 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer Artificial Intelligence - Philosophy » brain operation as science... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| rscan at (no spam) nycap.rr.com... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Two nuclei are referred to by acronym:
TRN – Thalamic Reticular Nucleus. A nucleus that surrounds the
thalamus. It takes input (en passant) from all thalamo-cortical and
from all cortico-thalamic axons. Also from the reticular formation.
MPG – Motor Program Generator. Neural circuitry that produces all the
axonal impulses needed to execute a motor act. Constructed by the
genome. Not learnede. I say motor program rather than central pattern
to emphasize the orders of magnitude difference in complexity.
The fundamental equation of science is: “There is no God in the
Machine”. Or, as we should say today, ”There is no Soul (Mind) in the
Brain”. How can we reconcile this rule of science with our personal
knowledge of our soul (mind)? We can do it by affirming the non-causal
nature of the soul (mind). The soul (mind) is our inspiration for
studying the brain, but it is no part of the explanation.
Descartes would have a soul with causal powers; the Princess Elizabeth
would not. We stand with the Princess.
The fundamental brain exists in the Motor Program Generators. This
neural circuitry, established by the genome, directs the organism to
navigate through the world. All motor acts originate in the motor
program generators. There is no other source. Without the activation
of MPG’s, the human is a lump of clay. The genome establishes the
machinery, and we appear brain driven. We do not learn to walk. The
neural circuitry matures, and we walk. Walk, even as a newt.
The motor program generators lie along the spine and the hindbrain,
but we speak here of centers. We believe that the genome has set up
specific circuitry that once having been initiated continues until the
motor act is accomplished, but the exact circuitry has not been
demonstrated in vetebrates. In invertebrates, there is a different
story; some central pattern generators have been laid out in exquisite
detail. The motor program generator is more than just a center. The
MPG also includes the sensory neurons and the motor neurons. The MPG
is an entire nervous entity, including all the neurons that flow into
the center and all the neurons that flow out to the muscles. The
genome wires them all as a unit.
The life of the organism is a succession of motor acts each being the
firing of a motor program generator.
A complication comes with the thalamic reticular nucleus. This nucleus
surrounds the thalamus like a blanket. As each motor program proceed
through the thalamus, it comes under the controlling influence of the
thalamic reticular nucleus. If the TRN is excited in inhibits the
relay neurons and the motor program is not executed.
The TRN contains a history in the form of strengthened synapses of all
the bad outcomes that the organism has suffered in the past. If the
present proposed motor act, together with the present milieu had
caused trouble in the past, energy flows through the strengthened
excites the nucleons, and the motor act is not consummated. A rejected
motor program leads to another. Sooner or later there is an acceptable
program, and the organism proceeds. If not, the patience of the
reticular formation is exhausted. It fires and inhibits the TRN. The
motor act proceeds even if the results are disastrous.
The TRNl can stop all, or a selection, of sensory information as it
enters the thalamus. The neocortex (and downstream structures) is
relieved of the onrush of sensory input, and is free to associate. It
is very difficult to speak scientifically of this condition. We must
refer to the soul (mind) for inspiration. This is the condition that
accompanies dreaming, reverie, and thinking.
Of particular interest are the MPG’s that create phonemes, but that is
another story.
Ray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 3, 11:42 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Quote: ...
The fundamental equation of science is: “There is no God in
the Machine”. Or, as we should say today, ”There is no Soul
(Mind) in the Brain”. How can we reconcile this rule of
science with our personal knowledge of our soul (mind)?
We can do it by affirming the non-causal nature of the soul
(mind). The soul (mind) is our inspiration for studying the
brain, but it is no part of the explanation.
Descartes would have a soul with causal powers; the Princess
Elizabeth would not. We stand with the Princess.
If something has no causal powers then it is indistinguishable
from something that doesn't exist.
The Mind exists, it is what the brain does when we experience
things as opposed to simply reasoning about them.
Before we knew about brain activity as the the determiner of
the experience we imagined a "soul" as its source.
