 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> A Purely-Electronic Brain -- Possible?
There are 115 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 60 to 80.
|
Author: Entertained by my own EIMCDate: 22:08 20-04-07
|
|
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C24E23AC.625F4%dbowey@comcast.net...
> On 4/19/07 8:49 PM, in article
> 46283892$0$25496$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Entertained
> by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f09538$gm2$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>>>
>>> "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.04.19.19.23.51.587277@example.com...
>>>>
>>>> I'll be impressed when I see a machine that can feel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be equally impressed when I see someone come up
>>> with an objective proof that anyone other than me can
>>> feel. I know I can only because I experience it directly,
>>> but how can you prove to me that the rest of you aren't
>>> merely clever simulations?
>>>
>>> Bob M.
>>>
>>
>> The nearest we can ever come to an objective proof is to if we
>>
>> 1. note and carefully collate - not stupidly and stubbornly ignore - how
>> people with specific known brain deficiencies differ perceputally and
>> emotionally from people with the equivalent brain structures intact.
>>
>> 2. probe the psychie of people whilst make use of fMRI (or forthcoming
>> increasingly precise and powerful similar technologies) in combination
>> with
>> yet to be refined means to with high spatiotemporal precision (and of
>> course
>> harmlessly) freeze the function of neurons (and/or or their suppoporting
>> glia).
>>
>>
>> That's why IF you want to do anything other than create an artificially
>> intelligent fake of a feeling brain you must at least recreate not just
>> an
>> isolated brain ("just" :-^) but a brain with _all_ its coevolved
>> complementary exteroceptive and interoceptive machinery (and you still
>> would
>> have left out such a "brain's" environmentally embedded developmental
and
>> evolutionary history!).
>>
>> As long as people who work on develping AI don't loose sight of what AI
>> actually stands for, discussions like this one would be highly unlikely
>> to
>> involve such people. ;-)
>
> How can you say that? It seems to have involved you. ;-)
>
I'm not blushing for any reason - other than being an obviously
writing-impared muso. :-<
P
|
|
|
|
Author: smartDate: 01:35 21-04-07
|
|
I guess there're some fundamental gap between computer and human
brain.
Turing machine was built on finite alphabet with finite state and
recent study on the infinite alphabet is focused on countable sets.
But to human brain, the input singnal obviously can't be finite, or
even countable. So are its states. I don't see any breakthrough of
Turing's theory on uncountable sets and states.
On Apr 19, 1:20 am, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0700, bob the builder
>
>
>
>
>
> <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 18, 4:13 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2007 06:46:52 -0700, bob the builder
>
> >> <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >oh , and dont listen to what everybody else is saying, keep dreaming.
> >> >Some of the biggest scientific discoveries where made by people
> >> >ridiculed by the 'scientific community',
>
> >> You forget that we have already had the /privilege/ of
> >> seeing Radium work through the ideas held, and benefit of
> >> hindsight. For all the scientists who actively WORKED on a
> >> concept there were also plenty of kooks who just piddled
> >> around and did nothing useful. The difference was the goal,
> >> well actually HAVING one would be a start.
>
> >most famous scientist where kooks.
>
> No, not in this sense of frivolous daydream without any
> follow-through. They had purpose, it was a means to an end.
>
> >I believe Newton tried to transform
> >all kind of metals to gold. Einstein , besides his theory of
> >relativity, also did it with a close relative. Tesla anyone?
> >And how do you know if something is going to be usefull?
>
> The difference is the daydreaming was a suppliment, one of
> many means towards the end, not the core purpose.
>
>
>
> >But i agree with 'having a goal'. It seems that the most famous
> >innovators are complete idiots with a plan.
>
> Yes it all starts with a plan, for better or worse there has
> to be a real constructive intention and some thought put
> into how to achieve that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael OleaDate: 01:52 21-04-07
|
|
smart wrote:
> I guess there're some fundamental gap between computer and human
> brain.
>
> Turing machine was built on finite alphabet with finite state and
> recent study on the infinite alphabet is focused on countable sets.
>
> But to human brain, the input singnal obviously can't be finite, or
> even countable. So are its states. I don't see any breakthrough of
> Turing's theory on uncountable sets and states.
