From: thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Mike Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: re: Simulated Brain
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:47:35 GMT
Organization: F.O.C.U.S. Systems, MI

Hi Tom,

[Quotes from: erlebach@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Thomas Erlebach) 29 Sep
92 15:18:01 GMT]

>- In a human brain there are regions which perform tasks like
>  memorizing things, understanding language or recognizing faces.
   [stuff removed...] 
>  If all these human qualities are capabilities of our physical
>  brain, why should there be a non-physical entity like a soul ?

   But, when a person is "damaged" and regions of the brain are destroyed
(say a stroke, for example) the "person" or that "thing" which you call
a "soul" that I would call the Mind does not change. Yes, a persons
ability to speak or move or remember may be damaged (and relearned) but
the "I" or the Mind remain the same. Many people will say that the Mind
is a product or result of the brain functioning... perhaps this is the
case with things envolving the Brain, memory, learning, perception... But
that "I" or Mind seems to continue when part of this machine we call the 
brain is damaged... Perhaps another example is this: when you sleep at
night (or in class) your Mind is still active... your brain has shut down
regions (say sight, and sound). These areas are "shut down" by the fact
that external stimulus is not influencing their operation... So what
about when you dream? Well, your "Mind" or that "I" then influences areas
of your brain to result in sound and sight.. etc... 
   About existing after the brain is dead: when your brain finally does
stop functioning and you die... in that last moment the last experience
you have when the "I" or your Mind thinks of itself, that last thought
might have no end. [this has nothing to do with religion of course] but
think about it for a second, in any case thought is energy... and when you
dye your body/brain stops channeling that energy in a specific pattern
(your thoughts) but at the point of your last focused thought the energy
is not destryed (law of conservation; energy can not be created or
destroyed...) So, perhaps this organized energy/thought just remains in
that pattern since you know longer have a brain to cause the pattern to
change; and because the Mind (or rather this pattern or thought) can also
not get information from the brain, as when we dream... [I of course would
question this being the case, but it is something to think about...]

>- Examination of the anatomy of brains has revealed a lot of
>  neurons with a very high number of connections between them.
>  Although we don't understand too much about the way a brain
>  recognizes faces (for example) 
  [stuff removed]

   Just a side note, If you wish to find out more about how the brain
performs (some) various operations... Try books about Neuro-Psychology.
The information you will find is often alot better than the conjecture
produced from sciences like, cognitive science... It is very intresting to
to see what WE have found out about areas of the brain like the visual
cortex, motor and pre-motor cortex, etc...

>  Since a brain is a kind of machine, it is possible to simulate
>  a brain on a computer. All you need is:

   I agree that the Brain can be simulated on a computer, But I wonder
if you really want the "I" or the Mind to be simulated... It is funny
to me that people make this statement, because I think that there isn't
really anything that people do that can not be reproduced by some machine;
hence, cameras take pictures, we can synthesize speach, we can record and
produce sound, we have extremely sensitive sensors, we have advcanced
robotic arms (auto industy) ... the intresting part is that in looking at
the list the brain really doesn't DO any of these things... (eyes, ears,
etc...) So, the brain generally just interpretes the information and
either produces some response or storages the information... that is what
computers do now... 
   I guess the point I am moving to is that, what do you feel the brain is
doing that you would like to simulate? Do you think you will need all of
these other machines to produce/retrieve information to send to this
simulation (or will you simulate that also?) Do you believe that if you
simulate just the brain/neurons (neural networks) that this "I" or Mind
will evolve naturally? I wonder it it could seeing how the brain really
has no focal point (perhaps the frontal lobe at best) where this "I"/Mind
would correspond to nuerons... another side note: neurons have no way
of knowing what they are doing, they do not have sensory systems, their
function AS A CELL does not involve knowledge of "Higher thought" or the
existance of a society of neurons, the "electric pulses" you refered to
basically happen without "their" knowledge (knowledge assuming that a
neuron/cell is aware of its production of protein chains which is
generally seen as a cells function) 
    My point then becomes, if a) we would like to model brain functions
that go beyond the current abilities of the computer, and b) we understand 
that the organization of neurons does not produce this "I" [as shown with 
stokes, and a neurons lack of "knowledge"], then we should question the
chance that we will be able to simulate this "Mind/I" for which we desire
to produce in a computer, by simulating a brain. (?)

