Human Brain - overview
Wow... this is a big question! Different
people would tend to answer it in conflicting ways, depending on
their own beliefs and academic training. A biologist's viewpoint
is likely to differ greatly from a computer programmer's one -
and both would differ from the perceptions and views of someone
with strong religious beliefs. One thing is for certain, the
human brain is the control centre for all our bodily functions.
Most of its operation is very automated: heart rate, growth,
immune system, external senses, balance, etc., are not accessible
to us by an act of will power. Breathing is both automatic and
voluntary.
The concept underlying a computer's
capacity to compare, analyse, and output information is
encapsulated by a model conceived by Alan Turing (1912-1954, British mathematician). In 1936, while a graduate student, Turing
published a paper called 'On Computable Numbers.' This gave birth
to the concept of a theoretical computing device, now known as a
'Turing machine', which became an important concept during the
time of developing modern computers.
In essence a Turin machine (computer)
will only ever compare data coming in from an external source,
re-model it, and output decisions, concepts, and results
based on rearranging the data fed in. Put simply: the computer
can not add any new truth to the output that was not already
there in the input - albeit, the complexity of the input data
might have made it difficult to realize the discovered result.
If the human brain is unable to add
anything new to data received via its own associated senses, then
- yes, it is just a biological computer! The critical question
therefore is: can the human brain add information/data to
its output from a source other than what is fed in via its senses
or innate programming - the latter being the product of
inheriting genetic properties through an evolutionary chain? If
concepts and ideas are manifested in the brain which arenot the
result of analysing information received through the human
senses, then the brain is more than a biological computer!
Roger Penrose, the celebrated English
Mathmatician, set out to write a book to prove the human brain
was just a Turin Machine. In the course of researching and
producing his book, he began to doubt his original premise.
Although inclusive, Penrose's book - 'The Emperor's New
Mind' opens debate, with some very powerful arguments,
for proposing the human brain to be something quite different
from a Turing Machine (computer). We recommend you read this book
to explore these arguments in detail (ISBN 0-09-977170-5).
Let's explore a few ideas here on the
subject:-
Mind buried in matter?
When we talk of 'brain', we also - possibly
mistakenly - mean 'mind'. It is better to separate these two
terms: the brain being the biological control centre of our
organic form, and 'mind' being that elusive state and abstraction
that we have come to use to describe our awareness. 'Mind' is
certainly associated with 'brain', for damage within its critical
areas can also lead to deterioration in awareness; for
precision: a 'mind' as an entity or physical thing, appears
to be bound with matter (brain tissue in our case) yet not
neccessarily completely constrained by it!
How can this be?
Traditionally, we define our Universe and
all its processes (including us) in classical terms. Different
branches of science use varying descriptive models to
structure and encapsulate any single field of study. Biologists
determine their observations by taking of 'living' processes
which can all be reduced and shown to be dependent on the
activities of cells - the fundemental building blocks of animal
and plant forms; cosmologists talk of stars, black-holes,
galaxies, gravity, mass, and motion, and require mathematics to
relate their subjects' interaction and behaviour; chemists talk
of molecules, nuclear physicists paint a model of reality based
on atoms, quarks, and quantum effects. But the truth is that none
of the Universe's processes, especially living forms, can be
described without applying knowlege from all disciplines at the
same time: life is constructed from cells which themselves can be
reduced to chemicals, molecules, nuclear particles, all working
to universal laws -and if you take time to read about
study at at the frontiers of scientific research - the basic
rules of the cosmos appear very strange and uncertain indeed.
From Big Bang to Brain in a few
simple hops
If
the universe began within what is so called the 'big-bang'then the seeding
material of everything there is today was born in the first
instant: not only material and energy - but abstracts too.
If there is 'awareness' in living forms, it is because that
'awareness' has developed as a direct result what began with the
big-bang. High states of energy became galaxies, suns, and
space-time. Suns generate material, planets materialize out of
their debris, chemicals and atoms work to organise themselves -
driven by the inherent properties of all energy and matter to
achieve a steady state, and as part of this chain of events -
living tissue is generated! It doesn't appear by magic - it has
developed because the sub-atomic framework of the universe, and
the matter and energy it contains, contains characteristics and
properties which would ultimately enable it to happen once
certain local conditions were met.
A brain develops to manage the
increasing complexity of biological processes required to
maintain living forms... or does it?!
The basic 'blue-print' for matter to
organize itself into a self-aware structure is written and
encoded into the raw material itself, deep inside the sub-atomic
level... within the framework of how matter and energy are
described into a physical reality. There are two ways at looking
at this development - not one: either matter organises itself
into living structures and develops a brain (thus mind - as a
consequence of increasing processing power) in order to manage
the orderly working of the living structure... or - matter
organises itself into mind and awareness (driven by inherent
properties), and builds living structures with brains on which it
can present its awareness in an organised and physical way.
In both cases, and in general terms, the
creation of mind and brain is the result of information
processing at a sub-atomic scale. There is nothing to suggest
that such fundemental processing should stop within a living
brain. A human brain may be receiving data about the universe
both through its connected biological senses and through the more
abstract, and as yet ill-defined processes, underlying the nature
of matter - encoded in the tiniest pinpoints of reality, which we
have come to call sub-atomic particles, from which it is
constructed. The brain itself may be a quantum
engine! If this is true, the human brain is more than a
computer: it is a place where the universe can pass abstract
ideas into reality, a place where original thought and
conceptions can become manifest - and through human
interaction - is a place where the universe can begin
to understand itself .
The human brain is a place where
'mind' forms a bridge between a non-physical state and a
physical one. The universe may well be using aware living
forms as a set of mirrors to hold up high and perceive
itself a million different ways before deciding what it will
ultimately become.
Proof
Such speculative argument is unacceptable
in a scientific world without proof. However, science is not the
only only tool we have to describe and define our collective
experiences. Philosophy, art, music, poetry, and
self-introspection, are other methods for examining the 'truth'.
These areas of human awareness and perception more readily aid
understanding of 'abstractions' without waiting for the
pain-staking logic of science to record our experiences so that
they can be demonstrated again to all.
Most people, even without social
conditioning, seem to retain a sense that our short lives are
part of a monumental purpose. As children, we constantly ask
about why we are here and query everything about our existence.
You might find one such personal accounton
the web, exploring this aspect, interesting to see? Maybe our early attitudes,
before we cease to ask questions due to receiving unsatisfactory
answers, reflects the natural state of the universe?
It would be an advantage to
remember that at any point in the history of scientific endeavour
and research, a truth today, is only true until a better one
replaces it. Without doubt, the human mind is one of the
universe's greatest achievements, and I suspect, as I write, that
if I can perceive it as something more than a biological
computer, then this thought itself is the result of introspection
and the detection of a few abstracts as they flicker onto my
neural network - rather than from any proof realized by analysing
external data.
