#gerhardroth

🧠 BCI & Biological Computers: Why Conventional Chips Are Doomed to Fail in the Brain ⚡🤖 The dream of the perfect brain-computer interface (BCI) fascinates the tech world: a silicon chip in the head, and humans and machines merge seamlessly. But the biological reality is quite different. Conventional computer chips hit a fundamental, functional limit in the human brain. 🚫 The Biological Problem: The Communication Barrier • Only Electricity, No Chemistry: A classic chip merely transmits electrical signals. Our brain, however, communicates primarily via chemical messengers—neurotransmitters and neuropeptides. Without this molecular component, any technical system implanted in the brain remains trivial. • The Rejection Response: Foreign bodies do not simply integrate into the brain. Neurons do not form permanent connections with silicon; the material is inevitably rejected over time. Even biological stem cells (such as those implanted in Parkinson’s patients) are often rejected by the body—and this is even more true for rigid computer chips. 🧬 The Future: Bioorganic Chips? To make BCIs truly revolutionary and long-lasting, we would need bioorganic chips—that is, hardware that not only generates electrical pulses but can also release neurotransmitters. An immense technical challenge! This is hardly feasible in the next 30 years—perhaps in 100 years. However, the recent successes in the current development of brain organoids also suggest that the timeframe estimated by Gerhard Roth may have been a bit too optimistic after all. 💬 The Neuro-Philosophical Perspective In our current discourse, we are examining precisely this interface in the constitution of consciousness: Is a pure transfer of neural structures via BCIs—in the sense of John A. Wheeler’s “It from Bit”—even realistic? Or does the brain function in a physical way that permanently eludes purely digital logic? What do you think? Will we carry biological computers in our heads in the distant future, or will the chemical complexity of the brain remain technologically impossible to replicate? Share your thoughts in the comments! 👇 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/ 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik

🧠🧪 Brains as Chemical Computers: Why Modern AI Can’t Yet Mimic Our Thinking Are artificial intelligence and the human brain essentially the same thing? Physically speaking, yes—both systems are uncompromisingly bound by the fundamental laws of nature. However, a recent EU-funded study directly comparing natural and artificial intelligence reveals a massive gap: The way our brain processes information differs fundamentally from the most advanced AI of our time. The key difference? The brain is primarily a chemical computer. While digital AI is based on silicon and purely electrical impulses, our thinking—and especially our emotions—is largely governed by complex chemical processes. Chemistry is the cornerstone here. Technological “chemical computers” do not yet exist; it will likely take another 50 to 100 years before we can create them artificially. 🔍 Focus on Neurophilosophy: The Zoomposium with Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Roth This fascinating biological-chemical nature of thought raises profound neuroscientific and philosophical questions. We explored precisely these questions in an in-depth interview with the renowned neuroscientist Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Roth. At the center is the fundamental question of the constitution of our consciousness: • The illusion of the “self”: Does Roth’s famous metaphor still hold true today—that our conscious self is merely like a “government spokesperson” who, in hindsight, interprets and legitimizes things whose (biochemical) underpinnings he does not even know? • The “Hard Problem”: How exactly does our subjective experience from a first-person perspective actually arise from purely material chemistry? • Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs): Is it even realistic to translate neural structures into a digital form (“It from Bit”) as long as we cannot technologically replicate the brain’s complex chemical components? The human brain remains the most fascinating system in the known universe—not despite, but precisely because of its highly complex, “wet” biochemistry. 💬 Discussion prompt for the network: If thoughts and feelings are inextricably linked to biochemical processes—can a purely digital, silicon-based AI ever attain true consciousness? Or does the path to true biological intelligence necessarily involve the development of artificial, chemical computers? I look forward to hearing your perspectives and to an exciting debate in the comments! 👇 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/ 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik

• The conscious self as interpreter: This ties in with our in-depth interview with the renowned neurobiologist and philosopher Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Roth. His famous metaphor illustrates this interplay: Our conscious self is like a “government spokesperson” who interprets and legitimizes complex processes that have been prepared unconsciously. Yet it is precisely this conscious attribution that significantly alters how we act in and with the world. The notion that one could simply subtract phenomenal consciousness and human behavior would remain exactly the same ignores the functional necessity of our mind. What do you think? Is consciousness the indispensable guide of our flexible actions, or do we underestimate how much a purely unconscious “machine” could theoretically simulate? I look forward to your perspectives in the comments! 👇 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/ 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik

🌍 Does reality exist only in the brain🧠 - Or are we already living in the reality of deepfakes👥? If everything we see, hear, and perceive is first constructed in the brain—how certain can we really be about “reality”? In the Zoomposium on the “Constitution of Consciousness,” Gerhard Roth describes a fascinating epistemological problem: The brain that we regard as an object cannot logically be identical to the brain that gives rise to our consciousness. For how could a subset generate the entirety of reality? This raises one of the oldest and at the same time most modern questions in philosophy and neuroscience: 👉 Is there a reality independent of consciousness? 👉 Or do we live in a subjective construction of our mind? Especially in the digital age, this question takes on a new social dimension. For when algorithms, filter bubbles, and echo chambers further personalize our perception, a dual construction of reality emerges: one neural—and one digital. Our attention is increasingly focused on curated information spaces where confirmation is more common than contradiction. Thus, neurophilosophy suddenly intersects with media theory: The brain does not merely generate reality—digital platforms help shape it as well. Amid consciousness research, the “hard problem,” brain-computer interfaces, and digital tribalism, one of the central questions of our time emerges: How much of reality do we actually still experience together? 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/ 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik

🧠 Brain research – contradictions and insights⚡💡 How objective is brain research really? Many textbooks devote hundreds of pages to describing in detail how perception, emotions, and cognitive processes occur in the brain – seemingly in a sober, objective, and scientifically sound manner. But as soon as consciousness is mentioned, the narrative suddenly changes: everything we experience is a construct of the brain. This gives rise to an intriguing contradiction: if even our scientific findings are themselves only constructs of the brain, what status do the objective statements in the first chapters have? Do we sufficiently reflect on the fact that our theories are also products of the very system they seek to explain? In the Zoomposium with Gerhard Roth, we discuss this epistemological tension between neuroscience and philosophy: Is there an independent reality outside the brain? Is there a “hard problem” of consciousness? Can the self be localized—or is it merely an interpreting “government spokesperson,” as Roth once put it? The conversation moves at the interface between neurobiology and philosophy of mind and shows that neither pure philosophy without a scientific foundation nor pure neuroscience without philosophical reflection is sufficient to adequately understand the phenomenon of consciousness. A contribution on the limits of objectivity—and on the necessity of knowledge. 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/ 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik

✨ Consciousness – the government spokesperson 📢 of our brain 🧠 What if our conscious self is not the decision-maker at all, but only the one who explains decisions after the fact? Neuroscientist Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Roth describes consciousness as a kind of government spokesperson: it interprets and legitimizes actions whose actual reasons lie in unconscious neural processes – processes to which we have no direct access. Most of the processes in the brain that are relevant to our behavior and personality take place outside of our consciousness. Only when information becomes particularly important, complex, or detailed is consciousness “switched on”—not as a controller, but as a narrator. This perspective fundamentally challenges our self-image: 👉 How free is our will really? 👉 How reliable is our sense of self? 👉 And what does this mean for responsibility, identity, and a new view of humanity? A fascinating insight into the neuroscientific and philosophical debate on the constitution of consciousness. 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/ 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik

A new view of humanity – is the dream of brain research coming true? 🧠✨ Do we need a new view of humanity? The Zoomposium with Gerhard Roth makes it clear that brain research has changed our self-image – but a new view of humanity cannot be created through neurobiology alone. The old dualism of body and mind still shapes our culture. At the same time, it is becoming apparent that a purely scientific view of humanity is difficult to communicate to society. Roth therefore advocates an interdisciplinary understanding of humanity: neurobiology needs psychology, philosophy, sociology, and physics. The discussion focuses on consciousness, the self, gaps in our understanding, brain-computer interfaces, and the big question of whether the hopes of brain research will actually be fulfilled. A plea for enlightenment, dialogue—and a view of humanity that does justice to the complexity of human beings. 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/

🌍 Does the world only exist in your head 🧠 ? What if everything you see, feel, and think only exists in your brain? Neurophilosopher Gerhard Roth puts reality to the test: “The brain I am researching only exists in my consciousness—which in turn only exists in my brain.” A thought experiment that challenges both the mind and the cosmos. Is the world out there really real—or just a neural simulation of our consciousness? In another Zoomposium, we talk about consciousness, the brain, and the limits of knowledge. 📺 Interview: https://youtu.be/0LG4gU_jfik 📎 Information: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2021/12/05/wie-wirklich-ist-bewusstsein/