From Wiki:Brings up an issue: What is "failure" that only appears after years of time, in a transfer of brain functionality. How would one detect it?
I have no objection to setting that aside - a lot of folks seem, to me, to underestimate the hardware complexity and (especially) flexibility of the brain.
I am not arguing that it would be easy. Like I said, I'm normally on the other side of this discussion.
Birds and planes are not that similar. They don't function the same.
But it is possible to "transfer" the functionality of bird flight to machinery, in principle - it would not look or operate like an airplane, is all.
In general, what made us even think about flying in the first place?Lift and drag[edit]
The fundamentals of bird flight are similar to those of aircraft, in which the aerodynamic forces sustaining flight are lift and drag. Lift force is produced by the action of air flow on the wing, which is an airfoil. The airfoil is shaped such that the air provides a net upward force on the wing, while the movement of air is directed downward. Additional net lift may come from airflow around the bird's body in some species, especially during intermittent flight while the wings are folded or semi-folded[1][2] (cf. lifting body).
Aerodynamic drag is the force opposite to the direction of motion, and hence the source of energy loss in flight. The drag force can be separated into two portions, lift-induced drag, which is the inherent cost of the wing producing lift (this energy ends up primarily in the wingtip vortices), and parasitic drag, including skin friction drag from the friction of air and body surfaces and form drag from the bird's frontal area. The streamlining of bird's body and wings reduces these forces.
From Wiki: In general, what made us even think about flying in the first place?
Yes, except the human brain does not function in a binary code of "on/off" state.
Our brains function in an exponential fashion
forming cognition or recognition (faster) in a 3D environment. The emerging mental hologram of bits of information inside the brain, does not happen differently from our cognition of the existence of logarithms as an "efficient" form of symbolizable processing of information.
Well, I am not talking about computer languages, but the fundamentals which make such mathematically functional concepts equally useful for the human brain and and AI and throughout the universe.
Lemurs already can recognize more from less, that is a fundamental mathematical calculation.
IMO, my "reasoning" is sound.
I suspect that's where bio-chemistry begins to play a large part?
I have no quarrel with that.
Yes, because they do.
Yes, because it could.
Precisely that's why I highlighted the word efficient . Mathematical efficiency and conservation of energy are demonstrably equally valuable assets throughout the universe.
It depends on your perspective, which you have restricted to computers.
I think it can be argued that all electro/chemical information our senses and mirror neural system receives should (by the evidence of some 3 billion neurons) employ a very similar networking function as a computer.
We can demonstrate this internal distribution of electro-chemical information by scanning which parts of the brain show activity while the brain is "working" on cognition or understanding.
Yes, thas was Seth's argument also. You have to be alive to feel emotion.
Yes, from your perspective, but I am trying to address the orderly distribution of information
Do you know the definition of "foozle"? Look it up and you'll see the logical error you madeby using this definition.
No, my "assumptions" are based on evidence of the importance of decision making, which is an ancient survival mechanism, present in almost all living organisms with neural networks.. It seems a peculiarly well developed organ in hominids and especially in humans, especially in cognition of abstractions and abstract thought itself. This requires a certain logical processor.
Fair enough, I can understand your reluctance to using the term "biological computer" for "biological calculating organ" (machine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface
Well then we are in agreement. I am fairly certain that many parts of the brain have completely different functional abilities.
But even in the subconscious part of the brain that only controls and regulates our own living system, has to deal with the processing of internal electro/chemical signals.
page 2
No, I am not speaking in metaphors, we just address the question from different perspectives.
I looked it up.
So you do agree that the human brain is capable of processing algorithms.
Substitute "numbers" with the concept of "inherent values" (potentials), perhaps that will make more sense
Brings up an issue: What is "failure" that only appears after years of time, in a transfer of brain functionality. How would one detect it?
I have no objection to setting that aside - a lot of folks seem, to me, to underestimate the hardware complexity and (especially) flexibility of the brain.
I am not arguing that it would be easy. Like I said, I'm normally on the other side of this discussion.
Birds and planes are not that similar. They don't function the same.
But it is possible to "transfer" the functionality of bird flight to machinery, in principle - it would not look or operate like an airplane, is all.
Again, for some mysterious reason you are assigning quotes to the wrong poster. Must be something wrong with your algorithm.
