[META: please turn line-wrap on, for each of these responses my own standards for outgoing mail necessitate that I go through each line and ensure all quotations are properly formatted...]
Brad Wyble wrote: > The situation for understanding a single neuron is somewhat disastrous. ... > I'm just trying to give you a taste of the sophistications that are > relevant to brain function and cannot be glossed over. Iff the brain is not unique in its capability to support intelligence then all of this can be replaced by some abstract model with the same basic computational charactaristics but in a very different way. > > So the question is: what program is necessary to generate a system >> with the same computational charactoristics as the brain? (completely > > ignoring the implementation details, most of which are irrelevant or > > artifacts of the general implementation strategy). > The "implementation details" are what tells you how the brain > functions. I don't care _HOW_ it functions, I care about _WHAT_ a given section accomplishes through its functioning. Given that, it should be relatively streight forward to find a work-alike Failing that, it is still possible to set up a system akin to Creatures but with a much more powerful engine and wait untill a "good'nuff" algorithm evolves on its own... This is, infact, my basic plan at this juncture. =) > We don't know the computational characteristics yet because > they are so extraordinarily complex. We don't yet completely > understand how a *single synapse* functions. You're squinting too hard. > > My current understanding draws heavily on the Cerebral Code by >> William H. Calvin (assuming I don't have to go all the way over to the > shelf to > > check the name). Calvin proposes what ammounts to a sophisticated, > > optomized Celular Automata. > He's a fine author of pop neuroscience, but in order to be accessible > he necessarily glosses over many layers of complexity. It is a mistake > to take his simplified representations at face value. He needs to > simplify to get his good ideas across. Use the ideas, but don't > extrapolate brain functions from his simplistic depictions. <rant mode engaged> I HATE IVORYTOWERISM!!! IF A BOOK DOESN'T TELL IT LIKE IT IS, IT SHOULD NEVER BE PUBLISHED, EVEN TO LITTLE CHILDREN!! (Especially not to little children.) Actually, I was looking at the book for the first time in years, trying to use it as a refferance text. I gave up because the damn thing had so much fluff as to be a waste of time... (Is there a paper on the theory?) IvoryTowerism: You have to sneak onto a university campus to get anywhere near a reasonably complete library/bookstore and then pay black-market prices to cart one off... =((( <Rant disengaged> > > This system is still too dynamic, we want to ground it in a more >> stable system. We create two classes of state, a persistant structural >> state and a dynamic state that expresses the present activation of the > > persistant state. In almost all higher animals, a sleep period is > > required to clear the chaotic dynamic state of the matrix and > > re-initialize it from the persistant state. The reset process occours > > during delta wave sleep and the re-init process occours during beta >> wave sleep. Also during this time, the almost totally unbiased >> computational matrix which is the cortex is programmed through a >> program running on a small subset of the cortex loaded from what is >> essentially a ROM being the Amigdalya and hypothalamus as well as >> certain structures in the reticular formation. > Incorrect. The cortex has genetically pre-programmed systems. It > cannot be said that is a matrix loaded with software from subcortical > structures.. Your are actually agreeing with me. =P The brain does have an innate structure in the form of the topology I mentioned earlier. This topology naturally leads to the development of functional systems. HOWEVER, there is no law in the *cortex* which governs what behaviors it will produce (likes, dislikes etc...) these must be inputed either from the environment or from the subcortical structures. > > The neocortex, as far as I know, is fairly uniform in general >> algorithm. We only need to "wire" it up slightly differently for each >> region. I don't know wheather this applies to the older cortical >> regions such as the hypocampus as well. I do know that the latter >> structures use a different and moderately less complex algorithm... > It is not, in fact, fairly uniform. It varies in architecture (the > type & percentage of various cell types as well as layer thickness) as > well as by connectivity with other structures. The variations are on > the scale of millimeters, so there will be quite alot of them. Yes, and I don't think those varriations in layers or even connectivity are at all significant. Ofcourse you want to know which layer is for input and which layer is for feedback but you don't really worry yourself about the measurements which are probably a biproduct of having more neurons in those regions that are heavily connected and not, in themselves, interesting... The extray layers in the occipital lobe are probably nothing more than the equivalent of a math coprocessor in a computer... > I've spent 8 years studying hippocampal anatomy. It is fascinating and > highly structured in a way the cortex isn't (or its simplicity allows > us to perceive the structure). Vast volumes of data about its anatomy > are available and I have read most of it. GIMME GIMME GIMME!!! =P > I( and the rest of the hippocampal community) am at a loss to tell you > how it functions. Do we know what it does? (how its outputs relate to its inputs) > > But how many of these require special code? How many of those are > > simply programs that were acquired through learning? (and hence >> *should* not be coded by the AI designer.) > We don't know. But the fact that everyone tends to pick up more or > less the same set of systems indicates that they are likely > pre-programmed to emerge through life, even if not present from birth. > Such things would have to be programmed by the designer. I would say they are a byproduct of the overall structure (as mentioned above) and not at all related to any voodoo in the internal structure of the cortex... -- I WANT A DEC ALPHA!!! =) 21364: THE UNDISPUTED GOD OF ALL CPUS. http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/ [if rcn.com doesn't work, try erols.com ] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
