>THE BRAIN: A NEUTRAL NETWORK -- M e r v y n v a n K u y e n
>For two years now, I have been exploring the notion that the most
>important product of our brain - imagination - could well be an effort to
>*neutralize* our sensory input, preventing it from penetrating the neural
>networks of our brain.
This reminds me of a filter model of intelligence, where an
intelligence takes in all available sensory input, filters out that
which is irrelevant or unacceptable in some way. Only significant
information is processed, or info which the intelligence can cope
with, or process.
> The results include a computer program that can
>effectively construct such a network and a number of (in my opinion)
This sounds interesting in itself. Would you say the computer program
models a specific information filter?
[snip]
>1 How can a network learn to neutralize its sensory input?
>By linking the neutralization level to global neural growth and
>starvation, connections that increase neutralization can be collected over
>time: Increasing neutralization strengthens all connections and grows new
>(weak) ones. Decreasing neutralization weakens all connection, destroying
>the weakest (new) ones. Note that a single *quantity* is monitored in
>order to develop a *quality*.
This sounds to me like a network based on inhibitors rather than
reinforcement.
>2 What feeds our imagination if sensory input is completely neutralized?
>The answer to this question is short: nothing. However, perfection is not
>the issue here. Neutralizing (correctly predicting) ninety percent of our
>input would be an excellent performance in the complex world we inhabit.
>Note that the *gain* of the network has to increase in order to neutralize
>ninety percent while receiving only ten percent of the actual input.
A system that could determine chains of cause and effect, could filter
out irrelevant information by simply not processing it.
>3 What prevents excessive feedback if reality takes an unexpected turn?
>The increasing gain of the network proved to be a great obstacle for its
>development. New connections were selected for their neutralization of
>already sparse patterns (due to the effect of the network already in
>place). However these connections proved to be far too sensitive to face
>the original, complete input. In other words, the network could not simply
>be switched on facing a familiar pattern: it had to 'replay' its evolution
>very quickly in order to regain the original level of performance. The
>neural correlate of this mechanism is suggested to be the modulating
>effect of our *diffuse systems of arousal*: more recent connections are
>suggested to be more sensitive to this modulation, resulting in the
>required (partial) 'replay' of the network's development with each EEG
>wave.
This would seem to explain why people go into shock, or have "nervous
breakdowns".
>4 How could neutralization increase our chances survival?
>Behavior, in this model, is interpreted as a means to increase the value
>of our mental neutralizing capabilities. A child inevitably (since its
>lack of control over its environment) has to learn to neutralize its
>perceptions, while later on it will use the control it gains (by learning
>to communicate and by developing senso-motorical skills) to preserve or
>recreate the kind of environment it has already learned to neutralize. If
>its initial environment has been a socially and physically healthy one,
>this tendency provides an effective strategy for survival.
Do you think it's necessary to create an internal model of the outside
world? Or perhaps an intelligence only needs to filter out useless
information?
Does anyone know where this !@#$%! six wheeled robot came from?
