Neurons.
Locked
 
|
Dear All,
I think I am with Doug on this one. Isn't it the case that through the interweaving of dendrites neurons can effect their probabilities of firing over substantial distance? So the "powers" of a neuron include not only firing or not firing, but influencing analogically the firing of other neurons through dendritic potentials. Or is this just old-fangled neurology? N Nicholas Thompson nickthompson at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Date: 7/9/2006 12:00:16 PM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam at redfish.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > friam-request at redfish.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > friam-owner at redfish.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result (Bill Eldridge) > 2. 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > 3. Re: 100 billion neurons (doug) > 4. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > 5. Re: 100 billion neurons (Martin C. Martin) > 6. Re: 100 billion neurons (Robert Cordingley) > 7. Mexican Elections fraud (Carlos Gershenson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:29:19 +0200 > From: Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <44B023AF.7070208 at volny.cz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Robert Holmes wrote: > > Google now offer a product called Google Trends > > (http://www.google.com/trends) which aggregates peoples' searches by > > city, region etc. It's been described as "a place holder for the > > intentions of humankind ? a massive database of desires, needs, wants, > > and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, tracked, and > > exploited to all sorts of ends." (From the New York Times > > =94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1 > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?ex=1152763200&e n=94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1>) > > > > Anyway, just for fun I type in LANL. The "Cities" tab gives the > > expected results: > > 1. *Los Alamos*, NM, USA > > > > > > 2. *Livermore*, CA, USA > > > > > > 3. *Santa Fe*, NM, USA > > > > > > 4. *Oak Ridge*, TN, USA > > > > > > 5. *Albuquerque*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > The "Regions" tab is altogether more intriguing. > > 1. *Iran* > > > > > > 2. *United States* > > > > > > 3. *India* > > > > > > > > > > > > Time to call our friends at Homeland Security? > > > Not until you make sure that "lanl" doesn't mean "holiday spice cake" in > Persian ;-) > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: tml > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:03:10 +0200 > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > Subject: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <000001c6a2eb$11017400$19568a54 at Toshiba> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) > > but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules. If we > distribute a comparatively simple program on 1.000.000 machines (which is > only a small fraction of the Internet, Google alone has between 50.000 and > 100.000 machines, and SETI at home has over five million volunteers), and each > is responsible for the simulation of 100.000 neurons, then we come close > to the capacity of the human brain. How long will it take until we can > build such a system and connect it successfully to the real world > (through a robot) or a realistic virtual world (through an agent) ? > I guess it won't be long. As Greg Egan describes in his novel > "Permutation City", at first the simulation may be much slower than > reality, but enough computers are already there. What do you think ? > > -J. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:23:37 -0700 > From: "doug" <doug at dougcarmichael.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <000c01c6a2ed$ec7928f0$c56b7ad0$@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > "A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) > neurons, > > but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules.' > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it sits, > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of analog > events. > > doug > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:53:31 +0200 > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <000101c6a2f2$19cae330$19568a54 at Toshiba> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Interesting remark, but I don't think it really works this way. > It is not an infinite ensemble of an infinite number of analog events. > A neuron fires or not - a boolean event - and spikes are certainly > discrete events. The ion channels, the gradients of ions, and all > the chemical substances are only the "hardware" of the brain. One > could compare it to transistors, wires, etc. If the genes could > produce transistors instead of proteins, they would perhaps use > digital circuits. However, the interesting part seems to be the > software, esp. the code which is used (if there is any). There > are of course at least four different levels of modelling, > from boolean networks and sigmoid networks to spiking networks, > see Fig. 3 in http://www.vs.uni-kassel.de/~fromm/Articles/LI.pdf > > -J. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Of doug > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:24 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't each > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it sits, > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of analog > events. > > doug > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:15:48 -0400 > From: "Martin C. Martin" <martin at martincmartin.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <44B058C4.9000300 at martincmartin.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > interesting consequences of this. > > - Martin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:56:08 -0500 > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <44B08C68.3090500 at cirrillian.