Newsgroups: comp.robotics,alt.cyberpunk.tech,sci.skeptic,comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!caen!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!viper.cs.Virginia.EDU!ccb8m
From: ccb8m@viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy)
Subject: Re: The Human Brain.
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: viper-fo.cs.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <D6InKB.66s@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
References: <3kpfq8$pmn@news.primenet.com> <3l96ir$283@trog.dra.hmg.gb> <3l9dmc$ie2@news.primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:12:10 GMT
Lines: 59
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.robotics:19511 sci.skeptic:109165 comp.ai:28773 comp.ai.neural-nets:23237

In article <3l9dmc$ie2@news.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson English) writes:
>Walter Gray (wagray@taz.dra.hmg.gb) wrote:
>: In article <3kpfq8$pmn@news.primenet.com>, english@primenet.com (Lawson English) writes:
>[snipt]
>: >
>: >
>: >Mmmm... The potential capacity of the brain is unknown, but I'd be 
>: >willing to bet taht the 10% myth really isn't all that far off. It seems 
>: >perfectly plausible that a more efficient human brain could understand 
>: >the less effecient ones...
>: Mmmm... You're not one of those "creationists", are you?
>: How about this;
>: a) If the brain is a product of evolution (it is)
>: b) and if the evolution is still continuing (it is)
>: c) then we can expect that the human brain is almost, but not quite,
>:    good enough, for the everyday work it has to do.

   Depends on what you define as "everyday" work.  Organisms tend towards
   parallel processing with layers of coordinating effort.  The brain has
   little to do with keeping your body alive, or even moving about
   (Roeder et al.)

   "Thinking" on the other hand is not measurable, so who can say what
   it's survival value is?

>: In other words, the capabilities of the brain will always tend to
>: lag behind what is required. So it is unlikely that the brain has any 
>: amazing hidden powers. So there probably isn't any submerged 90% or 99% 

   Remember Clarke's law!  Better to say probably than probably isn't...

>: (depending on which view you listen to).
>Pah. If the brain is the product of evolution, it has all sorts of 
>interesting mutations associated with it that may or may not be of use 

   Assumption alert!  Why do you associate "mutation" with "evolution".
   Which came first the chicken or the egg?  IE mutation fits evolutionary
   pressure or evolutionary pressure causes mutation?

>(survival-wise) in any given situation. Mutations tend to be worthless or 
>even detrimental to the organism until the environment changes, and then 

   Ad hoc ergo propter hoc!  Again I ask for proof, WHICH comes first...

>suddenly, they're wonderful, marvelous, can't (literally in some cases) live 
>without them.
>
>
>All of this has *nothing* to do with the current vs potential capacity of 
>the brain, BTW -assuming that the brain is a complex network of networks 
>ala connectionism. The capacity of such a network [of networks] is based 

   9 out of 10 neuro biologists observe hierarchal connectionism.  The 
   10'th doesn't do "lab" work :)

>as much on experience [training] as it is on heredity, if not more.

Charles
ccb8m@virginia.edu
