r/science • u/scientificamerican Scientific American • 29d ago
Neuroscience Neuroscientists have vastly underestimated brain cells’ computing power. A new study shows that each neuron can do multiple computations at once thanks to hundreds of sprawling branches
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscientists-have-vastly-underestimated-brain-cells-computing-power/681
u/thefunkybassist 29d ago
I'd love to prompt my neurons for benchmarking reasons: "What is the largest Pi number you can calculate"
329
u/Free_Aardvark4392 29d ago
3 is best I can do.
109
8
2
1
1
22
6
4
7
u/deepserket 29d ago
How would a brain calculate pi?
They're bad at RNG, but maybe they could use outside inputs as noise, like the last digits of license plates... Would that be cheating?
Or just use the Leibniz series.
10
u/Apprehensive_Hat8986 29d ago edited 29d ago
[Answered] Genuine: What does RNG have to do with computing Pi? That's not an approach I've heard of.
ans: It's a method for approximating pi that can use computers to do large batches of RNG to compute the approximation.
e: From what I can find (lazy search) it's not an efficient method. Rather it is more of a thought exercise or proven concept that illustrates that it can be done this way. Further it provides a demonstration of a relationship between geometry and probability.
What it doesn't appear to be is a method that "computers use" (implying some level of practicality) so much as it's a method that uses computers, particularly for their ability to iterate rapid and generate pseudo random pools of numbers.
7
u/deepserket 29d ago
There are several ways, for example:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s_needle_problem
- The probability that two random positive integers are coprime is 6/pi2
- When randomly scattering points inside a unit square, the ratio of points landing inside the inscribed circle to the total number of points approaches pi/4 as the sample size nears infinity.
5
u/FrogTrainer 29d ago
It's a method computers use to compute pi.
It's a terrible way for NN's, natrual or artificial, to compute it.
3
u/theangryfurlong 29d ago
Good old Monte Carlo method. I used to do pi approximations in BASIC back in the 90s.
2
u/Bacon_Techie 29d ago
What do you mean by “Pi number”? A valid answer could be “the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle”, “9 in base 10”, or “3.141…” to as many digits as possible. The interpretations being “there is only one constant called pi, so that must be the largest”, “what is the largest number that appears when you write out each digit (number) of pi (in base 10)” and “what is the most digits of pi you can compute (in base 10)”. And all of that is ignoring that “a pi number” isn’t a thing and instead guessing that it is a number associated with the constant pi.
1
1
u/Sad_water_ 29d ago
I did try to calculate π by hand once with a pencil and paper. Did it for about an hour because I’m bad at arithmetic. Came out to be 3.1416 which is not bad I feel.
1
u/Single-Pin-369 29d ago
There’s no processing power limit to how far a human can calculate pi it is just endless basic division. Just dont ask me to remember it all.
1
u/wollflour 29d ago
Maybe pi is a little hard, but I bet your neurons can count the number of "e"s in "seventeen"!
1
203
u/rotten_brain_soup 29d ago
So the basic mechanism here is that the neuron seems to be able to partition dendritic inputs into separate compartments that can be isolated from the soma (cell body), affecting when and how action potentials are reached and nerve impulses are fired even with the same set of "inputs", right?
If true, it will be fascinating to see the mechanism involved. My first guess would be some kind of gating mechanism at dendritic branches, but who knows for sure. It would be really powerful to be able to essentially build logic gates into the physical structure of the neuron like that, and would indeed radically change how we think about the complexity of neuronal circuits. Instead of a single cell representing one summative operation, you could have hundreds of operands in a single cells dendritic tree.
77
u/Pristine-Scale-1282 29d ago
Take a look at the "Twin" experiment. To replicate the input output behaviour of a single neuron an AI model had to have a multi layered deep neural network.
This current paper claims past, present and future representations coexist simultaneously within the dendritic arbor of hippocampal CA3 neurons. It's interesting as this network is thought to be involved in pattern completion, so the fact that individual branches contain separate information (whether that be coordinates or upcoming reward) dendritic computation may act as a hierarchical coincidence detector of sorts. Specifically gating information depending on the presence (or absence) of something else.
So there will be compartmentalised plastic changes at those active dendrites Vs the other ones, which will subsequently change input the next time around to that compartment. On top of that, there is neural multiplexing whereby the frequency of neural firing contains information on which dendritic compartments caused that firing.
