From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ckgp!thomas Fri Oct 30 15:18:17 EST 1992
Article 7444 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ckgp!thomas
>From: thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Mike Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <746@ckgp.UUCP>
Date: 29 Oct 92 23:54:34 GMT
Organization: F.O.C.U.S. Systems Inc., MI
Lines: 241

[Quotes from: informatik.tu-muenchen.de!erlebach (Thomas Erlebach)]
[Article 7625 Date: 27 Oct 92 11:21:57 GMT]

> When you say that the "I" remains the same, what exactly do 
> you mean by that ? 

  I am refering to the sentient part of us. I call this the focus. In one
  since I am giving a name to whatever it is which the "I."  Perhaps I 
  should say that the focus is not thought, it is not emotion, it is
  not personality, it is not reflex action in the brain, or neuronal
  responses; but rather the self, the identity. Perhaps an illusion
  produced by the organization of the brain. But that is hard to accept
  since, with all philisophical debate aside, all we are or rather all our
  perceptions of our selves is this focus, the "I", our identity, our self.

> What changes have to occur so that you would say the "I" has
> changed ?

  I believe this to be my point. With no holds barred, this focus does
  not change -- never. Ones personality, emotions, thoughts, and neuron
  organization might change and can change, but this focus, this "I" does
  not. Yours has not in your life time, nor will it. Mine has not changed,
  and nor will it. How do I know? Consider the focus' function: perhaps
  establishing self, or continuity. Have you ever classified yourself
  (not job, not perfession, not parential role, not personality), the "I"
  you address as "I" as something else? say "you" or "he" or "they"? 8^)
  (I hope you have not) Even individuals with split personalities do not
  lose sight of this focus this "I." (The personalities change, but the
  self remains the same.)

> I don't think that it is adequate to use physical laws for things like
> brain and mind. Of course these laws affect the chemical reactions
> that take place in the brain, but using the law of conservation for
> "thought energy" is somewhat like using the laws of thermodynamics for
> the process of evolution (like occurred in talk.origins). Adding to
> that, I wouldn't agree that thought is energy. Thought is a certain
> state or a certain sequence of states of the machine called brain.

  The association was not meant to be metamorphorical, yet more practical.
  Everything which exists is made of energy, thereafter it may be safe
  to say, on a philosophical level, that if the mind does exist in a
  physical state such as the brain/thought in certain states, that it
  too is controlled by the properties which govern this universe. As you
  know I perfer to offer the mind as and interaction of the physical, such
  as gravity (forces) and matter (energy). This was merely a stepping stone
  for a latter point. [please note, the correlation between the properties
  of thermodymamics and evolution are very promising, yet I am sorry to
  say that I did not see the interaction in talk.origins].

> The thing the brain is doing what I think is so amazing is: It makes
> me have emotions and feelings. And I want to find out how these feelings
> come into existance. 

  I must quality that there is a difference between emotions and feelings.
  As you know if you are cut you have a feeling of pain, but if you get in
  an argument with someone you have an emotion of pain. The important point
  here is that in one case the brain produces "pain" or rather the feeling,
  and in the other the mind/thought (not focus) produces the "pain" or 
  rather the emotion. The importance is this: feelings are a response to
  and experience (being cut), but emotions are a response to 
  thought/"reflection on thought." Please also note that moods are 
  bi-products of emotions, where emotions are fast and quick responses, and
  moods are long, slow responses. Emotions and moods effect our perception
  of experiences. Moods can desensitize us to emotions just as continual
  stimulus can desensitize sensory neurons.

  The point is this, back in the days of bobby cave man, when a bear killed
  and ate bobby's family he was affraid of the bear. the next time he saw 
  the bear he became affraid (emotion: fear) he ran away to his cave and hid
  in the shadows (mood: scared). A simple example, but listen. Emotions
  seem to be a safety developed from experience. If the bear did not frighten
  bobby he would be dead too, perhaps his adrenaline would not be adequite
  to support the neccesary speed to out run the bear. So, I would say that
  emotions give the Mind a way to control the body, instead of the brain
  controlling the body. 

