Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re
I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)
If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.
I'm NOT GOING TO DO ANY MORE PROJECTS at home! (stomping foot here) If any of you guys mention "bathroom", or "living room" to my wife I am going to kill you.
Cordially,
Test object 1. Diamond's answer in post 7.
Test object 2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62.
Test object 3. Answer at post 111 and 124.
Test object 4. Answer at 166 and 174.
Test object 5. Answer at 181.
Test object 1. Diamond's answer in post 7.
Test object 2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62.
Test object 3. Answer at post 111 and 124.
Test object 4. Answer at 166 and 174.
Test object 5. Answer at 181.
You wrote: "There are a lot of gears and wheels wizzing around in the brain, most of which are now accessible to study. But the computational model is still a mystery, despite being able to see the pieces."
Perhaps the reason the "computational model is still a mystery" is because it can only "see the pieces", never the integrated, systematic whole of which they are "the pieces."
In any event, it seems to me the "pieces" themselves are pretty intangible quantities when you boil it all down. It seems these pieces are what amount to after-the-fact recordings (for we can only "read the tape" after the "take" has been registered) of experimental observations of human brain function. Yet it hardly seems to occur to anyone these days that any trace brain function leaves on any recording device is not the same thing as the thing being recorded. Or to question the possibility that brain function, in a certain sense, is itself the trace of a higher-order function of some kind.
Which for lack of a better descriptor I would call consciousness. This is what Marvin Minsky believes can be supplied to a "thinking machine" as the "short description of the system." Man, talk about taking a short-cut to problem solution! Which could never solve the problem, precisely because it is a short-cut.
IMHO, people who work in the field of artificial intelligence might find it helpful to study, in addition to brain studies, the operations of consciousness. Arguably, consciousness is highly structured and complex. One would think this fact might have some bearing on the content of Minsky's "short description." For how is any "short description" to capture the quality of essential self-reflection inherent in human thinking?
If the AI folks of "strong theory" school continue to avoid exploring the structure of consciousness itself, then I really don't think they will get very far very soon in achieving their goals. To put it bluntly, my suspicion is these folks are seriously on the wrong track -- barking up the wrong tree, methodologically speaking.
At the end of the day, the problem before them -- as they themselves seem to have defined it -- is of such dimension and intractibility as to suggest to an outside observer that it would be easier to turn thinking humans into machines than to turn machines into human-like thinkers.
Believe it or not, there are ways to do systematic investigations into the operations of consciousness. Unfortunately, every last one of them (that I know about anyway), is necessarily "subjective."
As unspun has aptly put it, before there can be "objectivity," there has to be a "subjectivity." And I think that observation directly bears on the seemingly most intractible problem of AI theory.
JMHO FWIW.
When we fully understand something like a bird or lizard brain I think we will have made some progress towards AI.
The big unknowns are the secret discoveries briefly described by Freeper tortoise. I understand the need to keep such secrets because AI has great potential for defense systems – but I’m still miserably curious (LOL!)
The Spielberg production was a fine movie, though.
I haven't noticed very many models of emotion or animal behavior, except in film making and video games. I did find this Salk Institute webpage with a summary of different approaches.
How might you explain something that I've experienced, BMCDA?:
On time, in silent prayer, I had the distinct impression that I was holding a sword in my hand. It had some specific significance to me. As I remained in prayer, an intercessor came by, looked toward me, and immediately his eyes got big and he smiled in some astonishment and said something like, "Wow, look at that sword!"
I won't expand upon this topic, since it's well expressed, here and elsewhere by others. But I'll wonder out electronically: why is it that God is so often and easily referred to as all powerful, but so rarely and apparently with some difficulty referred to as all subtle?
B6, "to a significant degree?" I appreciate the hedge.
And what is it when functional information that does not come by a process of thought is gained by means of such an experience? And what is it when it is grosly improbable for this information to be gained by means of even intuition (whatever that is)?
I'm not aware of this; would like to see those references. I am aware of Romans 2:15,16, which to me seems to imply that the conscience of some will demonstrate that they acted in humble faith, regarding what little knowledge of God they had (being submitted to it in their hearts).
Earlier still in Romans, without 'cheating' and looking now, I believe we have mention of creation itself telling us of God, which lo and behold, brings my face back to the subject of this thread!
Perhaps, "consciously" directed would have been a more descriptive phrase.
And what is it when functional information that does not come by a process of thought is gained by means of such an experience? And what is it when it is grosly improbable for this information to be gained by means of even intuition (whatever that is)?
Lucid dreaming is not "thought"? I disagree.
And intuition is not a valid thought process? Talk to any briliiant mathematician or a chess master. So, ditto.
Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Professor Roger W. Sperry, a psychologist at the California Institute of Technology, observed:
I find that my own conceptual working model of the brain leads to inferences that are in direct disagreement with many of the foregoing; especially I must take issue with that whole general materialistic-reductionist conception of human nature and mind that seems to emerge from the currently prevailing objective analytic approach in the brain-behaviour sciences.
When we are led to favour the implications of modern materialism in opposition to older, more idealistic values in these and related matters, I suspect that science may have sold society and itself a somewhat questionable bill of goods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.