There's this recondite result known as the Nyquist Sampling Theorem, which
applies to signals of finite power. Then there are other little details,
like photon shot noise, that limit the bits of resolution per sample.
I hope that helps,
-- Michael
|
|
|
|
Author: bob the builderDate: 07:42 21-04-07
|
|
On 20 apr, 22:04, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:12 -0700, bob the builder wrote:
> > On 19 apr, 19:24, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com"
<r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com>
wrote:> Hi:
>
> >> > > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic brain
that is
> >> > > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses
purely-electric
> >> > > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
>
> >> > > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human
brain and
> >> > > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural
signals?
>
> >> > > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not
possible.
>
> >> > > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in
electronic
> >> > > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot of
time.
> >> > > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two centuries.
>
> >> > Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
> >> > purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will invest
> >> > the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it
from
> >> > a shop around the corner for cheap.
>
> >> A little reality check here.
>
> >> With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
> >> only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.
>
> > You dont want to model everything on the smallest level. Those
> > proteins have a function, what function? what are they doing? Some
> > things about them will be of no consequence when modelling a brain.
> > You want to make everthing as simple as possible, but not too simpel
> > (sorry Einstein).
>
> > And maybe it turn out my quad-core pc can only simulate 10.000
> > neurons. A decade from now my pc will do a million.
>
> I think it'd take more than that - a neuron on its own has considerable
> smarts
Yeah they are pretty smart :)
> - I even have a hypothesis that, since neurons don't generally
> reproduce, that frees up their DNA/RNA/mitochondria to do other stuff,
> which could be, that's where they store their memory.
>
> So each neuron would need the processing power of a modern desktop, and
> enough gigs of storage to model a whole genome,
The nervous sytem had/have to overcome difficulties. Evolution only
could use that what was available. Maybe some of those difficulties
are simple to solve by a human with laptop... Other things maybe very
difficult for humans to solve, these things would need a very low
level of modelling.
> and as much common sense
> as a typical ameba. ;-) (or even a phagocyte! ;-) )
But i think you are right about the 'processesing' power of the brain.
A typical housefly probably would bring every modern computer to his
knees. But not me! iam at least twice as smart!
> Cheers!
> Rich
|
|
|
|
Author: rscan@nycap.rr.comDate: 09:21 21-04-07
|
|
On Apr 19, 4:00 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> Physical scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and
> practitioners of various arcane trades that bear little resemblance to
> science have difficulty understanding that "the brain" is living
> matter. Action potentials are the easiest thing to "see" about brain
> activity and so, goes the mistaken general idea, if we recreate the
> action potentials then we recreate the brain. Action potentials are
> probably the least important of the brain's machinery and large
> numbers of neurons function quite happily without being able to make
> action potentials at all. That the life of the cell has anything to
> do with the function of a neuron is seemingly incomprehensible.
Very, very, very smart people have looked at the brain and could not
understand it. Therefore, they concluded the brain must be the most
complicated structure in the universe, well past understanding. They
may be right, but maybe not. Some, who are only very, very bright, say
the answers may be found in quantum mechanics. They, too, may be
right, but maybe not.
On action potentials: The workers in central pattern generators
(CPG's) seem to be very happy in a world of action potentials. Their
diagrams are instantly recognizable to an electrical engineer. The CPG
people claim to understand a tiny piece of brain. I give them the
benefit of the doubt.
I am aware of amacrine neurons and ephaptic effects, even gap
junctions. Still, I think that action potentials are useful aids to
understanding. Don't knock them.
> And, it might be mentioned, just what are all those glia doing, just
> holding the neurons together (and apart)?- Hide quoted text -
We may take the position that the nervous system is an entity,
separated from the exterior universe by an interface. The interface
has two parts: One is composed of the sensory neurons. One is composed
of the motor neurons. All the cells of the organism, other than nerve
cells, belong to the exterior universe. The glia are external.
I find great utility in this position. I recommend it. It is a natural
extension of the Bell-Magendie Law. Don't knock it.
