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!uunet!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: The Human Brain.
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D6KuHF.G7D@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <D6InKB.66s@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:36:50 GMT
Lines: 110
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.robotics:19561 sci.skeptic:109302 comp.ai:28825 comp.ai.neural-nets:23282


@==========Charles C. Bundy, 4/4/95==========
@
@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.)
@
Interestingly enough, the human brain consumes 80 percent of the calories
needed by an average male or female of the species.  Unless something pretty
important is going on, I'd say the brain is a perfect argument against any
theory of evolution.

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

If it's thinking that consumes all those calories, then thinking must have
enormous survival value; otherwise, mother evolution would have selected for
an organ that uses far less energy.

@
@>: 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% 

Why not?  What makes you think that mother evolution is that economical?  Look
at the wren of Hawaii (was it a wren?).  There are currently 162 sub-species
that apparently descended from a single species.  The interesting part is all
the varieties of beak length and color that have "emerged."  Those varieties
must have been hidden in the genetic code of the original species (the number
of variations observed far exceeds the assumed rate of useful mutations--and
the variety is localized to beaks and color).

Another example!  DOGS!  One species.  Hard to believe the different varieties
(which were bred for) just happened because of evolutionary mutation.  I bet
the variety was there in the genes all along.

@
@   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
@

