> In reality there are multiple systems that work together over multiple timescales to produce the behaviors we observe. Some of those systems can have their contributions mimicked by other interventions. Because of this complexity you can never say 'it's really about X', the best you can say is 'X plays a major role' or 'X contributes Y percent to this observed phenomenon'.
You can say the same thing about computer systems - as long as you don't understand the underlying logic. If you don't understand that the chemistry of transistors doesn't matter as much as the C code, you can say exactly the same critique about how a thinkpad works: "So while applying an external electrical voltage can act in a similar manner as causing a neuron to fire, it is far less precise than the calcium and sodium channel mediated depolarization which implements normal firing. Said another way 'bioelectricity' is not simple....In reality there are multiple systems that work together over multiple timescales to produce the behaviors we observe. Some of those systems can have their contributions mimicked by other interventions."
Once you do understand the logic - the 'why' of von neumann machines and Javascript and transistors, it's clear that your claim isn't true and there is an underlying logic. The trouble is, until we positively identify that logic, we can't know if it exists or not and we're stuck debating the bioequivalent of the fundamental computational significance of the clock cycle speed of a CPU.
I have a very rudimentary understanding of how electricity and electronic circuitry and transistor work, but it does make me wonder:
We use programming languages like C to create complex branching algorithms that are turned a linear machine code tape. Programmers generally can not understand assembly even if they understand the branching code that is turned into assembly. Even if assembly had variables, just the fact that if/else's and function calls are turned into jumps is enough to make the code too complicated to understand. It might be possible to disassemble back to C by resolving the jumps into something that is easier to understand.
Imagine if brains worked the same way. That there is actually a naturally-forming high level "brain language" that is turned by a "brain compiler" function into a low-level "brain assembly," but when we look at it all we see is the assembly. That what the brain is actually doing is relatively simple, but because we can only observe the output of the compiler function it appears to be insanely complex to reverse-engineer.
Then again, I don't have the faintest idea of how brains work either.
> Imagine if brains worked the same way. That there is actually a naturally-forming high level "brain language" that is turned by a "brain compiler" function into a low-level "brain assembly," but when we look at it all we see is the assembly.
And then make it analog and full of self-referential hacks.
Though honesty, if nature wanted to screw with us, it would make brain properly encrypted, perhaps even running on homomorphic encryption. Good luck deciphering that.
If our brains evolved to be protected against man-in-the-middle attacks, that would be extremely scary because it would imply the proto-humans that didn't have this ability went extinct to some brain-invading predator!
If we go far enough back, we may have done common ancestor/s that did develop compensatory mechanism/s to at least somewhat mitigate specific kinds of attacks, like what tarantula hawks can do to tarantulas.
Unconscious behaviors are often conserved across species and (lower level brain behaviors) in functionally and evolutionarily similar parts of the brain.
I guess technically true, but the cell channels are vastly more complex and much harder to measure. Chemical gradients can pass electric currents, but they can also trigger other chemical cascades and cause physical changes in the cell that may not be reflected when a charge is applied. Logic is also fairly consistent across computer systems, where biological systems can function differently from person to person, and even within the same person at different points in time. There are so many more variables with the living system.
Ehhh, I am definitely saying its too complex for us to properly figure it out today. I wouldn’t categorically rule it out, but I do think the logic and rules in biological systems are much squishier than physics or chemistry.
> there is an underlying logic. The trouble is, until we positively identify that logic, we can't know if it exists or not
First you exclaim there is an underlying logic, then in the next sentence you say we don’t know whether it exists, which completely contradicts your claim.
You can say the same thing about computer systems - as long as you don't understand the underlying logic. If you don't understand that the chemistry of transistors doesn't matter as much as the C code, you can say exactly the same critique about how a thinkpad works: "So while applying an external electrical voltage can act in a similar manner as causing a neuron to fire, it is far less precise than the calcium and sodium channel mediated depolarization which implements normal firing. Said another way 'bioelectricity' is not simple....In reality there are multiple systems that work together over multiple timescales to produce the behaviors we observe. Some of those systems can have their contributions mimicked by other interventions."
Once you do understand the logic - the 'why' of von neumann machines and Javascript and transistors, it's clear that your claim isn't true and there is an underlying logic. The trouble is, until we positively identify that logic, we can't know if it exists or not and we're stuck debating the bioequivalent of the fundamental computational significance of the clock cycle speed of a CPU.