Incidentally, the interface runs through the pituitary.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Author: r normanDate: 10:56 21-04-07
|
|
On 21 Apr 2007 06:21:48 -0700, "rscan@nycap.rr.com"
<rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>On Apr 19, 4:00 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Physical scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and
>> practitioners of various arcane trades that bear little resemblance to
>> science have difficulty understanding that "the brain" is living
>> matter. Action potentials are the easiest thing to "see" about brain
>> activity and so, goes the mistaken general idea, if we recreate the
>> action potentials then we recreate the brain. Action potentials are
>> probably the least important of the brain's machinery and large
>> numbers of neurons function quite happily without being able to make
>> action potentials at all. That the life of the cell has anything to
>> do with the function of a neuron is seemingly incomprehensible.
>
>Very, very, very smart people have looked at the brain and could not
>understand it. Therefore, they concluded the brain must be the most
>complicated structure in the universe, well past understanding. They
>may be right, but maybe not. Some, who are only very, very bright, say
>the answers may be found in quantum mechanics. They, too, may be
>right, but maybe not.
>
>On action potentials: The workers in central pattern generators
>(CPG's) seem to be very happy in a world of action potentials. Their
>diagrams are instantly recognizable to an electrical engineer. The CPG
>people claim to understand a tiny piece of brain. I give them the
>benefit of the doubt.
>
>I am aware of amacrine neurons and ephaptic effects, even gap
>junctions. Still, I think that action potentials are useful aids to
>understanding. Don't knock them.
>
>> And, it might be mentioned, just what are all those glia doing, just
>> holding the neurons together (and apart)?- Hide quoted text -
>
>We may take the position that the nervous system is an entity,
>separated from the exterior universe by an interface. The interface
>has two parts: One is composed of the sensory neurons. One is composed
>of the motor neurons. All the cells of the organism, other than nerve
>cells, belong to the exterior universe. The glia are external.
>
>I find great utility in this position. I recommend it. It is a natural
>extension of the Bell-Magendie Law. Don't knock it.
>
>Incidentally, the interface runs through the pituitary.
>
I certainly don't knock the action potential. Any time a signal must
travel more than a millimeter or so, it must be in the form of an
action potential. It is just that within one cubic millimeter of
brain tissue, there may be thousands of neurons and tens of thousands
of synapses that can function quite well on local potentials. There
are innumerable dendro-dendritic synapses in local microcircuits that
work without action potentials. In the retina, the rods and cones,
horizontal cells, and bipolar cells work without action potentials and
the amacrine cells mostly do, too.
Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
rhythmic activity. These are usually local semi-active potentials due
to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.
When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.
There do exist groups who are very active in modeling true neuronal
activity, including local potentials, synaptic modulation, calcium
effects, the whole works, in a method that tries to be as true as
possible to physiological reality. On the other hand, there are
people who model artificial "neurons" and build all sorts of complex
networks from them with no or little regard to physiological reality.
Both types of work can accomplish important results, each in their own
arena. I just don't care for the claim that AI work on "neural"
networks has much connection to actual brain function.
Then there are people (Penrose comes to mind, here) who make (or have
made) arguments like: "We don't understand consciousness. We don't
understand gravity. We understand everything else in the world of
physics and physics explains everything. Therefore consciousness must
rely on theories of gravity."
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 15:27 21-04-07
|
|
"smart" <smartnose@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177133718.963394.224200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| I guess there're some fundamental gap
| between computer and human brain.
Not in principle. 'just' in relative in-forma-
tion-processing power and efficiencies.
| Turing machine was built on finite alph-
| abet with finite state and recent study on
| the infinite alphabet is focused on count-
| able sets.
Sleeping-eight is sleeping-eight [Infinity is
Infinity.]
Be-cause nervous systems do everything
that they do =in= 3-D-Energydynamics
["3D-E"], be-cause the 3D-E are, them-
selves, infinitely-variable, there exists no
Possibility for 'counting' with respect to
what it is Possible 'within' nervous sys-
tems' in-formation-processing dynamics.
| But to human brain, the input singnal
| obviously can't be finite, or even countable.
| So are its states. I don't see any break-
| through of Turing's theory on uncountable
| sets and states.
| [...]