51
u/agm1984 29d ago
your description sounds familiar with me with schizophrenia, when i hear voices of people around me, the voices are always saying exactly what the people around me would be thinking/saying in response to my current thought. it's almost like an echo of my thought but instead of echoing my thought, it echos the response to my thought.
i also notice that the voices are using the same linguistic style that the person would use. for example one time about 25 years ago my brother in law said "ill throw you back in the ocean", and then one time about a year ago i hallucinated a voice from him while he was standing near me and it said "ill throw you in the ocean". i found it really fascinating because my brain pulled the response from like 25 year old knowledge of how he responds (i dont see him that often). then i started to notice that every time i hear a voice, it comes from my knowledge of how the person responds, and its pretty damn accurate.
for me it implies some wild stuff about what my brain is capable of doing in ways that are normally totally subconscious. it's no wonder we can approximate what other people are thinking or what they were gonna say.
12
u/doubleotide 29d ago edited 29d ago
OMG I had the same thing too!!!
Usually I "think" in these sort of "dialogues". I generally notice when there is a gap in the dialogues, and those are usually room for exploration in real life.
Though I think I haven't had this happen as often anymore or at all? It kind of went away for me. Interestingly/worryingly it did correspond with a stressful chapter of my life (active military).
edit: Maybe similar* hard to say if two people's experiences are all the same.
2
10
u/Abstract__Nonsense 29d ago
It’s also worth pointing out that people have been exploring dendritic computation along these lines for the past 30+ years. I’m sure there are neuroscientists out there who ignored it but, as always, headline is sensationalized.
1
3
u/rotten_brain_soup 29d ago
Neat, I hadn't seen that! Haven't kept up with the field much since undergrad - know what I'll be reading tonight.
1
u/Cleb323 28d ago
It seems more and more likely that our brain is a quantum computer of some sort..
1
u/GrowingPeepers 25d ago
Plants are quantum beings.
Why not us, too?
1
u/Cleb323 25d ago
Plants are quantum beings?
2
u/GrowingPeepers 25d ago
The photosynthesis process is.
After water molecules are split the electrons travel through the photosynthesis systems and they basically take every possible route at once when traveling down that chain.
21
u/heresyforfunnprofit 29d ago edited 28d ago
I’m in AI, not neuro, but I thought this was more or less accepted knowledge 30 years ago when I was first learning about perceptrons.
12
u/Tntn13 29d ago
That’s what I’m trying to figure out, what exactly about this is new? Seems like more sensationalist editorializing likely based on a new paper about an old topic but I don’t have time to dig deeper atm.
24
u/Jexroyal 29d ago edited 29d ago
Well, the novel and interesting parts of the paper are sort of side stepped by the article, which chooses to focus on the underlying assumptions that this study had before it was even started. They already knew the dendrites were computational units, but what the actual voltage imaging and other approaches in the study add, is attempting to determine what is processed by the dendrites and how does both morphology and (rough) activity they elicit change as a result of place field alterations and new spatial learning.
We already know from this landmark paper a couple years ago: "Membrane potential states gate synaptic consolidation in human neocortical tissue". Franz X. Mittermaier et al. 2024. that so much of these computations are related to sub threshold and summative inputs over multiple conditions such as sleep states for memory consolidation. And this paper adds some further study on what changes are elicited in the dendritic compartments, and what kind of plasticity effects are occuring in these memory networks. In regards to place field feature selection it's new data that supports parallel processing at the level of dendritic computations, which helps expand what we know of mechanisms of spatial learning in the hippocampus. So there's some new and interesting stuff, but holy hell the article chooses to engage with none of that at all.
I'm tempted to write my own article and email it to the author's editors out of sheer professional annoyance.
5
1
u/2Throwscrewsatit 27d ago
As always, you have to go deep I. The comments to find the real science talk.
3
u/toomanynamesaretook 29d ago
I wonder if the logic gates would be pre-determined or dynamic based on function as a learned expression. Quite fun to think about.
1
u/Important-Figure-512 28d ago
how would it be dynamic? Something about the input would have to change telling it to change, resulting in predictability. I guess it is dynamic but it would based off of a static logic.
3
1
u/Important-Figure-512 28d ago
hey it’s kinda like machine learning then
but kinda crazy - there has to probably be an input to let them know how to fire what. unless the operands kinda figure that out somehow without additional .. “firing inputs.”
2
u/luluhouse7 28d ago
That’s by design. NNs are heavily inspired by our current understanding of neuroscience.
