[net.origins] the mamelian brain a kludge?

ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (07/24/85)

I note with interest the remarks of Stanley Friesen concerning the mamelian brain.  To some extent he is right but, using computer phraseology, he is talking 
about hardware;  let's talk about software, the actual functioning of the mind.
I work with lots of different kinds of small computers for a living.  One of
the things I realized early on was that software (how intelligently a machine
is programmed) counts for more than hardware.  I'm always seeing situations
which involve a PC in one corner of an office, something considerably stronger,
say a Fortune 32:16 or a CT Miniframe in the other corner, the same kinds of
applications running on each, and the stuff on the PC running faster and better.
The differences in software simply overcome the hardware differences.  
    Look for a book by Eli Hellerman, one of the founders of computer science,
concerning the workings of the human mind.  This book is either out now or will
be out soon.  It will use the terms holography and resonance a great deal.  I
am no expert on these things, but I understand some of it.  Consider the way
a computer seeks to find one out of a million unsorted data items versus the
manner in which the human brain performs the same task.  The brain draws a 
resonant response from the data itself, likely using more than one key.  The computer must examine each item, one by one.  It's as if you were looking at a
million dog houses, one of which contained YOUR dog, but which one?  The com-
puter would search each doghouse.  The intelligent approach would be to whistle,
knowing that YOUR dog would hear and come running from whichever house he
was in, i.e. draw a response from the data itself.  That is what the brain does.
Which is the kludge?

throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/25/85)

> The brain draws a resonant response from the data itself, likely using
> more than one key.  The computer must examine each item, one by one.
> It's as if you were looking at a million dog houses, one of which
> contained YOUR dog, but which one?  The com- puter would search each
> doghouse.  The intelligent approach would be to whistle, knowing that
> YOUR dog would hear and come running from whichever house he was in,
> i.e. draw a response from the data itself.  That is what the brain does.
> Which is the kludge?

Well, actually, both are kludges.  The picture given of the brain is
somewhat misleading, and doesn't address Stanley's points about its
kludgery.  Add to this picture the fellow deciding whether to embrace
the dog that issues from the doghouse, or kill it.  The reptilian brain
says "KILL IT", and that is suppressed, then the mammalian brain says
"HUG IT", and that is suppressed, then the forebrain says "well, greet
it", and (at last) the dog is given a "normal" greeting.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw

long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (07/27/85)

In article <362@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
|    Look for a book by Eli Hellerman, one of the founders of computer science,
|concerning the workings of the human mind.  This book is either out now or will
|be out soon.  It will use the terms holography and resonance a great deal.  I
|am no expert on these things, but I understand some of it.  Consider the way
|a computer seeks to find one out of a million unsorted data items versus the
|manner in which the human brain performs the same task.  The brain draws a 
|resonant response from the data itself, likely using more than one key.  The computer must examine each item, one by one.  It's as if you were looking at a
|million dog houses, one of which contained YOUR dog, but which one?  The com-
|puter would search each doghouse.  The intelligent approach would be to whistle,
|knowing that YOUR dog would hear and come running from whichever house he
|was in, i.e. draw a response from the data itself.  That is what the brain does.
|Which is the kludge?

	FALSE ANALOGY!

    Faced with objects that were capable of resonant response, the computer 
probably would exploit that capability, and whistle also.  If you were faced
with a million bookshelves, with one containing YOUR burnt copy of Eli Heller-
man's book, what would you do?  Just like the contents of a computer memory,
that book is *not* going to come if you call it.  You would have to search
through all the bookshelves as well.
    (BTW:  Having never associated much with dogs, I probably wouldn't have
	thought of calling the dog for a long time)

**** REFER TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE ****

    I'd like anyone to try and show how "hardware" and "software" states exist
in the human mind.  While states of operation of the brain seem not to be ho-
mogenous, they certainly seem very non-discrete.
    Also, would somebody please explain how humans get this "software"?  Which,
BTW, does not seem to be too efficient;  I'd love to have a full scientific
calculator stashed away somewhere in core that I could interrupt-trap to.  In-
stead, I have to either use a calculator, or do some slow symbol-shunting.
(If God created man, why didn't he burn the bible, etc. into rom?)

						If anyone is interested,
						I may try to do a better
						covering of the subject,
						    Dave Long
-- 
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long

dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (07/27/85)

[]
Ted Holden writes:
> I note with interest the remarks of Stanley Friesen concerning the mamelian
> brain.  To some extent he is right but, using computer phraseology, he is
> talking about hardware;  let's talk about software, the actual functioning
> of the mind. ...[arguments that the brain has good software]...

So what you're saying is that God is great at software but lousy at
hardware? Maybe Apple should hire Him!
:-)

Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov   (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012

... Hernandez steps in to face ... Orl ... HERchiiiser ... and it's a liiine
driive, deeeeep to the gap in left center ... - Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/29/85)

In article <362@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>I note with interest the remarks of Stanley Friesen concerning the mammalian
>brain. To some extent he is right but, using computer phraseology, he is
>talking about hardware;  let's talk about software, the actual functioning
>of the mind.
>The differences in software (can) simply overcome the hardware differences.  
>    Look for a book by Eli Hellerman, one of the founders of computer science,
>concerning the workings of the human mind.  This book is either out now or will
>be out soon.  It will use the terms holography and resonance a great deal.

Or as I would say, the brain is massively parallel.
(P.S. this applies almost as well to all vertebrate brains at least)

>  Consider the way
>a computer seeks to find one out of a million unsorted data items versus the
>manner in which the human brain performs the same task.  The brain draws a 
>resonant response from the data itself, likely using more than one key.
>The computer must examine each item, one by one.
>Which is the kludge?

	I will admit that this is excellent usage of available
material, but it is still not perfect, look at memory lapses,
emotional disorders and other such mis-reactions. All I was really
saying is that arguments from design are flawed, since no rational
engineer would design a system anything like a typical living
organism, the same effects could be achieved much more simply
and more reliably with different designs..
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/30/85)

	I hope I am not responsible for that hiddeous spelling of
"mammalian" in the subject line !!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/02/85)

>	I hope I am not responsible for that hiddeous spelling of
>"mammalian" in the subject line !!
>
>				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

I don't know, but you're certainly responsible for that hideous
spelling of "hideous"! :-)

-- 

--JB       (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

                   All we learn from history is that
                     we learn nothing from history.