postscript

[Jim Bower]

I'm sorry, but I feel compelled to point out that I could not have better illustrated 
the consequences of the prevailing assumptions about connectionism 
and the brain than Steve Lahar has done.  Briefly however:
 
 - my point is that a closer relationship between connectionism and the
 brain has not been PROVEN and therefore should not be ASSUMED simply
 because connectionists work with network structures.  I do not doubt and
 actually have been trying to assert that "many connectionists BELIEVE
 that their paradigm is a valid tool for exploring...the brain" it is a different 
thing to PROVE IT however. 
 
 - I do not oppose "all theoretical modeling of the brain",  I oppose imposing 
abstract theoretical constructs (e.g. ART I, II, III, etc.)  on brain structure 
and then claiming that these models are actually derived from the
 structure they are imposed on.  This is very different from building realistic 
low level models and then abstracting those.  This is what I actually
 do for a living and is decidedly not what Grossberg has done.  The difference 
is that, in the approach I am advocated, there is some chance that the
 brain will actually tell you something you didn't know before you started.
  Given its complexity, in my view, this is the ONLY way we will figure out
 how it works.  
 
 - Finally, there is obviously a link between thinking that "science" understands 
"the major mode of operation of the neuron" (whatever that could
 even be) and thinking that the brain is composed of "simple computational
 elements".   Both are absolutely wrong.  As a rule of thumb, if your model
 is simple, it is unlikely to be capturing anything deep about the way the
 brain works, because the brain is almost certainly the most complicated
 machine we know about and its complexity is very unlikely to be a result
 of sloppy engineering.  Show me any poorly designed hack that has 10 to
 the 12th components, a single component of which can not be realistically
 modeled on even today's fastest computer, whose source of power is as
 energetic as glucose, that is capable of the information processing feats
 the brain pulls off in real time, and still doesn't generate enough free energy 
to keep itself within its ideal operating range.  All I am really asking
 for is a little respect for this system and a little less arrogance from
 those who do not study its structure directly.   
 
 Jim Bower