Everything necessary has been given [albeit,
at an introductory-'level'] in a ms. entitled,
=On The Automation of Knowing within Cen-
tral Nervous Systems: A Brief Introduction to
Neuroscientific Duality Theory= ["AoK"], and
the refs. cited in AoK, with further discussion
in AoK's antecedant papers, 1974-1980.
The actuality of the Infinities inherent in nerv-
ous system function has been Reified in AoK,
Ap1 all along.
The actuality of the 3D-E has been Reified in
AoK all along.
AoK was made-available, Gratis, to anyone
who wanted a copy of it.
So it's 'strange' that folks're still asking 'ques-
tions' that've been Resolved in AoK all along.
Perhaps folks're finally "getting-it"?
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 15:27 21-04-07
|
|
"bob the builder" <brulsmurf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177155721.420449.129300@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| On 20 apr, 22:04, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
| > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:12 -0700, bob the builder wrote:
| > > On 19 apr, 19:24, "r...@nycap.rr.com" <r...@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
| > >> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, bob the builder <brulsm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| > >> > On Apr 19, 1:37 pm, "r...@nycap.rr.com"
<r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
| > >> > > On Apr 16, 9:17 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com>
wrote:> Hi:
| >
| > >> > > > Will it ever be possible to make a purely-electronic
brain that
is
| > >> > > > exactly like a human brain except that its uses
purely-electric
| > >> > > > signals instead of electrochemical ionic signals?
| >
| > >> > > > If so would this brain be able to link to actual human
brain
and
| > >> > > > transmit/receive/process/record/playback electroneural
signals?
| >
| > >> > > Conceptually, there is no problem. Practically, it is not
possible.
| >
| > >> > > There are 100 billion neurons. If they are implemented in
electronic
| > >> > > circuitry, it would cost a lot of money. It would take a lot
of
time.
| > >> > > Say, like a thousand billion dollars spread over two
centuries.
| >
| > >> > Its more practical to use a programming language and some general
| > >> > purpose hardware. Big companies like Intel, AMD ,IBM etc will
invest
| > >> > the Billions for general purpose hardware. A scientist can get it
from
| > >> > a shop around the corner for cheap.
| >
| > >> A little reality check here.
| >
| > >> With a desktop and NEURON, one can model a dozen neurons, modeling
| > >> only the electrical characteristics. This will exhaust your PC.
| >
| > > You dont want to model everything on the smallest level. Those
| > > proteins have a function, what function? what are they doing? Some
| > > things about them will be of no consequence when modelling a brain.
| > > You want to make everthing as simple as possible, but not too simpel
| > > (sorry Einstein).
| >
| > > And maybe it turn out my quad-core pc can only simulate 10.000
| > > neurons. A decade from now my pc will do a million.
| >
| > I think it'd take more than that - a neuron on its own has considerable
| > smarts
|
| Yeah they are pretty smart :)
|
| > - I even have a hypothesis that, since neurons don't generally
| > reproduce, that frees up their DNA/RNA/mitochondria to do other stuff,
| > which could be, that's where they store their memory.
| >
| > So each neuron would need the processing power of a modern desktop, and
| > enough gigs of storage to model a whole genome,
|
| The nervous sytem had/have to overcome difficulties. Evolution only
| could use that what was available. Maybe some of those difficulties
| are simple to solve by a human with laptop... Other things maybe very
| difficult for humans to solve, these things would need a very low
| level of modelling.
When I did it, I had access to a Z80 [8-bit]
CPM machine.
k. p. collins
| > and as much common sense
| > as a typical ameba. ;-) (or even a phagocyte! ;-) )
|
| But i think you are right about the 'processesing' power of the brain.
| A typical housefly probably would bring every modern computer to his
| knees. But not me! iam at least twice as smart!
|
| > Cheers!
| > Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 19:43 21-04-07
|
|
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6p8k235shkq443l75v8pfv06ebvcvo03el@4ax.com...
| On 21 Apr 2007 06:21:48 -0700, "rscan@nycap.rr.com"
| [...]
| Then there are people (Penrose comes
| to mind, here) who make (or have made)
| arguments like: "We don't understand
| consciousness. We don't understand
| gravity. We understand everything else
| in the world of physics and physics
| explains everything. Therefore consci-
| ousness must rely on theories of gravity."
