From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!harwood Thu Dec 26 23:57:47 EST 1991
Article 2334 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!harwood
>From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Are we scaled-up slug-brains or not? (was "In the news...")
Message-ID: <45307@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 91 02:20:42 GMT
References: <40858@dime.cs.umass.edu> <45183@mimsy.umd.edu> <709@ckgp.UUCP>
Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 59

I make an offer, one time, if I hear from 7 honest individuals ;-)
I will go to our libraries here on campus, to the zoology and psychology
departments, and to the medical school in Baltimore (where I have
contacts - in neuroanatomy), and perhaps to NIMH nearby - I will go
to investigate what is known about differences between human and
slug brains, and ape brains - physiology and genetics, gross anatomy,
and neurology of language (too bad we talk too much, then we'd never
suspect there were differences I suppose; but then we'd be slicing,
dicing and probing living human brains without complaints ;-)

If 7 people tell me (by email) they seriously want me to investigate
this issue: Are we slug-brains or are we not? Then I will make a report
to this newsgroup, with lengthy documentation of all books and journal
articles reviewed. I have read technical literature in these areas
before (long ago as a graduate student), and I am inspired to settle
at least some of our disputes by doing some library research.

Well? Any 7 takers? (The only real danger in this is that by the time
I finish, nobody cares anymore about the topic. And this has to be my
last contribution to discussion since after the holidays I have to
prepare to go to Europe in 3 months, and I still have research and
proposals to wrap up here. I have to quit posting, thereafter, at least
until I return here from overseas in several months. I volunteer since
the disputes have rekindled an old curiosity of mine.)

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Now old business:

In article <709@ckgp.UUCP> thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Michael Thomas) writes:
>David Harwood writes:
>>         The "neurochip" is an analog device, using very
>> little power compared to conventional designs, and apparently
>> simulates some internal electrical properties of neurons,
>> and adaptively spikes output.
>>        The article concludes with an assessment by Marvin
>> Minsky, "I don't think this tells us anything we didn't
>> already know," and, "To me it's such a long jump to the
>> human brain that this isn't interesting. For one thing,
>> there are several hundred kinds of neurons. Which one's
>> this supposed to be?"
>
>This does not agree with me... (a piece of uncooked info, perhaps)
>Yes it is true, that there are several hundred different
>"classifications" of neurons. Another point was overlooked though,
>neurons are like snowflakes, no two are alike! None of mine match up
>with any other of mine or anyone elses...
(...)
>I would be intrested in hearing how others feel about how this will 
>improve/effect research focused towards emulating MINDS and not brains?
>
>NOTE: I tried not to direct this towards Marvin Minsky since he could
>      have been miss-quoted.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

	I repeated all that the Washington Post quoted of Minsky, the
godfather of Perceptrons. By the way, I've read that Minsky knows far more
about neurology than many people would suspect. (This is not to endorse
all his views on AI or neural nets.)


