web. 18 May 2015.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post completely. On the topic of the human brain being noncomputable, I agree with author on that; however I believe using the term "noncomputable" should be changed. Into what I do not know, but more in the lines that the brain shouldn't be computed if there are intangible obstacles being put forth. Personally, I'm not saying that the brain should not be computed, but sometimes in life there are limits that shouldn't be tested. Also in the end, as from last week's theme, I believe experiments are all based on intentions.