tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-898073300343423982.post3749933189697779411..comments2023-10-25T11:57:44.552-04:00Comments on Life by Chocolate: Therefore p!Mark by Chocolatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04665003177388089336noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-898073300343423982.post-13339213089453484142008-09-13T11:33:00.000-04:002008-09-13T11:33:00.000-04:00For those of you that care, this is what I sent Ye...For those of you that care, this is what I sent Yehouda. I CC'ed my old friend, Bernie Baars and my brother Randy to see their opinion.<BR/><BR/>Hello Yehouda,<BR/><BR/>WRT http://www.human-brain.org/n-brain-symbols.html<BR/><BR/>OK, I give. Neurons can't implement symbolic systems but that doesn't mean that our models, see LaPolla, M.V., Baars, B.J. A psychologically implausible architecture that is always conscious, always active. BBS 1992 15 (3): 448-449, for example, is implementing brain behavior solely but rather whole mind behavior, which, as you have noted, "the person as a whole is different qualitatively from the components of the brain, by two fundamental properties (at least)." And then you list them.<BR/><BR/>Neurons may be stochastic in nature, I wouldn't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean that they aren't the basis for a symbolic system, as you point out. So, symbolic systems model the behavior of the whole person and not just of the brain. This means that it's a step backwards for neurobiology but a step forward for psychology.<BR/><BR/>Interesting article. Now you need to propose a model. Connectionist without back prop that actually works in real time? Genetic? What would you now use to describe either the mind, that is, the behavior of the whole person, as opposed to the brain, or to model just the brain? Obviously, the brain is its own model and the only reason we would want to model it ourselves would be to better understand its behavior. This means our models have to be greatly reduced in complexity since we don't understand the brain right now. <BR/><BR/>So one of my questions would be, would the brain be able to function without a hook up to the peripheral systems? That is, would there be a symbolic mind without the sensory systems? You imply no. Even though you say "We don't know much about the details of this system, but we know it works." Which to me says that you are implying no, without these extra brain systems, the brain could not implement symbolic systems. You have spent the rest of your paper showing that this is probably the case.<BR/><BR/>My next question is, for psychology and philosophy and computer science, is it even relevant to implement a model of the brain without these peripheral systems? I'd say no. Psychology does not deal with the brain but the whole person. Or as you put it, "Since components of the brain do not have sensory input and the learning capabilities of the whole person, there are many tasks that the whole person can do that components cannot do. Thus, that the person can perform some task (e.g. written communication, symbolic operations) does not prove that components of the brain can do it."<BR/><BR/>However, I would want to see this model of the brain that does not rely on symbols because it might provide insight into our behavior. Or it might not. However, I'm interested.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for an interesting read,<BR/><BR/>Mark LaPolla<BR/>Life By Chocolate<BR/>PO Box 659<BR/>Greenville, NY 12083<BR/>518 966 5219<BR/>mark@lifebychocolates.com<BR/>www.LifeByChocolates.com<BR/>www.LifeByChocolates.blogspot.comMark by Chocolatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04665003177388089336noreply@blogger.com