  Here, your brain does not know there is a bear. Your brain can perceive
  the bear, classify the bear, remember the bear, hear the pear, etc.. But
  the Mind is that which must respond to the perception with cognition. We
  know that an organizm does not require a brain to move, act, react, etc...
  many use a simple neural net to function. these networks provide several
  means to excape perditors; I can think of a bat and a moth which have a
  love hate relationship without the hate on the part of the moth just two
  nuerons which respond to the bats sonar, which cause it to change its
  fight path of just fall out of the air. I always thought that it would 
  be strange to be this moth, flying along then all of a sudden for reasons
  unknown to myself just stop flying and fall to the ground. The point 
  becomes this: the moth has no control of itself it operates in direct 
  response to its environment, it does not "love", or "hate", or "want."
  
  Humans on the other hand can react to their perceptions in millions of 
  ways. It is often said, "the difference between a friend and an enemy is
  that with a friend you acknowledge all of the good things they do for
  you and with an enemy you acknowledge all of the bad" usually everyone
  is the same in giving good and bad to everyone else. it is our 
  interpretation of our perceptions from which we respond. So what of "Love"
  and "happiness" and "Joy". All I can offer is this, since emotions are
  states which your mind produces in your brain, you would also need to
  have the contrast of the states to bring the brain back to a point
  of balance... once the bear is gone for some period of time you are
  no longer scared so we say that we feel safe. Perhaps after time running
  to the cave will produce a sense of safety which cancels the feeling of
  fear as soon as you arrive at the cave, leaving no residue of mood on the
  brain? But there are no bears chancing people around anymore and bobby
  cave man has been dead for thousands of years? well, in a system with no
  counter balances (much like humans with no other preditors besides 
  themselves) we maintain the ability to exploit  an evolutionary gift given
  us in the past. in one sense our emotions (perhaps) have mutated over
  the years to their current state.

  Something for you to think about, reptiles do not contain the regions
  of the brain involved in producing/maintaining emotions, yet we witness
  responses which are indicative of emotions... a turtle retracting its
  head, a raddle-snake shaking its raddle, etc... Are these mere responses
  to stimulus? Have they established other means of Mind control over their
  body/brain? If so, have they done so reguardless of their lack of brain
  systems to perform the function? What about human babies, do they cry
  out of mere response to their environment and latter learn the emotions
  which adults enjoy with the tears? Do the tears cause the emotion which
  perhaps is latter associated with our conceptions of our perceptions?
                           
> I want to know whether if I build a machine that
> has the same functionality as the human brain, but is made of different
> material and has a different architecture, this machine has the same
> quality of life, the same feelings and emotions as I do.

  I would say yes. But remember this does not mean that the intelligence 
  is the same, or the life is the same, or even that the structure and
  nature of the feelings and emotions will be the same. But surely the 
  conception of the above may be the same.

>>    My point then becomes, if a) we would like to model brain functions
>>that go beyond the current abilities of the computer, and b) we understand 
>>that the organization of neurons does not produce this "I" [as shown with 
>>stokes, and a neurons lack of "knowledge"], then we should question the
>>chance that we will be able to simulate this "Mind/I" for which we desire
>>to produce in a computer, by simulating a brain. (?)

>In fact I doubt that the organization of neurons does not produce this "I".
>The mere fact that the neurons do not know what they are doing doesn't
>mean (to me) that their combination in a certain structure can't produce a
>thinking mind that experiences "self".

  The organization of neurons is not even the same from person to person.
  the point is two: (1) the organization at some level has nothing to
  do with anything. (2) how could you duplicate the organization of neurons
  when there is such abundant diversity. Point two becomes this each human
  gamete has the possiblility of producing 8 million different individuals,
  therefore from one human mating you have the possiblity of producing one
  of about 70 trillion different individuals. That is just with two people
  that is just 70 trillion different brains from two people. (please
  note that 70 trillion people have not even existed in all of human history)
  I guess what I am saying is that with such diversity there is almost
  no way to find a pattern, we can assume that all 70 trillion of the brains
  your parents could have produced, that each would work as well as yours.
  We know that adding a chromosome causes defects in a persons brain functions
  and still they maintain the "I". What is my point? oh, that the 
  organization of the brain has little to do with "self" yet still remains
  important in the production/existance of self.