Again, a completely unrelated word to the discussion at hand.Call it woo-stuff then
Diminishing returns again. Now you're claiming that a bird could fly like an airplane. Not even Icarus could pull off that trick. If we replaced every molecule of a bird with a computer chip, would the bird fly? Not bloody likely IMO. You'd be missing all the wetware that makes living things function.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a21614/frigatebird-study-how-birds-fly/A team of biologists led by Henri Weimerskirch at the French National Center for Scientific Research just announced the results of a major new study on great frigates (Fregata minor), these fascinating seabirds native to the central Indian and Pacific Oceans. Using super-lightweight GPS trackers, the biologists followed four dozen birds from 2011 to 2015, some for up to two years continuously.
What they found was astonishing. The birds could stay aloft for up to 56 days without landing, gliding for hundreds of miles per day with wing-flaps just every 6 minutes, and reaching altitude of more than 2.5 miles.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/is-the-brain-computerHowever, researchers at the University of Missouri in St. Louis, Gualtiero Piccinini and Sonya Bahar, say that while the brain is in fact a computer, it is not the kind of computer that traditional computationalists make it out to be. In a new paper published in Cognitive Science, the authors argue that the nervous system fulfills four criteria that define computational systems. First, the nervous system is an input-output system. For example, the nervous system takes sensory information such as visual data as input and also generates movement of the muscles as output. Second, the nervous system is functionally organized in specific way such that it has specific capacities, such as generating conscious experience. Third, the brain is a feedback-control system: the nervous system controls an organism’s behavior in response to its environment. Finally, the nervous system processes information: feedback-control can be performed because the brain’s internal states correlate with external states. Systems that fulfill these four criteria are paradigmatic computational systems
https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-...eing-developed-today-for-machine-intelligenceReinforcement Learning Agents and Dopamine
We also have modelling of animals as agents in a reinforcement learning environment. Researchers of this field discovered that brain dopamine releasing levels in the midbrain during tasks follow the expected pattern of mathematical models using RPE (Reward Prection Errors, the difference between expected and real reward).
Off course, all of this concerns the algorithmic part.
https://www.ansatt.hig.no/suley/Publications/Algorithm_IC-AI06-SY-RB_CamReady.pdfWe take a connectionist approach which supports that information is stored non symbolically in the weights or connection strengths of a neural network [2]. Therefore in our research, we chose a definition of algorithm that is non-symbolic and non-computational - “a step-bystep procedure for . . . accomplishing some end”
Your confused algorithms make it very difficult to have a intelligent conversation.
I never claimed that a brain only uses algorithms or logorithm! You just assumed I did.
But it is some kind and collection of mathematical "rithms", an "efficient" logical way to process information.
Fundamentally we are in agreement, but we are examining the OP question from different perspectives....
So you are making a case for "woo-stuff"? Good luck wit that......What we disagree on is that you want to call that woo-stuff a computation, but you are not making a case that it's so and none of your links have made that case.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htmAll great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.
So you are making a case for "woo-stuff"?
My case is that the brain is a computational engine (by any other name)
Your case is that the brain is not a computational engine but uses "woo-stuff" to make decisions.
Now who is making more sense?
Wiki said:New mysterianism—or commonly just mysterianism—is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia (individual instances of subjective, conscious experience). In terms of the various schools of philosophy of mind, mysterianism is a form of nonreductive physicalism. Some "mysterians" state their case uncompromisingly (Colin McGinn has said that consciousness is "a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel"); others believe merely that consciousness is not within the grasp of present human understanding, but may be comprehensible to future advances of science and technology.
I have no quarrel with that, but note that you used the term "some mode of computation" which is as yet undiscovered. It would still be a mode of computation, though it may not strictly answer to the Turing type.Now, what could it be if it's not computational.
* It could be that it is some mode of computation we have not yet discovered. That there are meanings of "computation" that can be rigorously defined and that go beyond what Turing machines can do.
Well, I call this the "mirror neural system"I've run across the name for this idea recently. Its called Mysterianism.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror.aspxThe mind's mirror
A new type of neuron--called a mirror neuron--could help explain how we learn through mimicry and why we empathize with others......
But that story is just at its beginning. Researchers haven't yet been able to prove that humans have individual mirror neurons like monkeys, although they have shown that humans have a more general mirror system. And researchers are just beginning to branch out from the motor cortex to try to figure out where else in the brain these neurons might reside.
There are levels of computation.Now, if the "other stuff" is not computational, as that term is currently understood, what could it be?
* It could be that it is some mode of computation we have not yet discovered. That there are meanings of "computation" that can be rigorously defined and that go beyond what Turing machines can do, and that can be instantiated in the world. Nobody has found one for eighty years but that is not to say someone won't find one tomorrow morning.