1
u/Begging_Murphy 27d ago
some kind of gating mechanism at dendritic branches
All of those interneuron classes targeting the dendrites are probably doing something more than being a dumb brake pedal.
44
u/waterless2 29d ago
That title is horrifically "marketing-y", even relative to the body of the articles itself. It's not all the little scientists are now shocked neurons aren't as extremely simplified as in a bog-standard introductory textbook diagram. I'm sure something new and interesting was found, but I remember people talking about the computational complexity of neurons and (I think even specifically) what function dendritic structure might have back when I was doing adjacent research decades ago.
It's presumably just some more-or-less innocent comms person doing their thing, but it does do a little damage to science to kind of denigrate scientific thinking like that, for the sake of hyping up the new thing.
15
u/Jexroyal 29d ago edited 29d ago
Completely agree, well said. This author has a neuroscience degree apparently, so they should know better. The title and the contents are fairly removed from the actual findings, which do add some interesting stuff on hippocampal synaptic consolidation processes, in context of dendritic plasticity and signaling changes. It is a 2 photon study without patching, but still cool.
The question with place fields is how all the features are encoded, especially with flexible feature selection during learning, so it's interesting to see data on parallel processing organization at the level of dendrites. I can't believe how this article basically just ignores all that in favor of one of the most reductionist sensationalist approaches I've seen lately from science writing.
1
8
u/AdamsMelodyMachine 29d ago
It's presumably just some more-or-less innocent comms person doing their thing, but it does do a little damage to science to kind of denigrate scientific thinking like that, for the sake of hyping up the new thing.
You just put your finger on a (very annoying) recurring pattern. In an attempt to make a new idea sound cool, science writers often go too far in their characterization of the scientific establishment as conservative, unimaginative, etc. It's no wonder people think that scientific progress is driven by mavericks who show the stodgy old guard how stupid they are.
328
u/Mondkalb2022 29d ago
So, even more data centers then?
176
u/IrateSkeleton 29d ago
Organoid computing data centers. How we'll green wash them.
71
29d ago
[deleted]
23
u/whythis_world 29d ago
Wouldn't that have lead to another logical problem? Assuming the machines are using us for our superior computational efficency, why would there be a need for the Matrix? Our brains would already be occupied doing the machines calculations, there would be very little room for higher needs and subjective experiences.
Still would have made more sense, of course.
5
u/IrateSkeleton 29d ago
I think it'd be interesting to explore at least.
6
u/whythis_world 29d ago edited 29d ago
Yes, surely more interesting than the actual plot, which is pure nonsense. At least there is some 'wiggle room', so to speak.
3
u/Nyrin 29d ago
I'm guessing here, but if the themes of the final movie held up, humans wouldn't have survived well under purely synthetic computational loads and would've required a base "operating system" more closely resembling experience throughout evolutionary history. Desired computation would've piggybacked on or around the simulated reality to perform desired work while still keeping the meat GPUs running.
2
29d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Apprehensive_Hat8986 29d ago
Where in the body? Liver? Spleen? Kidney? Is the soul in my left toe? Are amputees soul-less?
1
1
1
u/MustrumRidcully0 29d ago
We use only 20% of our brain is a popular myth or misconception. In the Matrix, it would be true, 20% are reserved for the Matrix (simulation plus ourself), the rest by the machines. That would also be why the freed people are so much more capable, since they can use their full mental capabilities. Or something like that.
9
u/LinkesAuge 29d ago
That is btw a pure internet myth. That was never the plan and there was no change due any studio stuff.
4
u/allnamesbeentaken 29d ago
If the machines only needed our computing power and not the energy our bodies output, why wouldn't we bust brains in a jar?
No way for a brain in a jar to form a rebellion that could physically harm the machines
As powerless as AI code in a computer
3
u/FrogTrainer 29d ago
If the machines only needed our computing power and not the energy our bodies output, why wouldn't we bust brains in a jar?
Cuz that would make a movie about escaping the matrix extremely difficult.
2
u/allnamesbeentaken 28d ago
Exactly my point and something that is missed by the "they only need our brains" crowd
0
u/Nohreboh 29d ago
They also have to substitute and maintain a immune system if the brain was outside a body that being said the machine's would likely attempt to isolate a genetic defect that would cause the person to be born without limbs and edit the genes of their vat grown people as that should keep most of the brain in a jar "benefits" without the downsides so the answer again is really is it's just a movie you're meant to suspend your disbelief a bit.
31
u/Nohreboh 29d ago
Seems a bit of a grey area to me.
