Comments on: Cognitive Planes

By: Lloyd Rice

Lloyd Rice — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:25:35 +0000

In the sense of what computers do vs. what brains do, I can’t really see the distinction you are making between “decisions” and “operations”. Anything from a simple “if-then” statement to a neural net analysis produces a result that serves to make a decision. That decision result can be used to do anything, from executing another code statement to feeding more air through the carburator to anything else that might be connected. In other words, decisions become operations. A neuron could fire or not, which could result in activity anywhere else, including frontal lobes for further contemplation or to the striatum, leading to muscle activity. As you probably know from things I have said on these pages, I believe that consciousness is also a result of such firings and can be programmed as well, once we know how to do it.

By: Doru

Doru — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:17:51 +0000

Lloyd, I really appreciate your feedback here. You seem to have a lot of insights on the matters.
My scientific mind is always reductionistic, trying to simplify things, but that doesn’t always work when using the brain to understand how the brain understands.
I think of “computation” as some sort of operation, calculus or processing, something similar with what computers do. And the big debate is the question if computers will ever be conscious. So far my answer is that they could, but they won’t. It’s just not going to happen. Even new architectures, analog computers, etc.
Cognition means knowledge. And I think that how we know concepts and recognize things has something to do with motion, and with how those dielectrically polarized waves get propagated through the microtubules. I think of logic as decision, not as operation.
Thoughts are “material things” (those molecules, proteins, whatever) and the way we are aware of them is when they move. Is all motion creating emotion; the knowledge is in those myriad of little tubes delivering our thoughts and rearranging them in different patterns.
In other words, it seems to me that we are intelligent being more of a mechanical machine than an electrical one.
I like the “grandmother cell” idea. I see those firings as the way logic (decisions) being used for storing the impression. In digital world is like when you bring a feedback (an output to the input) for a look-up table to create a latch (storage element).
I heard that you can become conscious about something if you have around 10,000 of those firings coherent with each other within 30-40 ms.

By: Lloyd Rice

Lloyd Rice — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:01:03 +0000

As for memory, some recent work tends to support the old “grandmother cell” theory, that is one neuron fires per concept. I am skeptical. If anything, I would suspect a small group of neurons firing together per concept. Related concepts could be coded by the firing of different combinations of neurons within the same group. And by “firing”, I refer to a pulse series, maintained perhaps by feedback within the group as well as the inputs that fired the concept to start with. You get a lot more concepts per neuron this way, even if nowhere near the logical max coding is used. My point in all of this is that neither grandmother nor the group idea would have any need for addition memory-related logic within the cell. All of the necessary logic is outside of the neuron.

By: Lloyd Rice

Lloyd Rice — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:52:18 +0000

Doru: I’m with you down to about the 5th or 6th paragraph. What is a cognitive process if not a computation? I certainly agree that memories are not stored in the brain in the form of binary bits, but very few programs actual use results in bits, even though bits are used at a lower level. For what the program is doing, it doesn’t matter whether it’s bits or quads or decimal chunks, etc. Personally, I believe brain memories are stored in the form of synapse presence, synapse strength, local neural-transmitter strength, and maybe another factor or two. But none of that matters at the next level up. Even whether a particular item is never erased does not matter. At the next level up, the relevant connection can be strengthened or weakened. The result is the same. Similarly, we may recognize patterns with some sort of network, maybe like what Jeff Hawkins talks about, maybe something else. But the function is not completely unlike what a computational neural net does. The similarity gets detected. The details don’t matter (much). And, sorry, I really can’t get into the quantum mumbo jumbo about microtubules. As far as I’ve heard, microtubules are the protein delivery system that keeps things running. I recently read a paper about the RNA structures that keep these deliveries moving.

