IUBio

Modelling the human brain by modelling its evolutionary emergence

Frans van der Walle fw.novoware at wxs.nl
Wed Feb 27 15:47:50 EST 2002


mat <mats_trash at hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
43525ce3.0202260732.528a686a at posting.google.com...
> > ************
> > I disagree, we have concentrated already too long on detailed aspects;
>


$8    But you talk about modeling neurones?!  You can't have it both ways!
> If you want to model them, then you have to do it accurately, not just
> 'assuming' they are simple logic gates otherwise your results will
> have no relevance whatsoever to neuroscience.
>
> >   '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.
> > **************
>


$9    But this statement is about psychology, which does not pretend to have
> any bearing on neuronal function.  Psychologists are not interested in
> synaptic function etc, becuase they study higher level processes.
> However you seem to think you can join the two levels with one fell
> swoop.  You simply cannot.
> >
> > 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.
> > ****************
>
> Well you're both wrong here.  Genes specify proteins, envrionment
> influences what happens to the proteins.  An increased number of genes
> allows greater variation/possibility in the development of an organism
> WITHIN ITS ENVIRONMENT.  Therefore relatively few extra genes could
> allow for a huge difference in phenotype.  I don't think you can
> eliminate the environment from any modeling of evolution/development.
> It is critically important.  As to Frans comment - There is no more
> hidden in DNA.


$10    Non-coding protions may of course become coding
> protions by mutation, and non-coding portions also have regulatory
> roles over the DNA that codes proteins.  But there is no vast resource
> of hidden information within DNA that we have yet to access.  What
> else would it produce but proteins?
>
>
> > 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..
> > ***************
>
> I concur.  This evolutonatry modelling is rubbish, but the
> developmental modelling (which Frans project is actually doing) is a
> little more realistic if much more detail was included in the plans
>
> > 5. Whatever reason is there to imagine that 'conscious' and
'unconscious'
> > brain networks (a) exist and (b) are separate!?
> > **************


$11    Again I agree, talking about subconscious and conscious processes
> prior to you having 'evolved' them in your model is just silly in the
> first place.  You would want to see how they became, if of course you
> actually knew what it meant for a network to be unconscious or
> conscious.
>
> > In my modelling these are interconnected networks; in fact it is only
one
> > network. However, the evolutionary analyses lead
>
> Again, what are these 'analyses'?  Are you saying you have examined
> the phylogenesis of the brain over the last n-million years?
>
> 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?


$12    What is the test of isomorphism? In detail.  Ae you going to ask 'it'
> questions?


$13    This is all just total speculation (as you acknowledge).  It should
be
> in the result/discussion of any experiment not in its planning
> otherwise you will hopelessly diverge from the real object you plan to
> model.
>
> > ***********
> >
> > 6. To refer to memory & learning as primarily 'storage' is a fundamental
> > error.
> > **************
>
> True
>
> Frans, you seem to think that consructing a rather large newtork of
> logic gates in a simple neural network paradigm and subjecting to some
> learning data, will result in the emergence of an artifical brain the
> structure of which will be isomorphic to that of the human brain.  No
> matter how much you obfuscate around that point with
> philosophy/psychology etc, it just won't work.

$14    See the last three
> decades of AI research for why.
**********************
See $i's above:

$8 I may refer to $4 in my response to your other email. My approach has
been in short:
*   Globalize the neural structure of the brain in meaningful information
handling entities,
   based on, unavoidably somewhat speculative, interpretations of known
detail
   characteristics.
*   recognize that evolution is primarily an information handling procedure
(should I decide
   for this action or that? What was the result in a previous encounter?
Etc.)
*   Model the evolution of that information handling procedure (i.e. virtual
image handling),
   using the known characteristics of present Homo as the ‘aiming point' and
make use of all
   available information on (cultural) characteristics of Man and its
precursors.