:-]
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
Author: rscan@nycap.rr.comDate: 13:11 22-04-07
|
|
On Apr 21, 10:56 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
Every explanation has its starting point. If we look at the nervous
system, should we see an electrical circuit, or a biological
structure? I would argue, both!
Reductionism is everywhere. The material universe is explained as a
field by the physicist. As astronomical bodies by the cosmologist. Big
bang, big crunch, tiny electrons. The molecular cell biologist touts
the genome. Nucleotides explain all.
The psychologist, the social scientist, has his story. The only
measure of validity that I can see is whether or not the story is
interesting.
I am only one man, but I have opinions. I judge the molecular
interactions within a neuron (or any cell) to be highly interesting,
fascinating. But then I also see the 20,250 (presently accepted number
in some places) sequences of nucleotides that ultimately determine
these proteins as an ultimate explanation of living forms, sex, Wall
Street, and wars.
I see this group as having two fundamental interests. One is the
relationship between the soul (mind) and the body. The other is the
functioning of the nervous system (brain) as an entity. It is
difficult to separate them, and to keep them separate.
I must say that I see the glia as peripheral in this group, just like
toenails and the liver. But then, maybe not. Maybe the glia will
emerge as crucial to understanding our mental life. What is a nervous
system? Look at the sponge! Either it has no nervous system, or every
cell is a neuron. The glia must have their place.
In the meantime, I would pursue the interplay of action potentials. I
say there is interest in the nervous system as an electrical circuit.
Circuitry explains the heartbeat. But we need molecular tides in the
neurons to explain the rhythmicity.
I am taken with this notion of an interface between the nervous system
and the Other. If you say that the glib are a part of the nervous
system, I say, "Why not! Think of the sponge.".
So, let us include the glia, even as a circuit includes the insulating
jacket on the wires.
> There do exist groups who are very active in modeling true neuronal
> activity, including local potentials, synaptic modulation, calcium
> effects, the whole works, in a method that tries to be as true as
> possible to physiological reality.
In some sense, Blue Brain belongs in this ensemble. They have a mass
of data involving the input to, and the output from, a macrocolumn in
the neocortex. Their objective is to model the approximately 10,000
neurons involved, making the ten million synaptic junctions according
to anatomic data. The addition of gross molecular effects is trivial
(except in computational load). This is done everyday in small
neuronal nets using NEURON. Physiological reality depends on the
viewer's eye. If we are to model each protein molecule, each ion, I
say we are going to far.
I am not touting Blue Brain. They are funded, and we shall see.
> On the other hand, there are
> people who model artificial "neurons" and build all sorts of complex
> networks from them with no or little regard to physiological reality.
> Both types of work can accomplish important results, each in their own
> arena. I just don't care for the claim that AI work on "neural"
> networks has much connection to actual brain function.
We agree. Two points: They are paid, and they are published.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MyersDate: 16:36 22-04-07
|
|
"smart" <smartnose@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177133718.963394.224200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> But to human brain, the input singnal obviously can't be finite, or
> even countable. So are its states.
Why can't it be finite? Admittedly, both numbers appear
to be very, very large, but I see no reason to believe that
either would be infinite.
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 16:37 22-04-07
|
|
<rscan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1177261896.116542.22040@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| On Apr 21, 10:56 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
| [...]
| They are paid, and they are published.
Which says absolutely-nothing with re-
spect to Truth.
Scandal sheets are published,
and those who write them get
paid.
The only thing that matters is
'movement' with respect to
Truth.
Most often, 'moving toward' 'un-
familiar' Truth is actively negatively-
sanctioned -- unpaid, unpublished,
then stolen, 'two'.
'payment' and 'publishing' are not
factors in Proof.
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
Author: bob the builderDate: 09:52 23-04-07
|
|
On 22 apr, 22:37, "Benjamin" <Benja...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <r...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177261896.116542.22040@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> | On Apr 21, 10:56 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> | [...]
>
> | They are paid, and they are published.
>
> Which says absolutely-nothing with re-
> spect to Truth.
>
> Scandal sheets are published,
> and those who write them get
> paid.
>
> The only thing that matters is
> 'movement' with respect to
> Truth.
>
> Most often, 'moving toward' 'un-
> familiar' Truth is actively negatively-
> sanctioned -- unpaid, unpublished,
> then stolen, 'two'.
>
> 'payment' and 'publishing' are not
> factors in Proof.
>
> k. p. collins
I , as a Jedi, understand. Its foolish to ignore the force. As obi wan
kenobi once told me: " you can ignore the force but the force wont
ignore you". But back to the topic discussed. An electronic brain is
only possible when the force is strong the electronic parts which make
up the brain.
May the force be with you.
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 02:57 24-04-07
|
|
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:f0ggvq$ldq$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
|
| "smart" <smartnose@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1177133718.963394.224200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
|
| > But to human brain, the input singnal
| > obviously can't be finite, or even
| > countable. So are its states.
|
| Why can't it be finite? Admittedly, both
| numbers appear to be very, very large,
| but I see no reason to believe that
| either would be infinite.
|
| Bob M.
You know the old joke about long-im-
prisoned folks who've heard all of each
others' jokes so many times that they
gave the jokes numbers? A number is
called out -- "79" -- everyone laughs.
"AoK, Ap1"
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
Author: ChaosDevilDate: 20:11 25-04-07
|
|
IMHO the reason we haven=B4t had any real breaktroughs in this field, is
because integration is too sparse and flat to compite with Nature's.
Electronic devices are faster than brains and so, we can simulate a
few hundred neurons at a time, but the brain use massive parallelism
involving thousands of neurons. Our computers and simulations have the
intelligence of half a flea and perform mostly well with planar
technology; we can only imagine what will be when solid state gains a
new dimension and we start to use cubic processors and cubic memories!
|
|
|
|
Author: Josip AlmasiDate: 10:32 26-04-07
|
|
r norman wrote:
>
> Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
> very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
> rhythmic activity. These are usually local semi-active potentials due
> to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.
>
> When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
> they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.
OMG brainwaves come from glial activity?!:)
Like,
Conductance changes, an electrogenic pump and the hyperpolarization of
leech neurones following impulses
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350554
A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
'A brain without glia would, in this conception, be a giant computer
operating at random for lack of a program.'
LOL:)
Well thanks guys I learned quite interesting stuff!:)
And of course I have more questions;)
Whats the ionic density?
And who cares anyway?:) Well, ionic density is cruical for formation of
quantum neural networks; so my question turns to 'do QNNs form'.
QNN: The approach does not make any assumption about the nature and
shape of both signal and noise. The average response of a neural lattice
is described using Schrodinger wave equation. Capable of recognizing
structures in data. [1][2][3] Usage: speech, vision... stohastic filtering.
So it's a theoretical model, just its so damn good compared to
'ordinary' ANNs, that I can't help but wonder if there's anything in
meatspace that implements it.
I doubt that there's any specific neural/synaptical circuit(s) that
calculates joint Schrodinger's, OTOH, who knows.
Bottom line, a silicon crystal or a cellular membrane (?) may have much
more signal processing power than we usually think of.
BTW, note that 'conductance changes' thing. Dielectric permitivity
influences signal propagation speed, so due to Doppler effect signal
gets frequency modulation.
If you are to feed anything into a quantum implementation of quantum NN,
you have to use frequency modulation.
Well you could probably use spin or polarization etc. for input and
readout. But Doppler is most likelly here, so if there's any QNNs
involved, my bet is on frequency.
As you see, I have no clue of neuroscience, but that's why I'm asking:)
Regards...
[1] Stochastic filtering and speech enhancement using a recurrent
quantum neural network
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9048/28701/01287645.pdf
[2] Quantum neural networks (QNNs): inherently fuzzy feedforward
neuralnetworks
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/72/12383/00572106.pdf?arnumber=572
106
[3] A Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to Describe Eye Tracking of
Moving Targets
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr5h36146350g685/
|
|
|
|
Author: r normanDate: 11:15 26-04-07
|
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:32:59 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe@vrspace.org>
wrote:
>r norman wrote:
>>
>> Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
>> very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
>> rhythmic activity. These are usually local semi-active potentials due
>> to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.
>>
>> When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
>> they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.
>
>OMG brainwaves come from glial activity?!:)
>Like,
>Conductance changes, an electrogenic pump and the hyperpolarization of
>leech neurones following impulses
>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350554
>A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
>
>'A brain without glia would, in this conception, be a giant computer
>operating at random for lack of a program.'
>LOL:)
>
>Well thanks guys I learned quite interesting stuff!:)
>
>And of course I have more questions;)
>
>Whats the ionic density?
>And who cares anyway?:) Well, ionic density is cruical for formation of
>quantum neural networks; so my question turns to 'do QNNs form'.
>
>QNN: The approach does not make any assumption about the nature and
>shape of both signal and noise. The average response of a neural lattice
>is described using Schrodinger wave equation. Capable of recognizing
>structures in data. [1][2][3] Usage: speech, vision... stohastic filtering.
>
>So it's a theoretical model, just its so damn good compared to
>'ordinary' ANNs, that I can't help but wonder if there's anything in
>meatspace that implements it.
>I doubt that there's any specific neural/synaptical circuit(s) that
>calculates joint Schrodinger's, OTOH, who knows.
>Bottom line, a silicon crystal or a cellular membrane (?) may have much
>more signal processing power than we usually think of.
>
>BTW, note that 'conductance changes' thing. Dielectric permitivity
>influences signal propagation speed, so due to Doppler effect signal
>gets frequency modulation.
>If you are to feed anything into a quantum implementation of quantum NN,
>you have to use frequency modulation.
>Well you could probably use spin or polarization etc. for input and
>readout. But Doppler is most likelly here, so if there's any QNNs
>involved, my bet is on frequency.
>
>As you see, I have no clue of neuroscience, but that's why I'm asking:)
>
>Regards...
>
>[1] Stochastic filtering and speech enhancement using a recurrent
>quantum neural network
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9048/28701/01287645.pdf
>[2] Quantum neural networks (QNNs): inherently fuzzy feedforward
>neuralnetworks
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/72/12383/00572106.pdf?arnumber
=572106
>[3] A Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to Describe Eye Tracking of
>Moving Targets
>http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr5h36146350g685/
I agree that you have no clue of neuroscience. You ask questions and
then seemingly give the answers you want to hear.
The two actual science references you cite are good work, but are now
35 to 45 years old. We have learned some things since.
The two IEEE papers require registration, but the third paper on
quantum neural network models is typical of the work of electrical
engineers or physicists who develop models not terribly dependent on
actual neuroscience mechanisms. If you would like information about
actual physiology, then please ask and I will respond.
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 15:13 26-04-07
|
|
"Ouch!"
"Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|r norman wrote:
| >
| > Pretty much all the central pattern generators that I know about rely
| > very heavily on non-action potential mechanisms to produce patterned
| > rhythmic activity. These are usually local semi-active potentials due
| > to calcium conductance changes that modulate cell activity.
| >
| > When glial activity interacts and modulates neuronal activity, then
| > they certainly are not "external" to the nervous system.
|
| OMG brainwaves come from glial activity?!:)
| Like,
| Conductance changes, an electrogenic pump and the hyperpolarization of
| leech neurones following impulses
| http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350554
| A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
| http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
"Ouch!"
| 'A brain without glia would, in this conception, be a giant computer
| operating at random for lack of a program.'
| LOL:)
|
| Well thanks guys I learned quite interesting stuff!:)
|
| And of course I have more questions;)
|
| Whats the ionic density?
| And who cares anyway?:) Well, ionic density is cruical for formation of
| quantum neural networks; so my question turns to 'do QNNs form'.
No -- if you drop into bionet.neuroscience,
I've been discussing why not, and discuss-
ing, vastly-more-powerful stuff than a so-
called "quantum" thing could ever instan-
tiate, [for the g'zillionth' 'time' over the course
of the last three 'decades'].
| QNN: The approach does not make any assumption about the nature and
| shape of both signal and noise. The average response of a neural lattice
| is described using Schrodinger wave equation. Capable of recognizing
| structures in data. [1][2][3] Usage: speech, vision... stohastic
filtering.
