Brad Wyble wrote: > The fact that it is complicated does not mean it cannot be replicated in a >different substrate (and like Ben, I think it would be a misapplication of effort to >try). > [quote left in orrigional form]
Yep, Tell that to the brain uploading crowd. ;) > > I don't care _HOW_ it functions, I care about _WHAT_ a given section > > accomplishes through its functioning. > The nature of neuroscience research doesn't really differentiate between the two at present. In order to understand WHAT a brain part does, we have to understand HOW it, and all structures connected to it function. We need to understand the inputs and the outputs, and that's all HOW. > I wouldn't say even that much... The exact format of the IO is not necessary either but only the general "Information X Y and Z is carried to here from here". I've seen a very interesting report on the reverse engineering of the hearing system though I am still months away from finishing my first reading of Principles of neuroscience. > > 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... > > It took evolution billions of years with an enormous search space. Obviously we can >speed the process. But in the end, you'd end up an equally inscrutable mass of >neural tissue. You'd be better off getting yourself a real kid :) > Not at all, such an accomplishment would be a revolutionary breakthrough! > > 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. > I disagree with this, but I see where you are coming from. We don't know enough >about the cortex to say things like this. The reason that subcortical structures >seem more concrete to us, is that they are simpler in design and therefore easier to >understand than cortical structures. > Yes, that is because they don't constitute a computer. I suppose you need a really deep understanding of what computation is to see how the cortex is a computer (and hence has all the same properties of nonpredictability and such...) > The addition or deletion of layers is going to drastically change the > nature of computations a given bit of cortex performs. Does it really? ;) I would suggest that the individual cortical columns represent a fairly consistient set of adaptive logic gates (of considerable complexity). I would further suggest that as the ferrit example showed the computation the cortical region performs depends mostly on where in the logic network the inputs are sent and the outputs taken. In this way you can take just about any cortical region and get it to do just about anything any other region does (except for the extra layers of the occipital lobe) just by hooking it up differently... > > 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... > There's the crux of our disagreement. You view this cortex as this largely >homogenous processor, while I view it as an intricate webwork of "space-shuttle >complex" specialized memory systems. To you, the hard part of the brain is figuring >out the global scheme. To me, there is no global scheme, it's space-shuttles all the >way down. > Where is the evidence for celular differentiation beyond the 20 or so classes of neurons? Absent this evidence, how can you say that a certain structure of cells X, Y, and Z which are arranged in layers 1-6 in cortical region A do something significantly different from those in region B? -- 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]