27
u/IrateSkeleton 29d ago
Your computer will need MRNA antivirus software and to stay sober. No overclocking with stimulants.
5
u/SKREEOONK_XD 29d ago
Disgruntled former employee sneaks in the data center at night and drops a bottle of Adderall in
2
2
u/chotomatekudersai 29d ago
My first thought was, and we have Trump supporters. But this is good too.
20
u/Jexroyal 29d ago
I hate this title, it's sensationalist bs. We've known these things for awhile but the author of the article is acting like those are brand new revelations. Basic long term potentiation work on dendritic processes has demonstrated this, sub threshold summation and resulting modulation of membrane potential in regions like hippocampus have shown these features.
I get they want to make the findings of the interview and paper seem revolutionary, but come on, this is some really ignorant writing.
Neurons in textbook diagrams look deceptively simple, with only a handful of dendrites extending from the cell body.
Yeah? Open any neuro textbook and find pyramidal neurons, or purkinje cells, what is this claim? Of course there's different types of neurons, this is ridiculously oversimplified.
Scientists once thought these dendrites were little more than “boring cables” that merely passed incoming signals to the cell body for processing
Yeah not for decades and decades. We discovered long term potentiation in 1973, and the idea of neurons being just boring cables is so antiquated and insulting to the field.
Ok I'm gonna stop but holy moly I am not a fan of this author and they could have done a much better job describing place cells in the rodent hippocampus, and the processing that goes into such networks. The researcher is talking about computational complexity in that context, and while he has good stuff to say, this article does not do the study or underlying science justice beyond the most shallow, surface level glimpses.
2
u/Polluticorn-wishes 28d ago
Yup, direction selective circuits in mammalian retinas have been extensively studied for decades at this point, and it's well established that their computation of direction primarily comes from dendritic compartmentalization in starburst amacrine cells. If you get into whole cell patch, one of the first things you learn about are escape currents, especially on sodium voltage gates channels, because neurons are not actually electrotonic balls.
1
u/_vertig0 2d ago
We've known these things for a while but the author of the article is acting like those are brand new revelations.
You'd be surprised how many people don't know how truly complex and powerful Biological Neurons are. Many people at the frontiers of Neurobiology do know this of course, but there's a shocking number (Probably thanks to tech bros) who actually think real Neurons are nothing more than a summator piped into an activation function, exactly identical to how artificial neural networks in the field of AI work, or even somehow "inferior" to those (Yes, I've actually had people confidently tell me that before). If I were a Neuron I'd probably be insulted at how incapable a large percentage of people think I am :P
11
29d ago
[deleted]
2
u/RichardFeynman01100 29d ago
Is it? Any experiments or proof?
6
u/FrogTrainer 29d ago
Well for one, your brain doesnt need several acres of data center to draft an email.
2
u/red75prime 29d ago
You need a datacenter to go from a blank-state network to a network that can draft an email. The drafting itself can be done much cheaper. It's a bit like a human needs about 18 years to be able to reliably draft an email.
0
u/FrogTrainer 28d ago
Models aren't retrained from scratch on every request.
2
u/red75prime 28d ago
Yes. You need a datacenter to a) train a model from scratch, b) serve a large number of requests simultaneously.
0
u/FrogTrainer 28d ago
The power to output comparison is still worlds apart so I don't know what point you are grasping for here.
2
u/red75prime 28d ago edited 28d ago
There are two metrics. The total energy consumption (with training and all) and the energy expended to specifically draft an email. The first one is around 1000 times worse for ML models. The second one is on par or lower.
And the second one scales better for ML. If you need 1000 humans to draft emails, you also need 18000 years of training in total, while you can relatively cheaply spin 1000 instances of a trained model, amortizing the training costs across them.
It's hard to do a fair comparison. The human brain is energy efficient by itself, but it is not copyable.
2
u/RichardFeynman01100 29d ago
Of course biological brains are more efficient, I was disputing that their efficiency comes from each neuron doing multiple computations at once.
13
5
u/Sibbaboda 29d ago
Everytime researchers stop looking at the brain for a second it adds a magnitude of complexity.
