How realistic are my neurons?

Question

I am writing a book about anatomically plausible superhumans ( a new artificially created form of man ), which, in addition to incredible physical strength, should also be distinguished by incredible intelligence, which I have always tried to increase simply by making their brains larger or compacting the neurons themselves, as is the case in birds. However, some time ago I thought about why not transfer some of the functions into the cell itself, creating a primitive computer from each neuron?

So in binary computers we can only pass or delay one signal, depending from the other. We use Boolean algebra and logic for addition. At the same time, an analog computer can fold natively. Gapless synapses (a design of neurons invented by me that might not have a gap between synapses) already know how to amplify or jam a signal, and we just need to add signals to each other and change their total power according to a given coefficient. How should such modified neurons be arranged?

Unlike ordinary human neurons, inside this neuron there should be thin branching tubes, divided into sectors. Sectors of these villi could connect, amplify and separate the signal, form direct and feedback stations, and pass the impulse in only one direction. In this case, the tubes themselves would have to be filled with chemically obtained ions, which would regulate the electrical resistance of the medium. Depending on the potential of the pulse, the conductivity can change, which changes the power of the signal at the output. The signal would have to be added if the two tubes are connected together. The signal that passes more often stimulates an increase in the channel conductance, which amplifies it at the output. Thanks to external signals, it is possible to change the conductance of individual channels, which makes it possible to change the weight of the entire neuron. As a result, such cells should have become larger, but a network of ten such analog neurons could replace a network of a thousand ordinary ones.

How scientifically realistic is this design of neurons of my superhumans and how much, if it is possible to calculate, ordinary people could become smarter with such an addition in the nervous system?

Answer 1

I've read of many fringe science (and let's be honest, most of these are rather deep into pseudoscience) that claim various things about neurons:

1. That they aren't the minimum unit of computation in the brain, that there are specialized organelles that perform computation and neurons are a primitive network of computers.
2. That signaling between them isn't electrochemical, but "acoustic". Supposedly that explains the rather low signal times. Myelin degenerative disorders are, allegedly, explicable because it interferes with that signalling.
3. That neurons aren't even the seat of computation in human minds, but that their activity is merely some side effect.

And so on.

Much is unknown about how human intelligence works. There is quite a bit of wiggle room, especially if you're willing to dip your toes into the pseudoscience.

However, it should be pointed out that engineering these things requires an even more sophisticated engineer who understands it all, presumably who isn't superhuman himself. Further, unless humans already have sub-neuron computation/intelligence, then actually engineering that as a feature of some GMO is so far out there that it's unlikely anyone today or for many millennia could accomplish it.

As for calculating intelligence, we can't even measure it meaningfully. Go read about the Flynn Effect.

Answer 2

and we just need to add signals to each other and change their total power according to a given coefficient

Yep. Why not just do that.

This suggests to me that there's a fairly pseudoscientific lack of appreciation about just how meshed and intertwined and jawdroppingly complex, neurology is. "Just" change their "power" according to "some coefficient". Hmmmm.

Based on this, and other science sounding word salad, I'm honestly not hopeful that this would be at all "realistic".

That said, its your world. If you say it works there, then by definition there isn't proof it can't, either.

Answer 3

This question appears to mistakenly assume that neural networks are digital computing devices. They are not... they are analog. Each neuron acts as an integrator, summing its inputs according to how close each is to the body of the neuron, and how temporally closely those inputs arrive. If the sum of the inputs exceeds a threshold, the neuron fires... though it may fire at a baseline rate without input.

So, to so radically change the way that neurons work as the OP describes, the likelihood is that the resultant brain would either fail to function, or function sufficiently differently that its thought patterns would be considered alien.

Intelligence is a factor of processing power applied over time. It is possible for a person with a lower effective processing power to be perceived as more intelligent by virtue of spending more time thinking. There is also apparently a thought-time limit to most people's brains... people tend to spend a fixed time thinking about an abstract problem before concluding their thoughts and either announcing the answer they have come up with, or admitting defeat, but this time limit varies from person to person.

So, the best way to increase intelligence is not necessarily to radically change the way that the brain functions, but to remove the inefficiencies... reduce the propagation time of neural impulses and to use faster synaptic mechanisms than chemical neurotransmitters. That way, more processing can take place in a given time, increasing the intelligence of the person.