There may be no soul with causal powers but there is a mind
with causal powers. Beliefs and desires are physical states
of bits of matter that effect other physical states of other
bits of matter. The mind is functionally like a program in
a computer and is very real.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 3, 4:01 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 3, 11:42 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:
...
The fundamental equation of science is: “There is no God in
the Machine”. Or, as we should say today, ”There is no Soul
(Mind) in the Brain”. How can we reconcile this rule of
science with our personal knowledge of our soul (mind)?
We can do it by affirming the non-causal nature of the soul
(mind). The soul (mind) is our inspiration for studying the
brain, but it is no part of the explanation.
Descartes would have a soul with causal powers; the Princess
Elizabeth would not. We stand with the Princess.
If something has no causal powers then it is indistinguishable
from something that doesn't exist.
The Mind exists, it is what the brain does when we experience
things as opposed to simply reasoning about them.
So; someone can reason about something but not experience it without a
mind? Seems like you need a mind to reason about things. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 3, 10:11 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 3, 4:01 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:42 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:
...
The fundamental equation of science is: “There is no God in
the Machine”. Or, as we should say today, ”There is no Soul
(Mind) in the Brain”. How can we reconcile this rule of
science with our personal knowledge of our soul (mind)?
We can do it by affirming the non-causal nature of the soul
(mind). The soul (mind) is our inspiration for studying the
brain, but it is no part of the explanation.
Descartes would have a soul with causal powers; the Princess
Elizabeth would not. We stand with the Princess.
If something has no causal powers then it is indistinguishable
from something that doesn't exist.
The Mind exists, it is what the brain does when we experience
things as opposed to simply reasoning about them.
So; someone can reason about something but not experience it
without a mind? Seems like you need a mind to reason about
things.
The mind is not something we have in the same sense we have a
brain or imaginary soul it is rather something the brain DOES.
When the brain is not doing mind the mind ceases to exist.
We can be mindful (conscious) of the result of a process without
being mindful (conscious) of the process itself.
http://www.colourtherapyhealing.com/colour/colour_fun/cube_illusion.php
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 12:49 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 3, 10:11 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:01 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:42 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:
...
The fundamental equation of science is: “There is no God in
the Machine”. Or, as we should say today, ”There is no Soul
(Mind) in the Brain”. How can we reconcile this rule of
science with our personal knowledge of our soul (mind)?
We can do it by affirming the non-causal nature of the soul
(mind). The soul (mind) is our inspiration for studying the
brain, but it is no part of the explanation.
Descartes would have a soul with causal powers; the Princess
Elizabeth would not. We stand with the Princess.
If something has no causal powers then it is indistinguishable
from something that doesn't exist.
The Mind exists, it is what the brain does when we experience
things as opposed to simply reasoning about them.
So; someone can reason about something but not experience it
without a mind? Seems like you need a mind to reason about
things.
The mind is not something we have in the same sense we have a
brain or imaginary soul it is rather something the brain DOES.
When the brain is not doing mind the mind ceases to exist.
We can be mindful (conscious) of the result of a process without
being mindful (conscious) of the process itself.
http://www.colourtherapyhealing.com/colour/colour_fun/cube_illusion.php
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with) then
any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the brain operating. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 11:51 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: ...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
The word mind as most people understand it is being conscious.
Now if you want to be serious about getting an understanding
of that you have to do experiments as at this point in time
we have no idea how to frame the problem.
For example if one conversation is fed into one ear and
another conversation fed into the other ear which conversation
are you conscious of? And is the other conversation being
processed without you being conscious of it?
Another similar example is binocular rivalry in vision.
The other example I gave was the assignment of a color value,
the process of which you have no conscious access only the
result in the form of a color experience.
Another example is directed learning. When I learned to touch
type I had to consciously direct the process. Now it runs on
automatic. The same is true for most of what we learn to do.
Another clue is we have to be conscious (mindful) of something.
Thus to say P is conscious of Q is similar to saying that
P has access to the states of Q. Or Q's states effect P's states.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 5:21 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 4, 11:51 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
Then we're debating definitions. Whatever floats your boat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 6:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
Then we're debating definitions. Whatever floats your boat.
