IUBio

AI Top-down, Robotics Bottom-up (Was: Bottom-up evolution...)

Richard Hall rhall at uvi.edu
Mon Dec 23 17:25:58 EST 1996


The physiologist generally agrees with the latter response (although the
allusion to the von Trapp family was a stretch) and disagrees with the
former response (which was actually a rather lame dust off and not a
response).

The Later-with which I sort of agree-
>
>The further suggestion is made that AI is a waste of time because
>we already have an abundance of easy-to-manufacture human brains.
>As one climbs Mount Everest, we build the AI because it is there.

Please...

My point was that the goal of AI can not possible be to recreate the animal
brain, because that is economic folly, a waste of time.  AI can use brain
theory as a guide to model more efficient analysis systems, but we are not
talking heart pacemakers or cochlear transplants in the same breath as
brain transplants.  My medical insurance would not be amused.  AI seems to
be a discipline that has the objective of formulating models of information
processing, period. It stand quite well on thant objective.

The Former reponse-with which I disagree and find to be offensively trite-

>A physiologist questions  "whether AI has any immediate relevance
>to understanding brain function."   Yes, because theories of mind
>present an easy target for neuroscientists to attempt to destroy.
>If the theory indicated below survives attack, it points the way

I disagree because:

I cannot imagine (my weakness, perhaps) how presented AI analysis could
confirm or refute a particular model or theory on brain function when brain
function is electrical, electrochemical, and (bio)chemical in nature. What
makes you confident that your analysis can refute theories based on
experimental results?

Aqueous electrical circuits are very different from circuit boards because
the electrical events of the animal brain are intimantely linked to
metabolic and electrical responses within the cell. Electrical or
electronic model of brain or nervous function seem to miss one critical
difference between the world of Ohm and the world of mind.  Biological
events occur on a time scale that is at least 3 to 6 orders of magnitude
slower than typical electronic switching presumably to accomodate
electrophysiological and metabolic events within individual cells and
circuits.  Otherwise, the brain would be totally electronic in nature with
no need for neurotransmitters or neuromodulators.

It is doubtful the brain will prove to be either a mystical or an
electrical wonder.  Yet, some AI discussions at this website seem to be
dominated by physicists and mathematicians who truely believe the brain is
a) an electrical oscillator or b) a massively parallel inductive field
which strikes me as mysticism or at least reductionism to the nth degree
;-).

My objection is simply that quantum theory and induction field theory work
swell for electronics and electricity; however, the brain is not a circuit
board, nor is it a top down designed computer program. It is a paramecium
or ameoba to the nth power, with emergent properties and intrinsic
limitations. (This does not mean I take sides on the top down or bottom up
issue.)  But it does lead me to conclude that the difference between simple
neuronal synaptic connections and brain function is huge. The animal brain
is a ponderous system with incredible redundancies yet with important
subtlies as well.

Clearly humans do not understand how the animal brain functions. We do have
a good idea of what individual neurons do. We have some effective models
for some components of brain function. We appreciate the importance of
inhibition in brain function.  AI is best when if addresses paradigms for
information processing and when designing models for artificial control of
motor behavior.  While AI may eventually design analytic systems far
superior to the animal brain, I have not yet seen AI discredit any
particular theory of brain function that was based on experimental results.
At best, AI has helped investigators frame questions for experimentation,
but AI is a parallel (and valuable) field of investigation.

In 1996, it is still seems to be apples and oranges. I am an interested and
informed audience, so please prove me wrong, give me evidencs that AI is
biologically relevant to the study of the animal brain.  Prove that I am
incorrect and save snide retoric for your Wednesday poker game.


rlh

Richard Hall
Comparative Animal Physiologist
Division of Sciences and Mathematics
University of the Virgin Islands
St. Thomas, USVI  00802

809-693-1386
rhall at uvi.edu





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net