Connectionists: Physics and Psychology (and the C-word)

[Carson Chow]

Jim,

Before you check out there is one question that I wanted you to address. 
I think you believe that the brain is irreducibly complex so that 
Kolmogorov complexity of the brain is the brain itself. Is this true?  
If this is true then the only model of the brain is the brain itself.  
We can reconstruct it by faithfully simulating it but there is no 
abstraction of it that is simpler than the whole thing, right? In such a 
situation, what does it mean to understand the brain?

Also, while I agree that we should focus only on things that evolution 
can affect I don't think we can say how optimal the brain is.  Three 
billion years may be a long time to us but nature can only search a 
miniscule sample of genome space in that time. All we can really say is 
that the brain is locally optimal conditioned on its entire history.  
Thus, we have no idea of how many possible ways to construct brains that 
have performance capabilities similar to mammals.

best,
Carson



On 1/28/14 4:14 PM, james bower wrote:
> Ok, had enough here - back to work.
>
> It is emblematic, however, for me of the larger problem that a 
> discussion that started out by raising concerns about abstract models, 
> disconnected from the physical realty of machine we are supposed to be 
> understanding, has turned into a debate about quantum theory and 
> consciousness.
>
> I rest my case
>
> The very best to everyone and to all of us as we try to figure this 
> out.  I have no doubt that everyone is sincere and truly believes in 
> the approach they are taking.  For my part, I will stick with the nuts 
> and bolts.
>
> Jim Bower
>
> p.s Last one - personally I take Darwin’s view that the question of 
> consciousness isn’t that interesting.
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Richard Loosemore <rloosemore at susaro.com 
> <mailto:rloosemore at susaro.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/14, 3:09 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>>> Hi Richard, thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> > Yes, in general, having an outcome measure that correlates with C 
>>> ... that is good, but only with a clear and unambigous meaning for C 
>>> itself (which I don't think anyone has, so therefore it is, after 
>>> all, of no value to look for outcome measures that correlate)
>>>
>>> Actually, the outcome measure I described is independent of a clear 
>>> and unambiguous meaning for C itself, and in an interesting way: the 
>>> models, like us, essentially reinvent the entire literature, and 
>>> have a conversation as we do, inventing almost all the same 
>>> positions that we've invented (including the one in your paper).
>>>
>>
>> I can tell you in advance that the theory I propose in that paper 
>> makes a prediction there.  If your models (I assume you mean models 
>> of the human cognitive system) have precisely the right positioning 
>> for their 'concept analysis mechanism' (and they almost certainly 
>> would have to... it is difficult to avoid), then they would indeed 
>> "reinvent the entire literature, and have a conversation as we do, 
>> inventing almost all the same positions that we've invented".
>>
>> However, I can say *why* they should do this, as a tightly-argued 
>> consequence of the theory itself, and I can also say why they should 
>> express those same confusions about consciousness that we do.
>>
>> I think that is the key.  I don't think the naked fact that a 
>> model-of-cognition reinvents the philosophy of mind would actually 
>> tell us anything, sadly.   There is no strong logical compulsion 
>> there.  It would boot me little to know that they had done that.
>>
>> Anyhow, look forward to hearing your thoughts if/when you get a chance.
>>
>> Richard Loosemore
>
> Dr. James M. Bower Ph.D.
>
> Professor of Computational Neurobiology
>
> Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies.
>
> 15355 Lambda Drive
>
> University of Texas Health Science Center
>
> San Antonio, Texas  78245
>
> *Phone:  210 382 0553*
>
> Email: bower at uthscsa.edu <mailto:bower at uthscsa.edu>
>
> Web: http://www.bower-lab.org
>
> twitter: superid101
>
> linkedin: Jim Bower
>
> CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments to it may be privileged 
> or contain privileged and confidential information. This information 
> is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you have 
> received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you 
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use 
> of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, any of the 
> information contained in this e-mail, or
>
> any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that 
> this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be
>
> immediately returned to the sender or destroyed and, in either case, 
> this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately 
> deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof and any 
> and all hard copies made must be destroyed. If you have received this 
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail immediately.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20140128/626011ac/attachment.html>