Re: Finding useful functions- part 1

From: Bill Modlin (modlin1_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:20:03 -0700

"dan michaels" <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d8494cf.0410250740.6968afef@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Modlin" <modlin1@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:<2IOdnXgZS_WCFOHcRVn-jA@metrocastcablevision.com>...
>
>
> > Overall, the point is that the functions computed by cells in
the
> > brain are largely determined by the correlations encountered in
the
> > signals accessible to the cell, rather than by genetic control.
> >
>
> The problem comes if you believe this part so strongly that you
gloss
> over or disregard or downplay the underlying "foundation" for the
> system as provided by genetics. Tabula rasa, it ain't.

We've been here many times before, Dan. I'm not sure we actually
disagree... at worst we quibble over just how much genetic structure
is required. I certainly don't expect a huge random network with
no initial structure to magically self-organize into a person... at
the very least it has to be part of an organism with genetically
endowed (or designed in, for a robot) initial behaviors and drives.
Perhaps there is a lot more required.

You seem to think that there may be a need for at least 30 subtly
different frameworks to account for the 30-odd visual functional
areas that you are fond of mentioning, and for all I know you could
be right.

Our main difference is in our perception of where best to focus our
current efforts. I am still sufficiently impressed by the
potential for self organization that I'd like to find out how far it
can take us. If and when we find something that can't be made to
work by self organization, then we can dig in and see what
additional structure is needed to make it work.

My impression is that you would have us spend many years finding out
just how the brain does it all before even attempting to construct
anything.

My way, perhaps we'll find that we only need a handful of
specialized structures and can be done in a few years. Worst case
we waste a little time and wind up eventually digging out all the
detail you wanted to start with. Your way we have no chance of
early success. Place your bets... but me, I'd rather hope for
something that might be finished in my lifetime.

Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: before Cantor there was Rantor
    ... >> say humanity evolved from the moment after Adam mated Eve, ... >> could the apes one day learn what random genetic animal freaks ... > they conduct rather sadistic experiments with human brain, ... making a new superhuman stud, then by comparison your genetics are merely random, you are a distant ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: before Cantor there was Rantor
    ... >> say humanity evolved from the moment after Adam mated Eve, ... >> could the apes one day learn what random genetic animal freaks ... > they conduct rather sadistic experiments with human brain, ... making a new superhuman stud, then by comparison your genetics are merely random, you are a distant ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Liberal Creationism"
    ... The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. ... I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric ... head size and brain volume is genetic. ... racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Out of Eden: Bones, Stones & Tonesmen (and women) can swithc off
    ... the spread of modern humans out of Africa and round the world. ... Sap's brain size 1.2Mya, and we have lost 11% over the past 300,000 ... Semang, Senoi, etc) genetics prove this. ... He describes visiting the reef with Seife Berhe, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is there enought happenning in the brain for self awareness?
    ... >>>cingulate cortex, or your hypothalamus even. ... >has seriously impaired self-awareness in patients. ... >> classic in the literature of genetics. ... The problem with just mentioning the brain areas you did and no ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading