Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s Something To Think About/Compute

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Isn’t it interesting what they’re finding out these days? This is just in from PhysOrg.com.

Many researchers who create these models shun the computer metaphor,” O’Reilly said. “My work comes out of a tradition that says people’s brains are nothing like computers, and now all of a sudden as we look at them, in fact, in a certain respect they are like computers.”

Digital computers operate by turning electrical signals into binary “on and off states” and flexibly manipulating these states by using switches. O’Reilly found the same operating principles in the brain.

“The neurons in the prefrontal cortex are binary — they have two states, either active or inactive — and the basal ganglia is essentially a big switch that allows you to dynamically turn on and off different parts of the prefrontal cortex,” O’Reilly said.

It should be even more interesting to see the Darwinian explanation of all of this.

Comments
Pav, "Zero, clever riposte to my earlier comment." ********************************* Thanks This guy from Iowa told me a joke the other day but it's too corny to repeat. Concerning my offer to reveal man's 6th sense, I have a secret policy, don't ask, don't tell. ZeroZero
October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
David vun Kannon:
I don’t think most peole would use the term “the quantum world” for something as big as a DNA molecule or an entire cell.
When I was taking college Chemistry many, many years ago, whenever I asked about the specifics of bonding, the answer I invariably got was that it had to do with quantum mechanics. Chemical reactions are a function of QM. And lest you respond and say that at the macro level we don't expect to see the binary states that characterize QM, we know that neurons--obviously macro--act in a binary fashion; that's what the experimenter is reporting. I'm not familiar with Adami's book, but I am familiar with Penrose's The Emporer's New Mind in which Penrose argues--I say convincingly--that Universal Turing Machines are, in theory, impossible. Hence, I don't understand why Adami would say that Avida, for example, is such an entity.PaV
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
PaV, I don't think most peole would use the term "the quantum world" for something as big as a DNA molecule or an entire cell. re Turing machines, I'm not sure that one has evolved. I think you could make a Turing machine out of DNA and other bits of molecular machinery, but I don't think the reproductive apparatus of the cell is a Turing machine. Let me also clarify that I meant a Universal Turing Machine, one that can take any program and execute it. BTW, Chris Adami's textbook on Artificial Life seems to take it as a given that the biological machinery of the cell _is_ a Turing Machine, which he takes as an important heuristic for judging the capabilities of Tierra and Avida - that they are Universal Turing Machines. None of this is particularly well motivated, IMHO.David vun Kannon
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
David vun Kannon:
I’d say it was easier for a random process to create a two state system than a multi state system. On the other hand, I have trouble imagining the selective pressures that could result in the evolution of a real Turing machine equivalent.
As you allude to, the quantum world--the world of DNA and cells--operates in a basically on/off mode. So we would expect this kind of behavior. But as your last sentence points out, it is a littel discomforting (I'm sure) for Darwinists to believe a real, live Turing machine equivalent happened by chance (and "selection", if you like). Zero, clever riposte to my earlier comment.PaV
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Ekstasis: At least three elements are required ... I'm not sure why you think these are "required". Your steps are very similar to the way people thought about doing symbolic AI for many years. A classic example is the recovery of 3D semantics from line drawings - a problem in computer vision. The result was machines that could reason their way across a room, very slowly, based on a huge front loaded database of information. That approach was overturned by Rodney Brooks and his "cheap, fast, and out of control" bug-like robots. They didn't bother with building an internal model of the room, against which they reasoned. The room was the database. If they bumped into something, they backed up and tried again. So when a frog wants to catch a fly, it uses special hardwired edge detection and motion detection neurons to track the fly. Could those neurons have evolved slowly from other neurons? Sure, every little bit helps. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed frog is king. In Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate, he reprints a great illustration of a map of a small part of the human visual system. Talk about piling up rocks to the moon! (oops, that might be in How The Mind Works, I don't have either in front of me) (both books are great, BTW) So HV+VRS (Heritable Variability and Variable Reproductive Success) would not expect biology to cough up something as neat and compartmentalized as your example steps, but would expect something with more "hair".David vun Kannon
October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
David vun Kannon, Maybe the problem is that, whether we are talking about digital computing or artificial intelligence, development requires a set of semantics and/or rules before it works. In other words, take pattern recognition. Sure, artificial intelligence may be utilized to discover and identify new patterns. But, humans first had to program the rules and guidance for identifying those patterns. Or, with fuzzy logic, we had to define criteria for deciding what belongs in which sets, etc. At least three elements are required to be in place before we achieve a competitive natural advantage: 1. Development of rules or guidance, 2. Utilization of the intelligence to actually process information and produce results (output), and 3. Interpretation of results and incorporation into decision making. So, once again, we are back to the original question -- how does RM+NS account for this?Ekstasis
October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
jerry, the one I have in mind (and in my mind) does not respond to temperature. But when you lose it, you just want to die. ZeroZero
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
Zero, There is a sixth sense that is never referred to as a sense but is indeed one of the main way an organism receives information from the environment and that is the response to temperature.jerry
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
I just looked up the first definition of "sense": 1. Any of the animal functions of hearing, sight, smell, touch, and taste. ZeroZero
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