Ho, ho, ho :-]
| So it's a theoretical model, just its so damn good compared to
| 'ordinary' ANNs, that I can't help but wonder if there's anything in
| meatspace that implements it.
Ho, ho, ho.
| I doubt that there's any specific neural/synaptical circuit(s) that
| calculates joint Schrodinger's, OTOH, who knows.
Ho, ho, ho.
| Bottom line, a silicon crystal or a cellular membrane (?) may have much
| more signal processing power than we usually think of.
Ho, ho, ho.
One of the primary functionalities of
glia is that they physically-alter] neuronal-
network Topology dynamically in a way
that's structurally infinitely-tunable.
Can you say, "Grains of sand?" :-]
| BTW, note that 'conductance changes' thing. Dielectric permitivity
| influences signal propagation speed, so due to Doppler effect signal
| gets frequency modulation.
| If you are to feed anything into a quantum implementation of quantum NN,
| you have to use frequency modulation.
There's exactly-Zero'quantum' =anything=
within physical reality.
| Well you could probably use spin or polarization etc. for input and
| readout. But Doppler is most likelly here, so if there's any QNNs
| involved, my bet is on frequency.
Ho, ho, ho.
| As you see, I have no clue of neuroscience, but that's why I'm asking:)
|
| Regards...
|
| [1] Stochastic filtering and speech enhancement using a recurrent
| quantum neural network
|
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9048/28701/01287645.pdf
| [2] Quantum neural networks (QNNs): inherently fuzzy feedforward
| neuralnetworks
|
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel4/72/12383/00572106.pdf?arnumber=572
106
| [3] A Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to Describe Eye Tracking of
| Moving Targets
| http://www.springerlink.com/content/xr5h36146350g685/
It's all so Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.
I Resolved all of this Stuff 'decades'
ago, presenting the basics of it
in an invited presentation at the
NRL in 1983.
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 15:35 26-04-07
|
|
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
| [...]
| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
||[...]
|| A Glia-Neural Theory of Brain Function
|| http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/47/1/129.pdf
|
| "Ouch!"
| [...]
BTW, because I've got my browser
screwed-down-tight, I couldn't DL
the .PDF.
I'd like to know what it says.
Anyone know?
I sent-out Papers and letters dis-
cussing glial fx, as it's still implement-
ed in NDT, starting in the early-1970s.
[It was some of what I continued work-
ing-on as a non-degree-candidate
grad student during the 1974-5 academ-
ic 'year'.
It was the topic of my Masters' Thesis
during the 1976-7 academic 'year'.
Got an A+ on what I'd done before I
came to the Defense of my Dear
Friend, resigned and withdrew.
It's right-there in my Transcript.
'Spect that'll 'mysteriously'-alter 'now' :-]
Before taking-up the development of
NDT, I'd worked on developing TH,
in which the NL-P stuff originated,
beginning when I was 11, 49 'years'
ago, after having had my Life Reordered
when I read the Little Orange Book,
=Young Thomas Edison=. From
then onward, almost all the $ I earned
went into "working-like-Edison", be-
ginning with the $ I earned on my
'morning' paper route [when one Sees
what Needs to be done, one just does it :-]
But, "gees, 'louise'!", what about
Honor-in-Science?
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjaminDate: 15:41 26-04-07
|
|
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T97Yh.2368$KB1.448@trndny09...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:sR6Yh.9860$dM1.6869@trndny07...
|| [...]
|| "Josip Almasi" <joe@vrspace.org> wrote in message
|| news:f0qd4q$9t9$1@news1.xnet.hr...
|||[...]
|| [...]
| [...]
| But, "gees, 'louise'!", what about
| Honor-in-Science?
Or do folks 'think' that Honor-in-Science,
and the absence-of-such, do not Ram-
ify throughout general Populations.
They do.
The net result is what the Children
learn, and 'carry'-with-them in all of
their endeavors.
Absence-of-Honor spreads like any
other disorder-imposing disease.
k. p. collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
