IUBio

Modelling the human brain by modelling its evolutionary emergence

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 26 07:40:17 EST 2002


' our present day knowledge of the functioning of the human brain and mind
demonstrates clearly the lack of some unifying theory for the information
handling processes in the human brain and mind.'

Perhaps this quote illustrates exactly why little progress has been made.
One thing it does not contain is any hint that the notions of "mind" and
"information handling processes" may be scientifically worthless.

"Frans van der Walle" <fw.novoware at wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:a5fqco$hl$1 at reader08.wxs.nl...
>
> Frans van der Walle <fw.novoware at wxs.nl wrote in berichtnieuws
> a586jl$m8u$1 at reader08.wxs.nl...
> > This message is a combined version of the my statements in preceding
> > discussions; it is intended as a conclusion of my request for comment. I
> > will address it as well to other bionet newsgroups. Many thanks for the
> > responses obtained sofar. etc
> **********************
> I got following comment from Peter Brawley; I include below my respone
> between ********:
>
> Thanks. A few comments . . .
> 1. Even after working out most of the details regarding the universals of
> matter and energy (eg, f=dp/dt, Maxwell's equations, e=mc², Planck's h,
> quarks, &c), and nearly half a century after Einstein's death, physics
> cannot formulate a unifying theory which works. Making such a theory is
> difficult even for fairly simply and non-hierarchical processes. Arguably
> neurobiology negins with a much harder problem, and obviously it has not
yet
> had its Einstein, or even its Newton & Maxwell -- it has no analogue to
> f=dp/dt, no analogue to e=mc², &c, so compared with physics, it's in the
> seventeenth century!
> ************
> It is getting time we change that! My modelling is an effort to initiate
> that; there were many (smaller) scientists who preceded Newton! I have not
> the illusion that my approach is the final answer.
> ************
>
> Now what's the likelihood that a general theory of the nervous system,
> formulated on the basis of so little solid understanding, will turn out to
> be substantially correct? Vanishingly small. So I would have thought that
> the best result one could reasonably expect from such a project would be
> hermeneutic, and that, for the next few decades, we will get much more
bang
> from smaller-scale analyses (eg Hubel & Wiesel on vision, the hippocampus
> and memory, basal ganglia and action, &c).
> ************
> I disagree, we have concentrated already too long on detailed aspects; one
> does not see the forest anymore through the trees.
> Patricia Churchland (1988) stated it very correctly in her book
> 'Neurophilosophy':
>   ' our present day knowledge of the functioning of the human brain and
mind
> demonstrates clearly  the lack of some unifying theory for the information
> handling processes in the human brain and mind.'
>
> A similar statement, be it within another context, was made already in the
> 1930's by Vygotsky
> (1934/1986):
>   'The atomistic and functional modes of analyses prevalent during the
past
> decade (1934) treated
>   psychic processes in isolation. Methods of research were developed and
> perfected with a view to
>   studying separate functions, while their interdependence and their
> organization in the structure of
>   consciousness as a whole remained outside the field of investigation.'
>   'There are so many psychologies precisely because there is no one
> psychology'.
> These very early remarks are still valid according to me and should spur
us
> to a somewhat different aproach than the usual one.
> **************
>
> 2. If the human genome project has shown anything, it's that DNA is not
the
> full specification for building an organism. The diff between a fruitfly &
a
> human is just 15K genes? Don't think so. Much info is encoded, then, in
> processes which we don't as yet know anything about. So it's an error to
> hang any design argument on DNA alone.
> *****************
> The human genome program considers only that part of DNA that codes for
> proteins. It is only a (small) part of DNA; much more is 'hidden' in it,
> often (I think inappropriately) identified as 'junk DNA'. There is just no
> other genetic 'transportation vehicle' to the next generation.
> ****************
>
> 3. It's been a few years since I looked in detail at cortical studies, but
I
> am surprised by your confident summary of general cortical column
> properties. Don't columns vary widely amongst areas? And the "chopping
time"
> is tendentious too, isn't it?
> **************
> No the cortex is remarkably constant, even between various mammal lines
> (rats are often studied). The major exception is the visual cortex, but
even
> there it is only the neuron density that is some 2.5 times larger. See
> further my reply to Matt Jones
> The 'chopping time' assumption / postulate has a reasonably solid
foundation
> in experimental results of Singer and several others. (See my list of
> questions in my communication of 23-02-2002)
> **********
> 4. The assertion that "modelling of the present brain is only possible by
> modelling its evolutionary
> emergence" seems to me as absurd as it would be for the heart, or spleen..
> ***************
> See my reply to Matt Jones of today (26-02-2002).
> *************
> 5. Whatever reason is there to imagine that 'conscious' and 'unconscious'
> brain networks (a) exist and (b) are separate!?
> **************
> In my modelling these are interconnected networks; in fact it is only one
> network. However, the evolutionary analyses lead to the assumption /
> conclusion / postulate that one segement is created by a different
recursive
> procedure, making it into the hidden layers = nodal points of a feed
> forward/backward network; it is part of conscious
'seeing/feeling/hearing'.
> The other segment interconnects the hidden layers via a different
recursive
> procedure and operates, I assume/postulate/conclude, unconsciously. It
> models/explains the phenomenon of 'sudden revelations', 'AHA Erlebniss',
> Serendipity, etc. Any information transformartion in the second network
> segment will, ultimately, 'arrive' in another nodal point, leading to such
a
> conscious revelation. Note: The sole modelling test is: Is it isomorph
with
> reality? It explains therefore at least an important part of Man's
> functioning.
> ***********
>
> 6. To refer to memory & learning as primarily 'storage' is a fundamental
> error.
> **************
> I don't understand your remark. Of course recall is also part of it and,
> most importantly, abstracting and prototyping.  What we did find is that
Man
> does not truly 'invent' something really new; it is all based on
information
> scanned in the environment and as received from others by their
> communications. We are all symbionts / parasites, I am afraid! Real
> procedural analysis is a conclusion after the event. We are less original
> than we think! You will find this statement in many places, but we
hesitate
> to accept our 'lower standing'. Robots will, ulimately after a long
further
> development, become brighter than we are! Only we will not be there
anymore;
> our grandchildren will have to solve that ethical puzzle!
> ************
> There are so many problems to solve in neurobiology; most of them must be
> solved before anything like a unified theory or model would be even
> intelligible, much less testable. I hope you decide to apply your
> considerable energies to one of those more modest problems.
> ************
> See my response above, quoting Churchland and Vygotsky.
> *******
> P.
> Many thanks for your remarks
> Frans van der Walle
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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