4 ms·

> And for all the recent advances in neurobiology, we seem no closer to solving the mind-brain problem than we were a century ago Er... Maybe not consciousness

by d--b 10y ago

> And for all the recent advances in neurobiology, we seem no closer to solving the mind-brain problem than we were a century ago Er... Maybe not consciousness-brain (although I'm no expert on this at all), but it's hard to dispute that we have a MUCH deeper understanding of movement-brain, perception-brain, memory-brain, problem-solving-brain relationships that we had 100 years ago. Consciousness is a touchy subject. We've been studying cancer for a long time and haven't found a cure for it either. Yet, no one thinks that cancer originates in quantum effects. "we're no closer to solving it" is not a good argument in favor of one theory over another.

inputcoffee 10y ago
It depends on what you mean by "relationship" Consider that we know "where" things happen, but it doesn't follow we know "how" things happen. It is a bit like opening up a computer and taking a thermometer and measuring the heat kicked off by various parts. Now I can tell you that when I run MatLab, the part called "CPU" gets hot. And when I run games the part called "GPU" gets hot. So clearly the CPU is the Matlab part of the computer and the GPU is the games part of the computer. What we need is a theory of software before we can make progress, and that is what we lack.
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  That is a much more obtuse view of the state of neuroscience than is deserved. Sure, it started out as, oh this part of the brain needs more oxygen when remembering something, and oh, if that part of the brain is removed then people cant remember much . But it progresses to, ah this part of the brain is important to memory that binds multiple features, not within objects,but between objects. oh, computational models suggest pattern separation and completion operations that allow orthoganalization of activity during encoding of similar memories and retrieval of all the pattern of activity from reactivation of part of the activity. So lets make an experiement that modulates similarity between memories and modulates the completeness of retrieval cues for bound percept pairs, and/or in animal models directly modulate activity in the sub parts of that brain region thought to be reponsible for separation or completion operations to see if we can impair or enhance separation or completion operations. Anyway, thats just my field. Edit: Adding some references. Not sure how to format it into a list. Pattern Separation and Completion in Dentate Gyrus and CA3 in the Hippocampus: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/961 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/961 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412001674 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313010854 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1640 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1640 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190832 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190832 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pattern+separation+completion&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ36iK4tbTAhUC6GMKHXVuAXYQgQMIJDAA https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pattern+separation+comp... Relational Binding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432813003094 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432813... http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/29/1/126/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/29/1/126/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721410368805 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721410368805
  - ColanR 10y ago
    Honestly, it just sounds like the field has managed to go from taking a big blob ('cpu'/'gpu') and finding basic relationships ('matlab vs games') to working with much smaller blobs that are closer to the base principles at work. Illustrating from your example, current state of the art seems to have managed to break the big blobs into smaller blobs (e.g., now we're looking at 'memory that binds multiple features between objects'), and then found more complex relationships ('looking at separation or completion operations in similar memories'). That still doesn't tell us how the actual programming works. We barely understand the role of dendritic spines, and we're still trying to get a handle on the utter complexity of single neuron interactions in the neocortex. He might have oversimplified, but I don't think he's wrong. (Just playing devil's advocate. Would love to know how badly I misunderstood.) Edit: nearly all of your links are paywalled.
    - SubiculumCode 10y ago
      Oh sure there is some blobology to it still...but the nature of the function attributed is becoming more precise.--not a memory blob, a blob associated with signal orthoganalization. But that is just the functional neuroimaging in humans in which we are working downwards, while neuroscientists using methods that influence activity at the neural level, or even the dendritic level, work upwards. Each informs the other. For example, the computational models of pattern separation and completion are derived by observations of the structure of connections between neurons, which led to hypotheses about what kinds of operation it could support, which led to tests of that hypothesis in rats, and eventually in humans. But at the heart of it, I don't think we have to be completely reductionistic to gain understanding. We don't have to fully understand in every detail how dendrites operate to understand that a collection of neurons can support a particular data transformation.
zeta0134 10y ago
I understand that I have a brain, and I decently grasp the mechanics of how it works. What I don't understand is why I'm trapped inside it.
- visarga 10y ago
  Common problem. Software is trapped inside CPU and memory too. Don't know if bare software ever touched face of the world.
visarga 10y ago
I think there is nothing more than perception, movement, memory, attention, problem solving and a few other functions that work together. Humans are basically reinforcement learning agents optimizing for actions that maximize rewards.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  You will need to expand on that "work together" bit before I will be convinced that you can explain consciousness. Also, can you identify maximal rewards in a way that does not become self-referential when the actions are things like listening to music or climbing a mountain?
  - visarga 10y ago
    All the human rewards are related to survival (food, shelter, communion with others, sex, learning, and so on). It's interesting, but we bootstrap meaning "by death" - those that do not appreciate sex, don't get to send their genes in the next generation, for example. It means something to like sex because otherwise it means non-existence. Appreciation for nature, music and other artistic pursuits are related to an internal reward that favors exploration and creativity which are essential skills in problem solving, which is essential for survival ultimately. In machine learning, especially in reinforcement learning, there are efforts to introduce internal rewards such as novelty seeking / curiosity and creativity. They have a clear benefit for survival. For example, ability to imagine might be seen as poetic, but in reality it is useful for planning actions without needing to play them out first, and only later acting. A useful skill that might save one's life in a split-second decision.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      As a Darwinian just-so story about why consciousness is adaptive, that is fine. As an explanation of what consciousness is and how it works, it lacks specificity.
CoryG89 10y ago
> Yet, no one thinks that cancer originates in quantum effects. Actually, there are at least some research which suggests quantum tunneling plays a role in random genetic mutation, giving rise to cancer. Disclaimer: I am not a physicist or biologist.