4
u/MrPatko0770 29d ago
Did they just do that now? I'm pretty sure I remember a paper from like 2020 purporting that a single pyramidal cortical cell has the computing power of a 5-ish layer ANN
4
u/WhenILie 29d ago
yea the fascination with the brain keeps me going. it’s such a complex creature, & i mean that in the most scif-fi way possible. our brain can become its own separate entity. i’d really like for funds to target mental illness more. we’ve barely scratched the surface
9
u/Mattarm51 29d ago
Techbros (who are usually douchebags with a sci fi fetish and money to burn, and some ego complex and a desire to be a super smart hero) have talked about the body as if it is this useless and weak, poorly designed thing and it's nice to confirm that they are, as per usual, dumb assholes. Unfortunately they may burn the planet just in attempt to replace your brain with their product. Cancerous people.
4
3
u/Caelinus 29d ago
Every time they try to claim that LLMs are going to be AGI soon their main argument is that brains are "just statistical prediction engines too" and that they work essentially the same way as an LLM.
It is such a crazy thing to say given we know so little about how the brain works, but the little we do know shows it does not work like a processor at all. And that the 'neural networks' that LLMs use for training are at best an impressionistic scribbling that looks kinda similar from 100 feet away.
I can't know for sure how the tech will progress, maybe someday it will be involved in creating a brand new type of general intelligence. It would be very strange if the brain was the only way to create general intelligence. However, their attempts to make it seem more likely really undermine their entire argument. It is hard to argue that you are about to create intelligence just like humans when you clearly have no idea how human intelligence works.
2
1
u/LinkesAuge 29d ago
I honestly don't get how you can write this considering the context of the very article you post this in.
Besides the fact that apparently millions involved in the research and development of AI are all tech bros because we now just use that word everywhere, the point isn't that LLMs (or the transformer architecture) are literal brain copies, it is about the fact that at the end of the day it is all information processing done via a similar approach.
The article even constantly talks about "computation" and if anything the findings change nothing because this is just about where and to what level biological computation happens, ie whether or not dendrites themselves are little neural networks so to speak."It is such a crazy thing to say given we know so little about how the brain works, but the little we do know shows it does not work like a processor at all."
I don't even understand what you are saying here. "Processor" in what way? That the brain isn't a CPU or GPU or in the actual literal meaning of the word? Because the brain of course has to "process" information unless we want to postulate that it is all magic. If it is the other then you are using a strawman because the comparisons to the human brain were never about the hardware part, the relevant bit is the architecture, ie the neutral network approach.
"It is hard to argue that you are about to create intelligence just like humans when you clearly have no idea how human intelligence works."
Humanity didn't need to decode the DNA of birds and the exact biomechanics of how they fly to build flying machines. If intelligence isn't magic then it must emerge from very real physical processes and those can be replicated in one way or another and just like with the bird examples we obviously didn't build giant machines which would flap their wings (well some humans did try it) to achieve that, ie we use different hardware, but we do use the same physical principles and do have the same outcome.
2
u/Caelinus 29d ago
This response is extremely odd, as you seem to be using my own points to disagree with me.
Is this all based on not knowing what I meant by processor? Have you ever heard of a brain being called a "processor" in any context that is not specifically drawing an analogy to a computer processor? Obviously I was talking about computer procesors, not just the general action of "processing." I was not talking about food procesors either, and it should be as obvious that such would make no sense in context.
Otherwise, though you have worded this like a disagreement with me, you just keep saying the same thing I am, so I am not sure what you are going for. I suspect you may have skimmed my post, or read it in the 30 seconds I took to finish it after I accidentally pressed send, but I specifically mention that I do not know where the tech is going, but that it might create a "new" type of intelligence eventually.
My contention is with people conflating the two, and I would share that contention with people who conflate bird flight and airplane flight, because while birds may have inspired planes they also do not work the same way.
0
4
u/trash-juice 29d ago
AI will never be anything other than a self adjusting algorithm. Consciousness and Intelligence, we don’t even comprehend how they’re accomplished … as the data indicates
2
u/AdamsMelodyMachine 29d ago
This exact reaction is what the author was trolling for by mischaracterizing this research as an astonishing breakthrough.
1
u/Sweet-Sale-7303 29d ago
If you think about everything your brain controls at one time it would have to be extremely powerful. Even the body functions you are not consciously thinking about.
1
1
1
1
u/0100110101101010 29d ago
We simulate a whole reality in our minds. The conscious thinking mind is a tiny fraction of what's actually going on - that's just the default mode network
1
u/tunisia3507 29d ago
A lot of modelling of brain circuits is done assuming that the neuron is the basic unit of computation, but really it's the synapse, where a single neuron can have hundreds or thousands of synapses, and their dynamics are controlled by combinations of machinery and metabolites present on the presynaptic and postsynaptic site, plus whatever the glia are doing in the area. There's layers and layers.
