Learning about the brain

[coberst]

Computers are used to simulate hurricanes for the purpose of comprehending hurricanes and also for the purpose of predicting their behavior. Computers are often used to simulate various phenomena for similar purposes.

In the effort to utilize computers as controllers for robotics and to simulate human cognition we have developed a great deal of empirical evidence concerning human functioning. The software engineers must develop detailed comprehension of bodies in motion and intellects in action in order to write the algorithms required to build robots of all forms whether to simulate human intellect or human motion.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) research began shortly after WWII. Alan Turing was one of the important figures who decided that their efforts would not be focused on building machines but in programming computers.

Some of the achievements of AI have, in the last few decades, been turned toward neural modeling. This effort has been taken up by NTL (Neural Theory of Language) research group at Berkeley headed by Jerome Feldman and George Lakoff.

The brain’s neural network does things and the task the NTL has set for itself in the 1990s was to discover how the brain does what it does and where in the brain these tasks take place. As of 1999 NTL had decided to undertake three major modeling tasks:
1) The Spatial-Relations Learning Task
2) The Verbs of Hand Motion Learning task
3) The Motor Control and Abstract Aspectual Reasoning Task

“In each case, it has been shown that neural structures modeling aspects of the perceptual and motor systems can carry out the given task for concepts, and that, so far as anyone cal tell thus far, those perceptual and motor models are required to carry out the task.”

That is to say that the sensorimotor system in the human body can perform the functions required to conceptualize and, infer from those conceptions, in a manner required by human cognition. The logical assumption is that these self same sensorimotor neural networks are the networks the body uses to conceptualize during cognition.

Quotes from “Philosophy in The Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

 

[Z]

{sigh}

Very nice, Coberst. Why don't you ask the Mods to start a Book Club forum? That seems to be all you want to do any more - review books.

 

[coberst]

{sigh}

Very nice, Coberst. Why don't you ask the Mods to start a Book Club forum? That seems to be all you want to do any more - review books.

How do we escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation? We must learn to read to remove our self from today’s cultural container. As Archimedes observed we must find a platform outside of that reality which we wish to understand and to move.

Reading is using our library card to borrow books that were written many years or many hundreds of years ago. Reading has another great advantage in that we can easily focus on books that have withstood the test of time. We can easily identify the ‘real thing’ insofar was worthy thinking is concerned.

 

[Z]

Why?

 

[coberst]

What?

 

[Z]

It's a simple question - the simplest one of all.

But let me clarify:

Why do we need to "escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation"?

Can you understand that question? Why do we need to "remove our self from today’s cultural container"? And why must we do so by reading outdated books of obscure metaphysics?

Wouldn't it be better to, instead, mould a more integrated and appropriate modern ideology, enculturation, etc?

 

[fuelair]

Hey, at least some of his time is being spent reading (comprehension can come later).

 

[coberst]

It's a simple question - the simplest one of all.

But let me clarify:

Why do we need to "escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation"?

Can you understand that question? Why do we need to "remove our self from today’s cultural container"? And why must we do so by reading outdated books of obscure metaphysics?

Wouldn't it be better to, instead, mould a more integrated and appropriate modern ideology, enculturation, etc?

If we comprehend our present status we can better know how to correct our mistakes. Reading the thoughts of those who have thought seriously and thereby gained an understanding of reality will help us in that effort.

 

[coberst]

“That is to say that the sensorimotor system in the human body can perform the functions required to conceptualize and, infer from those conceptions, in a manner required by human cognition. The logical assumption is that these self same sensorimotor neural networks are the networks the body uses to conceptualize during cognition. “

The above paragraph that I have copied from the OP contains the really important conclusions upon which the new cognitive science paradigm is based.


We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

 

[Z]

OK, coberst, you're REALLY coming into the learning game late in life, aren't you?
"Reading the thoughts of those who have thought seriously and thereby gained an understanding of reality " has been a fundamental skill since junior high school, where I grew up. Maybe it's not always the case, but it sure seems like it has been to me.

 

[Mercutio]

Coberst--along the same lines as your most recent post above (#9)... I heard some of the top cognitive neuroscience people in the world speaking at the Skeptic Society's "Mind, Brain, and Consciousness" seminar a couple of years ago. At the time, and again while reading your post above, I was struck by how much these people seemed to be rediscovering Behaviorism (not its caricature, but as understood by actual behaviorists). With any luck, the "cognitive revolution" will come to a close...

 

[Dancing David]

The simpler the better, I am afraid that a high level approach to understanding human behavior is not well productive, although it may be interesting philosophy, the brain grows in place, the brain develops tructure appropriate to sense it's enviroment and cope with it.

Such things as schema come much later. remeber the example of paralelling a wall in motion, a schema of 'wall' is not needed, just an ability to sense the distinction bewteen wall and not wall, say a visual line, and then the ability to keep it's position fixed in the visual field. I am glad that you enjoy reading this stuff, maybe you could read some other stuff, like perception and development?

 

[coberst]

Coberst--along the same lines as your most recent post above (#9)... I heard some of the top cognitive neuroscience people in the world speaking at the Skeptic Society's "Mind, Brain, and Consciousness" seminar a couple of years ago. At the time, and again while reading your post above, I was struck by how much these people seemed to be rediscovering Behaviorism (not its caricature, but as understood by actual behaviorists). With any luck, the "cognitive revolution" will come to a close...

I find your statement "I was struck by how much these people seemed to be rediscovering Behaviorism" to be confusing. Could you elaborate?

 

[coberst]

The simpler the better, I am afraid that a high level approach to understanding human behavior is not well productive, although it may be interesting philosophy, the brain grows in place, the brain develops tructure appropriate to sense it's enviroment and cope with it.

Such things as schema come much later. remeber the example of paralelling a wall in motion, a schema of 'wall' is not needed, just an ability to sense the distinction bewteen wall and not wall, say a visual line, and then the ability to keep it's position fixed in the visual field. I am glad that you enjoy reading this stuff, maybe you could read some other stuff, like perception and development?

All God's children got to categorize from the earliest to the latest and schemas are necessary for that categorization.

 

[Z]

God's children? The Elohim?

 

[Jorghnassen]

Want to learn about the brain? Go read this book!

 

[Dancing David]

All God's children got to categorize from the earliest to the latest and schemas are necessary for that categorization.

And again, that is an unsupported assertion, without research to back it up, a schema such as 'wall' is not needed to maintain a parallel course to a wall. What evidence other than the musing of philosophers do you have to support that idea you present?

You do not need the conceptual schema of 'green' to percieve color, and 'brain dead' people could potentialy percieve color, if the anterior portions of the cerebral cortex were functioning..

"categorization' is a high level cognitive ability, it is not a low level nueral process, the brain does not 'categorsie' colors in perception, it sorts them without categories in the usual sense of the word. Catergories exist in many ways, but there seems to be an abuse of therm occuring. What research have the philosopher taken to demonstrate thier theory of categories?

Please read on the function of the retina and color vision, there are no categories involved, it is more like binary switching. Associations develop through the process of attenuation and potentiation, high level sorting into categories comes much later, and is a very high cognitive function. The brain can percieve the color black and white without being able to 'categorise' them your philospohers make the same mistake Chomsky made when he hypotheised 'deep structure', there are simpler mechanisms which can account for complex behaviors.

 

[coberst]

And again, that is an unsupported assertion, without research to back it up, a schema such as 'wall' is not needed to maintain a parallel course to a wall. What evidence other than the musing of philosophers do you have to support that idea you present?

You do not need the conceptual schema of 'green' to percieve color, and 'brain dead' people could potentialy percieve color, if the anterior portions of the cerebral cortex were functioning..

"categorization' is a high level cognitive ability, it is not a low level nueral process, the brain does not 'categorsie' colors in perception, it sorts them without categories in the usual sense of the word. Catergories exist in many ways, but there seems to be an abuse of therm occuring. What research have the philosopher taken to demonstrate thier theory of categories?

Please read on the function of the retina and color vision, there are no categories involved, it is more like binary switching. Associations develop through the process of attenuation and potentiation, high level sorting into categories comes much later, and is a very high cognitive function. The brain can percieve the color black and white without being able to 'categorise' them your philospohers make the same mistake Chomsky made when he hypotheised 'deep structure', there are simpler mechanisms which can account for complex behaviors.

Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.”

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization

Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

Quotes from "Philsophy in The Flesh" Lakoff and Johnson

 

[Z]

Are you capable of coming up with your own thoughts, or do you just parrot the same, inadequate, apparently misguided book by L & J?

 

[coberst]

Are you capable of coming up with your own thoughts, or do you just parrot the same, inadequate, apparently misguided book by L & J?

Books are the source of knowledge.

When schooling is over one needs to use the library to acquire the knowledge and understanding required to solve the problems that are constantly encountered in life.