by d--b 10y ago

inputcoffee 10y ago

It depends on what you mean by "relationship" Consider that we know "where" things happen, but it doesn't follow we know "how" things happen. It is a bit like opening up a computer and taking a thermometer and measuring the heat kicked off by various parts. Now I can tell you that when I run MatLab, the part called "CPU" gets hot. And when I run games the part called "GPU" gets hot. So clearly the CPU is the Matlab part of the computer and the GPU is the games part of the computer. What we need is a theory of software before we can make progress, and that is what we lack.

SubiculumCode 10y ago
That is a much more obtuse view of the state of neuroscience than is deserved. Sure, it started out as, oh this part of the brain needs more oxygen when remembering something, and oh, if that part of the brain is removed then people cant remember much . But it progresses to, ah this part of the brain is important to memory that binds multiple features, not within objects,but between objects. oh, computational models suggest pattern separation and completion operations that allow orthoganalization of activity during encoding of similar memories and retrieval of all the pattern of activity from reactivation of part of the activity. So lets make an experiement that modulates similarity between memories and modulates the completeness of retrieval cues for bound percept pairs, and/or in animal models directly modulate activity in the sub parts of that brain region thought to be reponsible for separation or completion operations to see if we can impair or enhance separation or completion operations. Anyway, thats just my field. Edit: Adding some references. Not sure how to format it into a list. Pattern Separation and Completion in Dentate Gyrus and CA3 in the Hippocampus: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/961 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/961 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412001674 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313010854 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1640 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1640 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190832 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190832 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pattern+separation+completion&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ36iK4tbTAhUC6GMKHXVuAXYQgQMIJDAA https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pattern+separation+comp... Relational Binding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432813003094 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432813... http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/29/1/126/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/29/1/126/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721410368805 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721410368805
- ColanR 10y ago
  Honestly, it just sounds like the field has managed to go from taking a big blob ('cpu'/'gpu') and finding basic relationships ('matlab vs games') to working with much smaller blobs that are closer to the base principles at work. Illustrating from your example, current state of the art seems to have managed to break the big blobs into smaller blobs (e.g., now we're looking at 'memory that binds multiple features between objects'), and then found more complex relationships ('looking at separation or completion operations in similar memories'). That still doesn't tell us how the actual programming works. We barely understand the role of dendritic spines, and we're still trying to get a handle on the utter complexity of single neuron interactions in the neocortex. He might have oversimplified, but I don't think he's wrong. (Just playing devil's advocate. Would love to know how badly I misunderstood.) Edit: nearly all of your links are paywalled.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    Oh sure there is some blobology to it still...but the nature of the function attributed is becoming more precise.--not a memory blob, a blob associated with signal orthoganalization. But that is just the functional neuroimaging in humans in which we are working downwards, while neuroscientists using methods that influence activity at the neural level, or even the dendritic level, work upwards. Each informs the other. For example, the computational models of pattern separation and completion are derived by observations of the structure of connections between neurons, which led to hypotheses about what kinds of operation it could support, which led to tests of that hypothesis in rats, and eventually in humans. But at the heart of it, I don't think we have to be completely reductionistic to gain understanding. We don't have to fully understand in every detail how dendrites operate to understand that a collection of neurons can support a particular data transformation.

zeta0134 10y ago

I understand that I have a brain, and I decently grasp the mechanics of how it works. What I don't understand is why I'm trapped inside it.

visarga 10y ago
Common problem. Software is trapped inside CPU and memory too. Don't know if bare software ever touched face of the world.

visarga 10y ago

I think there is nothing more than perception, movement, memory, attention, problem solving and a few other functions that work together. Humans are basically reinforcement learning agents optimizing for actions that maximize rewards.

mannykannot 10y ago
You will need to expand on that "work together" bit before I will be convinced that you can explain consciousness. Also, can you identify maximal rewards in a way that does not become self-referential when the actions are things like listening to music or climbing a mountain?
- visarga 10y ago
  All the human rewards are related to survival (food, shelter, communion with others, sex, learning, and so on). It's interesting, but we bootstrap meaning "by death" - those that do not appreciate sex, don't get to send their genes in the next generation, for example. It means something to like sex because otherwise it means non-existence. Appreciation for nature, music and other artistic pursuits are related to an internal reward that favors exploration and creativity which are essential skills in problem solving, which is essential for survival ultimately. In machine learning, especially in reinforcement learning, there are efforts to introduce internal rewards such as novelty seeking / curiosity and creativity. They have a clear benefit for survival. For example, ability to imagine might be seen as poetic, but in reality it is useful for planning actions without needing to play them out first, and only later acting. A useful skill that might save one's life in a split-second decision.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    As a Darwinian just-so story about why consciousness is adaptive, that is fine. As an explanation of what consciousness is and how it works, it lacks specificity.

CoryG89 10y ago

> Yet, no one thinks that cancer originates in quantum effects. Actually, there are at least some research which suggests quantum tunneling plays a role in random genetic mutation, giving rise to cancer. Disclaimer: I am not a physicist or biologist.