3. Zero // Oct 6th 2006 at 10:26 am An IDer created 6 contacts (senses) between you (your brain) and reality (his creation). **************************** I am surprised no one wanted to know what man's 6th sense is. Also, what's the analogy between your 6 sences and a lilly? Blessings ZeroZero
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Have you ever heard of Artificial Intelligence? Have you ever heard adherents confidently predict that “thinking” machines are only a matter of time?
Those adherents may be waiting forever because what they seek may not be possible. Mind-body dualism is a serious problem for physicalism.
[...]I hate[...]a yankee heading south with a U-haul trailer.
A fellow Southerner, I presume. Come on, Zero, they're not that bad! :)crandaddy
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
PaV "Have you ever heard of Artificial Intelligence?" ******************************************** Yes PaV, and there's just 3 things I hate: Artificial Intelligence, artificial love, and a yankee heading south with a U-haul trailer. Blessings ZeroZero
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
PaV: Have you ever heard of Artificial Intelligence? Have you ever heard adherents confidently predict that “thinking” machines are only a matter of time? Not sure where you are heading with these questions. Thinking machines have been 30 years in the future for the last 40 years. I think the key take away point of the article you quoted was that the guy was very reluctant to buy into a metaphor that hadn't been very helpful. Now he sees a binary state neuron and that triggers "computer" in his head. If he knew more about computers, he'd know that is not the best analogy, even for a binary system. Computers are characterized by memory, stored programs, and a processor - the parts of a Turing machine. The instructions don't have to be stored in a binary form. Some very early computers used base 10. The great computer scientist Donald Knuth once suggested that it would be better to use base 3 than base 2. I'm afraid that his new enthusiasm for the computer metaphor is misplaced. I'm not sure why you think that would be uncomfortable for Darwinists to deal with. I'd say it was easier for a random process to create a two state system than a multi state system. On the other hand, I have trouble imagining the selective pressures that could result in the evolution of a real Turing machine equivalent.David vun Kannon
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Zero:
PaV, IMO, people “think” and machines respond to comands. Pardon my 2 cents worth but I see no analogy there.
Have you ever heard of Artificial Intelligence? Have you ever heard adherents confidently predict that "thinking" machines are only a matter of time? And, as for the 2 cents worth: we often see only what we want to see. mjb2001:
I don’t understand what you’re looking for. So part of the brain (O’Reilly goes on to say, after you stopped quoting that most of the brain acts as a social network) is binary? So what? Lot’s of things in nature are binary. Almost every protein in every cell has an active and an inactive state.
Was anyone talking about proteins? Yeah, lots of things in nature are binary, like light switches. But we weren't talking about those either. Let me just note that the Darwinists are responding with questions, not answers. No explanations, just derision. I think the analogy is to obvious for their comfort.PaV
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
It should be even more interesting to see the Darwinian explanation of all of this. I don't understand what you're looking for. So part of the brain (O'Reilly goes on to say, after you stopped quoting that most of the brain acts as a social network) is binary? So what? Lot's of things in nature are binary. Almost every protein in every cell has an active and an inactive state.mjb2001
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
PaV, IMO, people "think" and machines respond to comands. Pardon my 2 cents worth but I see no analogy there. ZeroZero
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
DharmaBum:
What precisely is “all of this” that mainstream evolutionists should explain?
The fact that "thinking machines" created by human intelligence, and the "thinkers" themselves operate in an analgous fashion.PaV
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Ekstasis posted: ".....And the more we discover, the more unanswered questions pop up. Who is to say where it will stop?" *********************** It will never "stop" and your brain will never fill up. Infinite "big" and infinity "small" have no end. But there is a fold, reference point, in the middle. ZeroZero
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff M.D. have come up with some interesting findings which may be of interest to anyone interested int he brain's workings. Consciousness appears to be related to the action of neuron microtubules, not just the interaction of neurons thenselves. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html#penrosemike1962
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
DharmaBum, I cannot speak for PaV, but it seems that as our technology grows in its ability to study and understand living organisms, so to does the complexity and intricacy that we find. We take the elevator up, and it opens up to a whole new world at every ascending floor. When we viewed the world as a machine, organisms appeared to be machines. When we view life at the micro level, we find miniaturized cities in the cell. When we view life as a computer processor, we find computer principles at work in the brain. And the more we discover, the more unanswered questions pop up. Who is to say where it will stop? And yet, we harness up a 19th century hypothesis and continue to pretend that it's explanatory powers are up to snuff.Ekstasis
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
I'd wait for a better understanding of functionality before we go around demanding explanations...Patrick
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
What precisely is "all of this" that mainstream evolutionists should explain?DharmaBum
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
An IDer created 6 contacts (senses) between you (your brain) and reality (his creation). Those senses are not functioning when you are asleap or dead. Each of those senses has a zero in the middle for balance. That's the reason he mentioned, "Check out a lilly." Also check out six cents around a seventh (you). Six cents is pay for six day's work. A penny a day. Dave, it looks like he's an excellent engineer. Blessings ZeroZero
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
"It should be even more interesting to see the Darwinian explanation of all of this." Oh come on now. The answer should be obvious. Magicjwrennie
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Pav, evolution did it millions of years ago! Possible proof ?... Try here: http://www.physorg.com/news74970678.html Isn't evolution wonderful ?...Sladjo
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply