From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Wed Dec 18 16:02:00 EST 1991
Article 2174 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: From neurons to computation: how?
Message-ID: <60448@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 91 00:51:59 GMT
References: <59809@netnews.upenn.edu> <310@tdatirv.UUCP> <60059@netnews.upenn.edu> <12688@pitt.UUCP>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)

In article <12688@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>Consider immunology.  In many ways, it's a miniature version of the
>>problem of mind.  The immune system involves learning and pattern
>>recognition, and a knowledge of self.

>I'm sure you know that neural net theory has been applied to immunology.

I'm sure I know it too, but the slug in me is drawing a blank.  I have
seen immunophilosophical speculation about the comparative cognitive
natures of the immune and nervous systems, complete with duelling
dynamical equations, but I never followed the references.

But note the negative deduction: if such neural nets model a cognitive
system that is clearly not a real-live neuron net, why should anyone
confidently conclude that existing neural net models of various mind
features are realistic?  This was Edelman's complaint--there is usually
no real correspondence between connectionist models and the brain.

>>Really?  Then what is all that brain EEG going on for?  It is not noise.
>>EEG activity can be correlated with thought.  Correlating it with neurons
>>is not easy.

>Remember that the EEG is taken from outside the skull and is a "far-field"
>potential sum of neuronal activity in the brain.  Electrocorticography
>(a la Penfield) correlates a heck of a lot better.

My point was not what had the best correlations, just that EEG is
enough to refute a claim that we *know* neuronal signals suffice
for thought.  If we *knew* such, EEG would not be a question mark.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