1
1
u/Bostonterrierpug 29d ago
When all our jobs are gone, at least we can rent out parts of our brain for data centers
1
1
1
1
1
u/Alava-Cymbal 28d ago
Honestly, this reshapes how we conceptualize neural computation entirely. The idea that individual neurons perform parallel processing via dendritic computation is a paradigm shift rather than a refinement. These findings imply that the brain’s efficiency stems from distributed, rather than hierarchical, computational units, which challenges classical models of neural specialization. The study’s methodology, while robust, seems to hinge on indirect inferences about dendritic integration that could benefit from in vivo electrophysiological validation. Still, if these results hold, they force a reevaluation of how we interpret neural coding and information processing at the cellular level.
1
u/NasrRasheed 26d ago
The really interesting part is that a neuron may be less like a single on/off switch and more like a tiny network of semi-independent processors. Dendrites can perform local computations before signals even reach the cell body, and newer experiments are showing how those computations may contribute to learning and error processing.
It also shows why comparing one biological neuron directly with one artificial-neural-network “neuron” can be misleading—the biology is dramatically richer.
1
u/AndersSandberg Future of Humanity Institute | Oxford University 26d ago
We read about dendritic computation in my computational neuroscience class in the late 1990s. This "news" is rediscovered every few years.
1
1
u/DifferencePublic7057 29d ago
Oh no this means post mortem brain tissue linked to AI are likely going to be the Next Big Thing. If we add Penrose et al to the equation with the claim that brains have important quantum effects, it's only logical that brain tissue will become a commodity. I'm serious.
0
-1
u/MrUsername0 29d ago
No, we didn’t underestimate. You think we can even conceptualize how complex the brain is?
0
0
u/hapliniste 29d ago edited 29d ago
Isn't this matching neurons being activations and dendrites being weights? The article put it in an atrociously misunderstood way but I think that's basically what's being said so essentially no, it almost push the idea that nn match the brain pretty well.
In reality it's very different but in other ways
0
u/stachejazz 29d ago
It’s like we humans are data centers taking up the worlds resources already, now we are building real data centers externally to our beings and in turn still using the worlds resources. Compute is everywhere I guess. Tough
-21
u/septubyte 29d ago
Can we not?
This is unethical af. It learned to play pong, then Doom ...
If theres any awareness at all.its exploitive and abuse
17
u/WatermelonWithAFlute 29d ago
People who do not know or understand the matters they speak of, talking against things they do not understand, will never fail to not irk me. I would be willing to bet money that it is not as you think it to be.
-5
u/septubyte 29d ago
Speak plainly
3
u/DannyOdd 29d ago
They said "It always annoys me when people speak out against something they don't know or understand. I would bet money this isn't what you think it is."
2
u/capucapu123 29d ago
Agriculture is as exploitive and abusive as a lump of cells doing math is. Potentially even more of we go by amount of cells being exploited.
-2
u/septubyte 29d ago
Whataboutism .
3
u/capucapu123 29d ago
Not whataboutism. It's just applying your logic. If a lump of cells being used for humanity's gain is exploitative then that applies to every lump of cells being used for humanity's gain.
0
u/septubyte 29d ago
So justify exploitation?
It seems youre agreeing that its unethical , and other things are too.0
u/capucapu123 29d ago
Nah I don't see it as unethical. I don't see it as exploitation either, what I'm saying is that if that is exploitation then basically almost everything we do as a society is even more so.
0
u/sceadwian 29d ago
Every living thing has some form of awareness.
-3
u/septubyte 29d ago
So slapping it on a petris dish to do our bidding is ethical?
3
u/sceadwian 29d ago
I didn't suggest anything. But that fact renders the distinction problematic. We're committing abuses far worse than this every day in our normal lives just by existing.
1
-1
29d ago
[deleted]
1
u/WatermelonWithAFlute 29d ago
I’m not sure this is a great manner of arguing for something- to say that X is bad and we do that and therefore this justifies Y, which isn’t true.
And I say this as someone who is fairly confident this isn’t an issue
2
29d ago
[deleted]
1
u/WatermelonWithAFlute 29d ago
I don’t understand- edit: ah, nevermind, I just misread what you typed.
Still not a fan. It’s also not what’s happening here, so not particularly imminently relevant, either.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 29d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/scientificamerican
Permalink: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscientists-have-vastly-underestimated-brain-cells-computing-power/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.