$9 Psychology has indeed stuck too long to just describing behaviour. It is
not for nothing
that Behaviorism was once the leading idea in Psychology. We simply have to
make a link
between neuronal functionality and human behaviour. See the strategy
description under $8.

$10  We are both guessing of course on the functionality of the DNA part
(largest) that does
not code for proteins. My suggestion/question is:
Semir Zeki in his book ‘Vision on the Brain' describes the procedure in
ontogenesis that
develops the visual cortex in the foetus. As long as the eyes are not yet
functioning, there is a
stream of information flows, generated by that developing brain, that
stimulates the visual
cortex to develop in a certain way. As soon as the eyes are sufficiently
developed, these take
over by sending that, or another, information stream.
My point is that these information streams must also be genetically
transferred to the next
generation; the only possible vehicle is DNA. I do not see how this could be
generated by
some protein(s); their goal seems to be reserved for the physical part of
ontogenesis. Could
this ‘information imprinting' not be the function of the non-coding DNA
part? I speculate that
this could also be the repository for inbred behaviour and, if accepted as
concept, archaic
memories. It could create a rich field for experimental initiatives!

$11  What I have presented in ‘Biography of Man' is:
*   a very global modelling of the information handling aspects in the
emergence of single-
   and initial multi-cell life forms in chapters 3 & 4. It is of course very
global, certainly
   speculative, and is based on a number of intriguing ideas, expressed by
professor deBruyn,
   emeritus professor of mathematics of Eindhoven University (See literature
list). DeBruyn
   describes the emergence of a beginning of a ‘thinking procedure' in a
‘chemical soup'.
   Based on that modelling, Life can only be discriminated from dead
entities (machines etc)
   by categorizing the system of network relations between the components of
such an entity.
   Such a system may be either: non-reproducing or reproducing without any
change
   between successive generations or reproducing with some change between
successive
   generations, which change can be: variations at random (evolution's
mutations) or
   changes based on, resulting from, selected by sensory observations in
precursors (gradual
   creation and upgrade of inbred behaviour over successive life forms).
    *   Life started essentially as a social affair; there just is no
initial phase of single cell life
   forms without any communication between the various ‘individuals'.
    *   This social communication could have, very probably, some
relationship with the cs-ma-
   cd protocol of LAN's (local area networks) in computer technology. This
protocol is
   exactly the simple communication pattern that a non-intelligent
‘designer' like evolution
   could have created.
*   An evolutionary modelling of the emergence, starting from an initial
multi-cell life form,
   some 700 million years ago, into Homo sapiens sapiens in chapter 5 of
‘Biography of
   Man'. The resulting decision making procedure in Homo sapiens sapiens is
described in
   chapter 6. This will be the starting point for the software developments
I identified under
   $7. (See my reply to your other email at  16.11 h)

$12  ‘Asking questions' is applying the modelling procedure to actual real
life events, e.g.
does it explain the existence of infantile amnesia? It is discussed in
section 7/1/3 in chapter 7
on psychology. My answer to the question is: yes, it gives a correct
explanation for this
phenomenon; the modelling is therefore isomorph with regard to this aspect.

$13  Newton's laws are then also speculation, but we can very effectively
work with it
within certain limitations.

$14  AI is certainly on the wrong track if you look for a modelling of Man's
brain. Brooks
(1991) formulated this very sharply as follows (quote):
   'Artificial intelligence as a discipline has gotten bogged down in
subproblems of'
   intelligence. These subproblems are the result of applying reductionist
methods to the goal
   of creating a complete artificial thinking mind. I have argued that these
methods will lead
   us to solving irrelevant problems; interesting as intellectual puzzles,
but useless in the
   long run for creating an artificial being' (unquote).'
Similar statements are to be found in Hofstadter (1985).
AI is however on the right track as a mathematical tool for defining
functionalities that can be
helpful in supporting human decision making and that resemble somewhat (but
not more than
that) human characteristics.

Regards, I look forward to your comments,
Frans van der Walle





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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