>4. Suppose I could get a model of my brain into the computer
>   without destroying it (my brain). When I start the simulation,
>   I exist two times: biologically and in the computer. What do
>   you think about that ?

    Actually, you and the simulation would be two different
"people/Minds/I's" because your experiences would be seperate so the
moment after your brain is simulated and you go on with your life the two
are nolonger equal, also when the simulation started the simulation would
change the "Mind/I/Person" that is being simulated (that is if the
simulation wasn't a static repersentation of you at some point in time...
so, I would think that "You would not exists two times."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom,
     Your disreguard for the "Mind" as I have tried to describe it bothers
me to some extent... I mean, you experience "self" beyond mere perceptions
of the world around you and the influences of society... You of course,
know about (what is his name...?) sitting in the room with all of the
lights off not touching anything and closing his eyes and asking himself
what exisits outside of his own perceptions? (answer of coue being "I"
exists) but this isn't all of it... Neuro-Psychology shows us that our
perception of light is governed by certain factors... (cones detect
electro magnetic waves of light, and rods detect photons of light) so you
can perceive a spectum of colors with the cones in you eyes, BUT in the
case of WHITE and BLACK (with the rods) the rod only fire when they are
struck with a photon producing a sensation of WHITE. there is at NO time
from begining to end of the process of analysing the stimulus of light in
the visual cortex, any checking of the color BLACK. This also means
checking to see if neurons are not firing (so assume the color is black).
The point here is that there is no mechanical combination of neurons or
areas in your Brain which say BLACK... Your Mind/I must do this...

     The point becomes that your mind has several functions which your
brain does not perform... usually classified as abstract tasks... so
comparing an apple and an orange and saying that they are different IS
something your Brain can do in the temporal lobe (part of the visual
cortex) but comparing the size of the universe to a lepton (a sub-atomic 
particle that feels the effect of the weak neuclear forces) is extremely 
abstract since you can not experince both things via your perception. The
question becomes: doesn't the brain visualize the two things (or an
abstract repersentation of them) and just compare those, well first when
you visualize something it does not access the same area of the brain (so
why can't this new area do the same thing for comparing objects...because
they do something that is specfically diofferent) AND your Mind/I does
access your Brain for information the translation of the words universe
and lepton, accesses memories for these things, etc... But, to better
explain what I am offering I will say this: 

   In physics you have have objects, a BALL and forces, say gravity. well
a force really isn't anything that can be discerned such as the ball is.
So the comparision to the brain/Mind is this... if a ball is dropped
gravity is what causes the ball to change (move). hence if you are asleep
your mind causes the change, when the ball hits the ground and
bounces the ball causes the change, so the brain influences the Mind...
If there is no friction, the ball would continually bounce... so now I say
this: Just because the Ball is the cause of the change a some point the
mind still exists (and the ball going up) but gravity still causes the
ball to slow down and change (both acting together)... and even if the
ball was at rest on the ground it would still be pulled by gravity and
still push off the ground. each influences the other... So the Mind and
Brain might not be two totally independant things but there is good reason
to believe that the brain does not function as a direct result of the
stimulus from the environment, or that the Brain does everything because
it is the only physical thing WE can see (like the ball) 

    A final point about the Mind existing without the brain (just 
something to think about) if the ball does not exists does that mean 
that gravity also does not exists? or is there just no way of 
determining if gravity exists? how about the other way if gravity did 
not exists, you could still tell that the ball exists, BUT you can 
also tell that Gravity does not exists because the Ball does not react
like it does when gravity is there (it would just float).

    My final question to you is a question I asked before about the
computer simulation modeling the qualities of the Brain. Do you want to
simulate just the ball or do you want to simulate gravity? as with the
above example, with computer/machines we can produce the qualities of the
Brain (Ball) but we seem to leave out the qualities of the Mind/I (the
force) so the Ball just floats, or rather the computers still do not
display the qualities of that we seem to be look to have computer aquire
through AI.

================================================================================
Thank you,            ||  "Sol est invisiblis in hominibus, in terra vero
Michael Thomas        ||   visibilis, tamen ex uno et eodem sole sunt ambo"
(..uunet!ckgp!thomas) ||                    -- Theatrum Chemicum (Ursel, 1602)
================================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy