2009/1/15 John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > Stathis: (from reply to Brent): > "I return to my question about what would happen if there were a > discontinuity in a sequence of states,..." > There IS discontinuity if the state "transits'(?) from s1 to s2. > Do you have any idea how one can observe a changed state by only continuous > transitions? Where do you pick the limit to call it the 'next' state? Isn't > such 'arbitrary'?
This also involves answering the question of whether time and the universe is fundamentally discrete or continuous. > In your reply to me: > I find the rat-related IBM publication wanting: > "...Each of its microchips has been programmed to act just like a real > neuron in a real brain...." > How much we know about a 'real neuron' and its function is a matter of the > present level of R&D. We know more than a decade ago and less than a decade > hence. And the 'rat' discloses only its movements - evaluated and > understood(?) at the complexity of the human brain. Would you draw valid > conclusions on - say - personality by a silent film of only the movements of > a person - even at matching complexity? > I may write some distracting stories to follow 'movements'. > A rat doesn't communicate with researcher. Rat-shrink? What they ultimately aim to do is simulate a whole rat brain and then see if exhibits ratlike behaviour. If it does, using this bottom up approach, then I would say this is very good evidence that the researchers have figured out what is important about how a neuron works. It's straightforward experimental science. > I wouldn't use Terry Seynowski's critical word that the brain is too > 'mystrerious': it is too complex and poorly followable by our present level > of our 2009 cognitive inventory. We can know just 'that' much and most > likely there is much 'more' to it. (my 'enrichment' remark of past and > future knowledge). > Markram's work is glorious. That's the way we can proceed in widening our > knowledge 10,000 'neurons' is a good start. > But their fundamental tenet: > "Every brain is made of the same basic parts...." - > means a restriction to our ongoing physical/physiological observational > capabilities which have shown incredible enlargement in the past (still > within the 'physical world' figment). Frequencies, methods, evaluations are > all limited. > I keep it open that penetrating the Hard Problem we may find new phenomena > unassignable to our present knowledge of the known tissue and physics. > Nobody has diversified amp or MRI data to distinguish whether a blood-surge > refers to a political opinion, love, boredom, financial expectation, or > whatever, in a mentally-topical distinction. I guess you don't expect this will happen, but what would you say if a computer model of a brain based on relatively simple reductionist assumptions, as Markram's team are attempting, did result in complex emergent behaviour similar to that of a biological brain? -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