I see it as much deeper than that, more a case of discovering the
algorithms that enables higher level systems to coordinate and
control lower level systems.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 7:59 pm, c... at (no spam) kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
Quote: casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The word mind as most people understand it is being conscious.
Now if you want to be serious about getting an understanding
of that you have to do experiments as at this point in time
we have no idea how to frame the problem.
Never say "we" to a topic that many of us do know how to frame.
Just go ahead and say "I don't know how to frame it".
Those who think they have framed the problem are just living in
a state of denial. Fortunately there are intellects who know
better and are tackling the problem with experimentally testable
theories. Should strong AI be possible in a machine it is they
who will provide us with the means to build them.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Curt Welch... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
casey <jgkjcasey at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 4, 11:51=A0am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
The word mind as most people understand it is being conscious.
Now if you want to be serious about getting an understanding
of that you have to do experiments as at this point in time
we have no idea how to frame the problem.
Never say "we" to a topic that many of us do know how to frame. Just go
ahead and say "I don't know how to frame it".
--
Curt Welch http://AyrHillForge.Com/
curt at (no spam) kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 10:47 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 4, 6:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
Then we're debating definitions. Whatever floats your boat.
I see it as much deeper than that, more a case of discovering the
algorithms that enables higher level systems to coordinate and
control lower level systems.
And lower level systems creating the emergent higher level systems
bottom up, which is the metasystem transition, about which some is
known, but not all, and yes, further research is needed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 6:36 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 4, 10:47 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
Then we're debating definitions. Whatever floats your boat.
I see it as much deeper than that, more a case of discovering the
algorithms that enables higher level systems to coordinate and
control lower level systems.
And lower level systems creating the emergent higher level systems
bottom up, which is the metasystem transition, about which some is
known, but not all, and yes, further research is needed.
Agreed.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 12:54 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 5, 6:36 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:47 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
Then we're debating definitions. Whatever floats your boat.
I see it as much deeper than that, more a case of discovering the
algorithms that enables higher level systems to coordinate and
control lower level systems.
And lower level systems creating the emergent higher level systems
bottom up, which is the metasystem transition, about which some is
known, but not all, and yes, further research is needed.
Agreed.
Peace reigns in Pepperland. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| J.A. Legris... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 1:54 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 5, 6:36 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:47 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If the mind is the brain operating (a definition I agree with)
then any process, even subconscious, is mind, as it is the
brain operating.
It is clearly not simply the "brain operating", it is a particular
type of brain operation.
Then we're debating definitions. Whatever floats your boat.
I see it as much deeper than that, more a case of discovering the
algorithms that enables higher level systems to coordinate and
control lower level systems.
And lower level systems creating the emergent higher level systems
bottom up, which is the metasystem transition, about which some is
known, but not all, and yes, further research is needed.
Agreed.
JC
As usual, you guys are confusing models with things modeled. One of
the virtues of science is keeping the respective realms separate. Give
it a try.
--
Joe
p.s. John, from my dictionary:
EASILY CONFUSED WORDS affect, effect
.... affect and effect are both verbs and nouns, but only effect is
common as a noun, usually meaning 'a result, consequence, impression,
etc.':: my father’s warnings had no effect on my adventurousness. (The
noun affect is restricted almost entirely to psychology.)
As verbs, they are both familiar, but often confused. Affect means 'to
produce an effect upon':: what you eat can affect your mood. The verb
affect, except when used in contexts involving feelings, often serves
as a vague substitute for more exact verbs and should therefore be
used sparingly. Effect means 'to bring about': | the negotiators
effected an agreement despite many difficulties. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| valerie scanlon... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 11:47 pm, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote:
I see it as much deeper than that, more a case of discovering the
algorithms that enables higher level systems to coordinate and
control lower level systems.
If we wpuld use the brain as our model, we should be aware that the
brain is composed of neurons. Neurons do not use algorithms. It is the
circuitry of the brain that is involved. The circuitry is set up by
the genome.
Whether or not the soul (mind) is the brain in operation is wholly
irrelevant. The brain operates exactly the same regardless of the word
games that are played.
Ray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:36 pm
|
|