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I recollect that some years ago the AI community (at a AAAI conference I > attended) claimed that each of the 10^11 neurons also had on average > 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the > brain. They also predicted we'd have a computer of similar power by > 2015. Furrthermore it also stuck in my mind that 40% of the brain was > claimed to be involved in vision (including reading). So these > estimates lead one to think that it's going to be quite close to 2015 > before we have a system with just the power of human vision. Being able > to program such a machine was not part of the discussion at the time, > which is a big question to me. > > Thanks > Robert Cordingley > www.cirrillian.com > > Martin C. Martin wrote: > > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > >interesting consequences of this. > > > >- Martin > > > >============================================================ > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:51:21 +0200 > From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> > Subject: [FRIAM] Mexican Elections fraud > To: ECCO ECCO <evolcomp at listserv.vub.ac.be>, The Friday Morning > Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <7508A12F-CCA2-401B-97AF-D36C496E274F at vub.ac.be> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; > format=flowed > > Hi all, > > This has not much to do with research, but I feel everybody should > know... > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/mexican-presidential-election- > fraud.html > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-mexican-elections- > fraud.html > > And also > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/americas/09mexico.html > > Best regards, > > Carlos Gershenson... > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > > ?Tendencies tend to change...? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > ************************************ |
|
|
Hi,
There is also chemical feedback at the synapse such that the neuron can influence itself as to when the next transmission of nerotransmitter packet can be released. And The gap between polarization and depolarization along the neuron introduces a temporal importance as to the role a particular neuron will play within the network for any single set of information transmission. Lou ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> To: <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > Dear All, > > I think I am with Doug on this one. Isn't it the case that through the > interweaving of dendrites neurons can effect their probabilities of firing > over substantial distance? So the "powers" of a neuron include not only > firing or not firing, but influencing analogically the firing of other > neurons through dendritic potentials. > > Or is this just old-fangled neurology? > > N > > Nicholas Thompson > nickthompson at earthlink.net > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 7/9/2006 12:00:16 PM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam at redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result (Bill Eldridge) > > 2. 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > > 3. Re: 100 billion neurons (doug) > > 4. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > > 5. Re: 100 billion neurons (Martin C. Martin) > > 6. Re: 100 billion neurons (Robert Cordingley) > > 7. Mexican Elections fraud (Carlos Gershenson) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:29:19 +0200 > > From: Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <44B023AF.7070208 at volny.cz> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > Robert Holmes wrote: > > > Google now offer a product called Google Trends > > > (http://www.google.com/trends) which aggregates peoples' searches by > > > city, region etc. It's been described as "a place holder for the > > > intentions of humankind ? a massive database of desires, needs, wants, > > > and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, tracked, and > > > exploited to all sorts of ends." (From the New York Times > > > > > =94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1 > > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?ex=1152763200&e > n=94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1>) > > > > > > Anyway, just for fun I type in LANL. The "Cities" tab gives the > > > expected results: > > > 1. *Los Alamos*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > 2. *Livermore*, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > 3. *Santa Fe*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > 4. *Oak Ridge*, TN, USA > > > > > > > > > 5. *Albuquerque*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > The "Regions" tab is altogether more intriguing. > > > 1. *Iran* > > > > > > > > > 2. *United States* > > > > > > > > > 3. *India* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time to call our friends at Homeland Security? > > > > > Not until you make sure that "lanl" doesn't mean "holiday spice cake" in > > Persian ;-) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > tml > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:03:10 +0200 > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > > Subject: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <000001c6a2eb$11017400$19568a54 at Toshiba> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) > neurons, > > > > but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules. If we > > distribute a comparatively simple program on 1.000.000 machines (which > > only a small fraction of the Internet, Google alone has between 50.000 > and > > 100.000 machines, and SETI at home has over five million volunteers), and > each > > is responsible for the simulation of 100.000 neurons, then we come close > > to the capacity of the human brain. How long will it take until we can > > build such a system and connect it successfully to the real world > > (through a robot) or a realistic virtual world (through an agent) ? > > I guess it won't be long. As Greg Egan describes in his novel > > "Permutation City", at first the simulation may be much slower than > > reality, but enough computers are already there. What do you think ? > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:23:37 -0700 > > From: "doug" <doug at dougcarmichael.