Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41607564›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2025

Minding the gap between artificial and biological computing paradigms for biologically loyal AI.

K L Kirkpatrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

K L KirkpatrickDepartments of Mathematics and Physics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The theoretical foundation of neuroscience differs from that of artificial intelligence, and to bridge this gap with AI, we would need a new computing paradigm that describes both fields well. The gap came from mathematicians' invention of computability theory, which was deliberately narrower than cognition and yet became a cornerstone of computer science and cognitive science. It has resulted in circular logics for computational biology and biological computing: the computability model of human mathematical activities can limit the sort of technology we build, and in turn, the engineering constraints on our technologies can limit our understanding of brain systems. Here we study several important mathematical and biological activities that computability neglects, helping to bridge the gap between neurobiology and (aspirational) AGI. One such activity is mathematicians' producing proofs of theorems that lie outside artificial computers' logic. Another is neurons' functions that are more complex than transistors, informed by recent neurobiological findings. We end by surveying candidates and inspiration for a new synthesis of AGI with neurobiology, presenting the hypothesis that a new paradigm would have to thoroughly integrate cognition and motion.

Indexed as

biological computingbiologically loyal AIcognitioncomputabilitymultiscale neurobiologyneural networksproof theorywhole brain emulation

Identifiers

PMID41607564
PMCPMC12835300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.