By: Doru

Doru — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:00:43 +0000

Hi Lloyd,
Ok, this may seem a little confusing, but I am sure it will evolve into a clearer opinion. My computer engineering observation is that, all computers are based on a Von Neuman architecture. They all run a program counter that fetches instructions and data from the volatile memory. The logic is rather small and very generic in the Arithmetic Logic Unit and some more specific in the instruction decoding and execution unit.
The most fundamental structure in digital circuits is the Finite State Machine which I argue that is not a computer. It is basically a sequencer that has only two states, the current state, and the next state.
A state machine always determines what will be the next state based on the current state, inputs, and the logic.
It’s the structure that I found somewhat similar with that of e neuron. I actually have been playing a little implementing neuronal networks using programmable circuits (FPGA’s and CPLD’s).
So yes, it is possible but with the current technologies, I only can design the functionality and complexity of something similar with a paramecia that doesn’t have a brain, but is able to find food, eat, find a mate, reproduce etc.
To come back to your question, I don’t think that brains are computing and factoring any large numbers (let’s say, more than 10). We don’t need to do that to function properly. Math is more like a language that we learn to be able to communicate common sense about our observations of the outside world.
My understanding from Hameroff papers, is that our intelligence is derived from the cognitive processes not from computation. We are the owners of a vast network fabric of very small tubes that encapsulate patterns of molecules that exhibit quantum coherence and superposition at room temperature. The signals from outside world propagate through these microtubules as dielectrically polarized waves.
It’s like these waveforms embed some unique signatures from the outside world that will make them coherent with certain quantum patterns that will make the wave collapse resulting in a moment of consciousness.
The problem of technology to reproduce this kind of behavior is that it’s impossible to interface with quantum states. The state machines we can build cannot colapse their states. We cannot detect those signals without destroying that embedded signature they carry.
In other words:
We will never be able to tap into the fundamental process of our consciousness. They didn’t call it “the hard problem” for nothing!

By: Lloyd Rice

Lloyd Rice — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:43:06 +0000

Doru (continued): I guess there are two main issues. The structure of memory and the quantum requirement. Perhaps the memory issue defaults to the quantum issue? What is your argument that the brain’s computing power depends on quantum mechanics in any way that could never be duplicated by a man-made device? (Note that almost all electronics is dependent in one way or another upon quantum mechanics, just because that seems to be the way the universe works. That doesn’t stop us from building things that work.)

By: Lloyd Rice

Lloyd Rice — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:36:08 +0000

Doru: OK. Thanks. My question is this. You say “Computers will be always sequential in nature and never be able to run without a clock”. That seems a rather narrow view of what a “computer” is. I agree that this limitation would apply to the typical Von Neuman architecture by which most computers today are built, but it certainly would not apply to “computers” in general. Do you believe it is possible to build a computing machine that works on principles similar to the brain? I agree that the word “similar” makes my question into a bit of a trap, but let’s start there if we could.

By: Doru

Doru — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:46:02 +0000

Hi Lloyd,
I recently discovered the benefits of both: challenging your intellect and sharing your own view on interesting subjects like the ones on this site. I wish there was more of it!

By: Lloyd Rice

Lloyd Rice — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:10:56 +0000

Doru: Do you write mostly to be intellectually challenged, or mostly to promulgate your views?

By: Christophe Menant

Christophe Menant — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:13:09 +0000

The problem needs indeed to be scoped. Perhaps the current domain of existence of “common sense” can be a starting point, rather than the planned applications.
Also, the horizon is wider as other items could be entitled “holy grail of AI research”: autonomy, cognition, consciousness, aboutness, awareness, interpretation, meaning, intentionality,…. These performances are not independent and address complex philosohical questions. Most of them are applied to basic life as well as to humans.
A possible path to understand these performances could be to consider their existence in organisms first, and then in humans. An evolutionary approach. First look at what these items correspond to for non human life, and then (and then only) look at what human being brings in addition or modifies. The sequence is important. Autonomy or common sense do not mean the same thing when applied to animals or to humans capable of free will. And the latter is to rely on the former. So an understandable path for a logical approach could be to begin with basic life and then go thru evolution up to humans. ALife first, and then AI.
Such approach has not been favored by xxth century dominant philosophies which were rather considering Darwinian evolution theory as irrelevant (http://www.amazon.fr/Philosophy-Darwinian-Legacy-Suzanne-Cunningham/dp/1878822616). But the xxth century is over…..