Bryan,
How do you know the brain has a code? Why can't it be entirely
"impression-istic" - a system for literally forming, storing and associating
sensory impressions (including abstracted, simplified, hierarchical
impressions of other impressions)?
1). FWIW some comments from a cortically knowledgeable robotics friend:
"The issue mentioned below is a major factor for die-hard card-carrying
Turing-istas, and to me is also their greatest stumbling-block.
You called it a "code", but I see computation basically involves setting up
a "model" or "description" of something, but many people think this is
actually "synonomous" with the real-thing. It's not, but many people are in
denial about this. All models involves tons of simplifying assumptions.
EG, XXX is adamant that the visual cortex performs sparse-coded [whatever
that means] wavelet transforms, and not edge-detection. To me, a wavelet
transform is just "one" possible - and extremely simplistic (meaning subject
to myriad assumptions) - mathematical description of how some cells in the
VC appear to operate.
Real biological systems are immensely more complex than our simple models.
Eg, every single cell in the body contains the entire genome, and genes are
being turned on+off continually during normal operation, and based upon an
immense #feedback loops in the cells, and not just during reproduction. On
and on."
2) I vaguely recall de Bono having a model of an imprintable surface that
was non-coded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mechanism_of_the_Mind
(But I think you may have to read the book. Forgive me if I'm wrong).
3) Do you know anyone who has thought of using or designing some kind of
computer as an imprintable rather than just a codable medium? Perhaps that
is somehow possible.
PS Go to bed. :)
Bryan/MT
:
I think this is a good important point. I've been groping confusedly
here. It seems to me computation necessarily involves the idea of
using a code (?). But the nervous system seems to me something
capable of functioning without a code - directly being imprinted on
by the world, and directly forming movements, (even if also involving
complex hierarchical processes), without any code. I've been
wondering whether computers couldn't also be designed to function
without a code in somewhat similar fashion. Any thoughts or ideas of
your own?
Hold on there -- the brain most certainly has "a code", if you will
remember the gene expression and the general neurophysical nature of it
all. I think partly the difference you might be seeing here is how much
more complex and grown the brain is in comparison to somewhat fragile
circuits and the ecological differences between the WWW and the
combined evolutionary history keeping your neurons healthy each day.
Anyway, because of the quantified nature of energy in general, the brain
must be doing something physical and "operating on a code", or i.e.
have an actual nature to it. I would like to see alternatives to this
line of reasoning, of course.
As for computers that don't have to be executing code all of the time.
I've been wondering about machines that could also imitate the
biological ability to recover from "errors" and not spontaneously burst
into flames when something goes wrong in the Source. Clearly there's
something of interest here.
-
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
