From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Mon Dec 16 11:01:20 EST 1991
Article 2060 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: From neurons to computation: how?
Message-ID: <40541@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 91 15:52:47 GMT
References: <12636@pitt.UUCP> <59809@netnews.upenn.edu> <310@tdatirv.UUCP>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 73

In article <310@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <59809@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>|In article <12636@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl (gordon e. banks) writes:
>|>The processing elements are the neurons and groups of neurons.  [...]
>|
>|You haven't come close to the >> form of your claim above.  A good
>|deal of brain function can be characterized through neurons.  Much
>|remains a baffling mystery.
>
>I would not say 'baffling', I would say 'bewildering'.
>
>We may not have every detail nailed down, but every month brings us closer,
>and so far those working in neurology have found no significant barriers or
>discrepencies other then the sheer overwhelming *complexity* of a mammalian
>brain.
>

Oh, give it a break. Those working in newtonian physics found no significant
barriers or discrepencies for a lot longer and got a great deal more
in results than has been achieved in neurology. You seem incapable of
understanding the difference between a hypothesis and a fact.

>So, until the neurologists find a problem with the model of mind as the
>emergent product of neural data processing, I will apply KISS and assume
>that this model is correct, or at least a useful aproximation.

It may be useful, but that don't make it true. Note that  not all
neurologists subscribe to this theory either.

>That by KISS (or Occam's Razor) one selects the simplest theory until proven
>wrong.  Right now that is that the human mind is an emergent property of
>the data processing operations of the brain.

You understand neither the engineering principle of KISS nor the scientific
principle of Occam's Razor. Neither principle requires one to adopt as 
true the first model that seems plausable.

>Just because there is a mathematical model of something does not make it
>relevant.  There must be observational evidence that the model applies.

Exactly.  But just because there is some observational evidence that the
theory applies to some simple epiphenomena does not mean that the theory
explains the entire system.

>|
>|And you wrote earlier, based on all these processing elements:
>|
>|>>>>>I must conclude that however our brain may achieve meaning,
>|>>>>>it is computable.
>|
>|This is an incredibly big leap.  Computable in what sense?  Turing?
>|Edelman, for example, concludes at the end of THE REMEMBERED PRESENT
>|that his model is, in the final analysis, not Turing computable,
>|because the external world is too variable.
>|
>|You can believe what you like.  But conclude?  Tell us how, please.
>
>Actually, I believe *I* am the one who made the above statement.
>
>And I mean computable in the sense that physical computers as we build them
>today could compute the same data transform as any given neuron (including
>the temporal variability we calling learning).

As Matthew  Wiener  notes, that is a hell of a jump.

>I conclude it because all that I know about the operation of neurons (and
>that is considerable, since I am by background a biologist) is fully
>consistant with the theory that it is only the signalling properties
>of a neuron that are relevant to thought.  That is the smallest relevant
>operation is the synaptic firing - involving *millions* of molecules,

Crappolo. See this week's Science for some more up to date information on 
neurons. 


