Connectionists: [SPAM]Re: [SPAM]Re: how the brain works?

[Brian J Mingus]

Hi Asim,

Abstract concepts such as "bird" do not need to be defined in terms of what
birds look like or sound like, but can be defined in terms of what they
feel like or smell like. This is the embodied perspective. More generally,
though, we can define a bird in terms of other things, despite never having
experienced them. While it seems hard to argue that some kind of embodied
interaction with the world is necessary for intelligence, I can't
personally argue that any specific sensory modality is required. As
indicated by Hellen Keller, only smell and touch and taste are required,
and probably just one of those is required (principally touch), but I could
see smell and taste working as well.

For this reason, we can skip object recognition and jump straight to IT
cortex, where we find object invariant representations, and perhaps network
representations of meaning akin to Latent Semantic Analysis.

Indeed, perhaps a mind that has a coherent semantic network manually
pre-trained in IT cortex and elsewhere can skip embodiment altogether, and
jump straight to intelligence (assuming the rest of the architecture is
coherent).

This would not be unlike a sensory deprivation chamber. If you never had
the senses in the first place, it wouldn't be deprivation. It would just be
thinking and feeling.

Brian





On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Asim Roy <ASIM.ROY at asu.edu> wrote:

>  Brian,
>
>
>
> I did not mean infinite abstraction. But higher level complex abstractions
> are definitely part of the architecture.
>
>
>
> Asim
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian J Mingus [mailto:brian.mingus at Colorado.EDU]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:31 PM
> *To:* Asim Roy
> *Cc:* Juyang Weng; connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu
> *Subject:* [SPAM]Re: [SPAM]Re: Connectionists: how the brain works?
>
>
>
> Asim,
>
>
>
> Abstraction alone does not result in a being capable of language
> comprehension and production. For evidence, you can look at the variety of
> aphasias. It's clear that a very specific evolved architecture underlies
> language, and it is not just infinite abstraction that results in a single
> neuron that is invariant to everything (reductio ad absurdum).
>
>
>
> Responding specifically to John, claiming that the "first principle" of
> brain function is object recognition doesn't really seem to be justifiable.
> I can just as easily argue that we should start with the architecture
> underlying language or executive functioning, and then add in more details
> only as needed until the model passes my intelligence tests (i.e.,
> reinventing consciousness philosophy).
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Asim Roy <ASIM.ROY at asu.edu> wrote:
>
> There is plenty of neurophysiological evidence that abstractions are used
> in the brain - from the lowest (line orientation and other feature detector
> cells) to the highest levels (multimodal object recognition, complex
> abstract cells, place cells). Here are some references:
>
>
>
> A theory of the brain: localist representation is used widely in the brain<http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00551/full>
>
>
>
> An extension of the localist representation theory: grandmother cells are
> also widely used in the brain<http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00300/full>
>
>
>
> Asim Roy
>
> Arizona State University
>
> http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.asim.roy
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Connectionists [mailto:
> connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Brian J
> Mingus
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:41 PM
> *To:* Juyang Weng
> *Cc:* connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu
> *Subject:* [SPAM]Re: Connectionists: how the brain works?
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Theories of the brain will come in at multiple levels of abstraction. A
> reasonable first pass is to take object recognition as a given. It's clear
> that language and general intelligence doesn't require it. Hellen Keller is
> a great example - deaf and blind, and with patience, extremely intelligent.
> Visual and auditory object recognition simply aren't required!
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Juyang Weng <weng at cse.msu.edu> wrote:
>
> Danko,
>
> Good attempt.
>
> Any theory about brain/mind must address the First Principle:  How it
> learns visual invariance directly from natural cluttered environments.
> Your article does not seem to address the First Principle, does it?
>
> -John
>
>
>
> On 3/7/14 11:22 AM, Danko Nikolic wrote:
>
> I believe that the readers of Connectionists list my be interested in the
> manuscript available on arXiv (1402.5332) proposing the principles by which
> adaptive systems create intelligent behavior. It is a theoretical paper
> that has been recently submitted to a journal, and the editors agreed to
> post it on arXiv.
>
> A nice context for this manuscript is, I think, the recent discussion on
> Connectionists list on "how the brain works?", -- including the comparison
> to how the radio works, arguments that neuroscience has not reached the
> maturity of 19th century physics, that the development should be an
> essential component, etc.
>
> I assess that anyone who enjoyed following that discussion, like I did,
> would be interested also in what the proposed theory has to say.
>
> The theory addresses those problems by placing the question of brain
> workings one level more abstract than it is usually discussed: It proposes
> a general set of properties that adaptive systems need to have to exhibit
> intelligent behavior (nevertheless, concrete examples are given from
> biology and technology). Finally, the theory proposes what is, in
> principle, missing in the current approaches in order to account for the
> higher, biological-like levels of adaptive behavior.
>
> For those who are interested, I recommend using the link on my website:
>
> http://www.danko-nikolic.com/practopoiesis/
>
> because there I provided, in addition, a simplified introduction into some
> of the main conclusions derived from the theory.
>
> I would very much like to know what people think. Comments will be
> appreciated.
>
> With warm greetings from Germany,
>
> Danko Nikolic
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Juyang (John) Weng, Professor
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU Neuroscience Program
> 428 S Shaw Ln Rm 3115
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
> Tel: 517-353-4388
> Fax: 517-432-1061
> Email: weng at cse.msu.edu
> URL: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20140313/fec7d07e/attachment.html>