From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Toy discipline, and The future of cog sci?
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:33:20 GMT
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA

kpc@pluto.arc.nasa.gov (k p c) writes:

>In article <3098@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>   2) Startling progress in cognitive science will come unexpectedly
>   and quickly, when someone achieves a new descriptive, predictive,
>   and manipulable understanding of the principles of mind ranging
>   from sensory apparatus to cortical organization and symbolic flow.

>i am interested in ways to evaluate this claim.

>does anybody know how to make further claims about what type of theory
>such a theory would be?

>what lesser theories have we seen so far?  (dualism?  grammars?  state
>space search?  information theory?  connectionism?  materialism?)

>what type of theory has each one been?  how successful has it been?
>why was it successful?

>just thought i'd start a metadiscussion....
>--
>i'm open to comparing career notes with other ai and cogsci people.

1. Assessment of the potential value of current theories--

a. Theories based on non-linear dynamics (chaos theory, variants on
quantum mechanics, etc.)--I doubt these will be the basis for the
breakthrough. Although there has been progress in understanding local and
global bifurcation behavior, it hasn't reached the depth needed to
understand nonlinear systems of even moderate complexity. This is in part
due to the sheer number of possible dynamic systems.

b. Theories based on holography--probably a blind alley unless well
nailed-down by real data. Even then, most of the computational apparatus
won't be useful.

c. Engineering connectionism--unrealistically simple.

2. A guess as to the direction of progress--

The greatest potential for breakthroughs appears to involve four areas:

a. continued study of the "wiring" of the brain. This will lead to a
better understanding of the "modules" of the brain. I think this will be
key, since it appears the brain supports a multi-level heterogeneous
hierarchy of functionality.

b. continued study of realistic neural networks and what they can do. HDP
is just one theme here, although a powerful one. This will be key to
understanding the modules.

c. continued study of the individual neuron--both dynamics and functional
operation and study of the way real neurons are put together.

d. detailed study of the local non-linear dynamics of the brain. This
differs from 1.a in that global dynamics are avoided. Instead, progress
will reflect better understanding of the dynamics of the individual
modules. I doubt renormalization will be needed much. Minsky makes a good
deal about "isolationism" as a theme of brain architecture, and even his
bete noire, Karl Pribram, makes the same point. I strongly suspect we'll
find that the modules of the brain are weakly coupled for the most part,
which will allow us to analyze them using traditional decomposition
techniques.

I expect there will be surprises, but I also suspect no big ones (on the
order of major paradigm shifts). The crucial change during the next 1-3
years will involve a shift from reductionist analysis to detailed
structural models. The groundwork appears in place for this, and I see a
few people beginning to do it. 

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com

Newsgroups: sci.cognitive