Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!exnet2!exnet!dcs.ed.ac.uk!mxm
From: mxm@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Mike Moran)
Subject: Re: gigabillions of coupled non-linear differential eq's
Message-ID: <D2MK3L.JwJ@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
References: <3fa2sc$ouh@iaehv.IAEhv.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 23:33:21 GMT
Lines: 91

In article <3fa2sc$ouh@iaehv.IAEhv.nl> Guus Prick <guus@iaehv.nl> writes:
>Big problem in unravelling the secrets of the brain seems
>to be the mere conception of what we are dealing with here.
>
>What is a brain?
>
>Obvious is that it's a human organ, and therewith embedded in 
>the evolution of life on earth.
>
>It is therewith a physical system, embedded in the evolution of
>the physical universe.
>
>So far nothing said about 'mind'.
>
>How do we find out how physical systems work? 
>
>We know all about a pendulum by it's equations.
>
>So, what are the equations of the brain?
>
>It must be millions and millions and millions of coupled 
>non-linear differential equations.
>
>Knowing this, we know what we are unravelling. More, we know that
>we have to find a way to reduce the sheer overload of equations.
>No-one can imagine such a structure.
>
>Therefore I think the main problem has a lot to do with dealing
>with this overload in complexity... How can we turn this giga-equation
>into something we can relate to?
>
>All this would point to: 
>
>    a) artificial neural networks
>       (starting small, working towards bigger ones)
>    b) anatomy of the brain
>       (we have to know all about this)
>    c) mathematical methods to deal with large structures of
>       coupled non-linear differential equations.
>
>I write all this because I feel that there should be a lot more 
>consensus at the 'top of the scientific search-pyramid'. We have
>come a long way since Aristotle, or haven't we? Why can't we agree?

	I agree pretty much with everything above
	However....

>
>I don't believe there's a need for a concept like 'mind' in the
>unravelling of the secret's of the brain. 'Mind' can come in very
>handy at times, but it's a bugger for science, only obscuring things,
>instead of throwing light.
>

	I have to disagree about the need for the 'mind' concept. It
	can sometimes obscure more than it reveals, but that, i believe, is
	because of its emotive connotations; its not often used as a tool,
	more usually a weapon. 

	The concept of mind serves the purpose of showing the 'face' all 
	these neural networks present us with: it is an effect that is 
	produced. As such, the structure of this effect could provide 
	information about the underlying mechanisms of its production. 

	I'm really talking about mind in the sense of perception here. 
	How do the underlying mechanisms produce these perceptions? When 
	the time comes, and our models are beginning to reach the 'level' 
	of perceptions, we could ask questions like "Why does feature X 
	occur in our perceptions, but we predict feature Y?" and such-like.

	The 'mind' or 'perception' concepts cannot really be used fully
	in this way yet, so they just sort of hang around obscuring
	facts, and providing vitreol for argumentative philosophers
	and neuroscientists etc. There is not enough information to
	settle these arguments yet, so they just wind on, eventually
	coming down to articles of faith. We should not discard
	the concept of mind because of this, but just keep it its box,
	occasionally bringing it out when needed.

							Mike



	


-- 
 MI   CH AE   LM "Hes a Hypnotist | A Hypnotist of ladies |       ->   ,__o
 O R A N T H I R    You won't remember why you liked him"       -->  _-\_<,
 D  Y  E A  R  A 		    - TMBG		      ---> (*)'(*)
 I     & C     S Home: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/mxm/