> Why can't there be a certain part of my brain which checks whether
> the neurons detecting light fire and, if not, says BLACK. Why does
> this have to be a function of something superior called the Mind/I ?

  I guess my answer is this. We know that there is not a part of the
  brain which does this, because of the processes which occur which
  affect the information before it reaches the cortex. This is all heavily
  documented in bio-psychological papers and books.
  
>>how about the other way if gravity did 
>>not exists, you could still tell that the ball exists, BUT you can 
>>also tell that Gravity does not exists because the Ball does not react
>>like it does when gravity is there (it would just float).

> Do you want to prove with this thought that, if the Mind wouldn't
> exist, the Brain wouldn't work the way it does ?

  Yes. Much like with the moth,or a hydra, or an insect. 

>    My final question to you is a question I asked before about the
>computer simulation modeling the qualities of the Brain. Do you want to
>simulate just the ball or do you want to simulate gravity?

I don't think the non-physical Mind (what you compare to gravity) exists.
So I just want to simulate the physical brain (the ball), in order to
find out whether the simulation reacts in the same way a human brain
does. If it does, this may be considered the proof that the non-physical
Mind doesn't exist. If it does not, the Mind exists.

     I believe that there is enough research in neural networks now to
  show you that you can get a computer to responed in the way the brain 
  responds. I also believe that there is enough research in neural networks
  now to show that with neural networks you can only get the computer
  to respond as the moth's sensory neurons do to a bat's sonar. (the moth we
  talked about before) The point being that if what you want is a computer
  to respond to the world, language, ideas, etc.. the way that humans do
  you will have to do more than just model the brain.

  here is an example: in the movie (based on a true story) "awakenings"
  [if you have not seen this movie rent it today! it stars Robin Williams
  and Robert Deniro] The patients have a disorder in which their minds
  are nolonger in control of their bodies like the moth just responding
  to the environment. They sit all day in a stupor staring straight ahead.
  What happens is This doctor (played my robin williams) discovers
  that if you do something like through a ball at them they will catch it
  and freeze again, staring straight ahead. Well with high dosages of 
  L-dopa the doctor brings them out of this stupor for a period of time
  in which writes about what this condition is like, I can not do what
  he said justice without directly quoting him. [please rent the film if
  you have not already seen it] basically he says that sometimes (as
  when you through a ball at him) it is like a single beam of light breaking
  a vast darkness, but just for a moment and then it is gone. Also he
  says it is like a tiger in a small cage pacing back and forth only able
  to look out from his cell, never able to reach the reality of the world
  beyond the bars of the cage. [actually his words are more profound than
  the one I have chosen in remembering his quote -- please forgive me]
  My point is still this, that without our active mind/self/I I do not
  believe that we would function as we do. But they used a drug to help
  these people, affecting their brain? Yes, it affected the limbic system
  which is responsible for emotions. I have concluded that since they have
  a perception of self or that "I" which in their stupor state and like
  the tiger just looking out on reality from their cage, that the connection
  between the mind and the emotions was defective. The mind worked, and the 
  brain worked just fine. I have also concluded that the reverse of this
  condition or perhaps just a disorder in the constrast position is 
  attention deficit disorder, where amoung many other defects an individuals
  ability to produce adequite emotions and perceptins of emotions is 
  defective due to either the brain or the mind being out of "sink" with
  each other. With attention deficit disorder drugs (stimulants) are also
  used to reduce the effect of the disorder [I believe, speeding up the
  brain to the level of the mind]. 

(please forgive any spelling mistakes...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      | "When the Mind is evolving the abstractions which will
  Thank you,          |  lead to physical comprehension, all of us must cross 
  Michael Thomas      |  the line between ignorance and insight many times 
(..uunet!ckgp!thomas) |  before we truly understand."  
                      |                                 -- David Hawkins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