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <000c01c6a2ed$ec7928f0$c56b7ad0$@com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > "A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) > > neurons, > > > > but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules.' > > > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't > each > > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it > > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? > > > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of analog > > events. > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:53:31 +0200 > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <000101c6a2f2$19cae330$19568a54 at Toshiba> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > Interesting remark, but I don't think it really works this way. > > It is not an infinite ensemble of an infinite number of analog events. > > A neuron fires or not - a boolean event - and spikes are certainly > > discrete events. The ion channels, the gradients of ions, and all > > the chemical substances are only the "hardware" of the brain. One > > could compare it to transistors, wires, etc. If the genes could > > produce transistors instead of proteins, they would perhaps use > > digital circuits. However, the interesting part seems to be the > > software, esp. the code which is used (if there is any). There > > are of course at least four different levels of modelling, > > from boolean networks and sigmoid networks to spiking networks, > > see Fig. 3 in http://www.vs.uni-kassel.de/~fromm/Articles/LI.pdf > > > > -J. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf > > Of doug > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:24 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't > each > > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it > > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? > > > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of analog > > events. > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:15:48 -0400 > > From: "Martin C. Martin" <martin at martincmartin.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <44B058C4.9000300 at martincmartin.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > interesting consequences of this. > > > > - Martin > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:56:08 -0500 > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <44B08C68.3090500 at cirrillian.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > I recollect that some years ago the AI community (at a AAAI conference I > > attended) claimed that each of the 10^11 neurons also had on average > > 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the > > brain. They also predicted we'd have a computer of similar power by > > 2015. Furrthermore it also stuck in my mind that 40% of the brain was > > claimed to be involved in vision (including reading). So these > > estimates lead one to think that it's going to be quite close to 2015 > > before we have a system with just the power of human vision. Being able > > to program such a machine was not part of the discussion at the time, > > which is a big question to me. > > > > Thanks > > Robert Cordingley > > www.cirrillian.com > > > > Martin C. Martin wrote: > > > > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > > >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > > >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > >interesting consequences of this. > > > > > >- Martin > > > > > >============================================================ > > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:51:21 +0200 > > From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Mexican Elections fraud > > To: ECCO ECCO <evolcomp at listserv.vub.ac.be>, The Friday Morning > > Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <7508A12F-CCA2-401B-97AF-D36C496E274F at vub.ac.be> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; > > format=flowed > > > > Hi all, > > > > This has not much to do with research, but I feel everybody should > > know... > > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/mexican-presidential-election- > > fraud.html > > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-mexican-elections- > > fraud.html > > > > And also > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/americas/09mexico.html > > > > Best regards, > > > > Carlos Gershenson... > > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > > > > ?Tendencies tend to change...? > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Friam mailing list > > Friam at redfish.com > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > ************************************ > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > |
|
|
Question from a lay-person:
Wasn't the original "proposal" that a single neuron would be modeled by a single desktop? And couldn't a desktop achieve something approaching this level of analog variability, if properly programmed? Or is that word "properly" begging the key question? David dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. www.BreeckerAssociates.com Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Macovsky, Dynamic BioSystems" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > Hi, > There is also chemical feedback at the synapse such that the neuron can > influence itself as to when the next transmission of nerotransmitter > packet > can be released. > And > The gap between polarization and depolarization along the neuron > introduces > a temporal importance as to the role a particular neuron will play within > the network for any single set of information transmission. > > Lou > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:15 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > >> Dear All, >> >> I think I am with Doug on this one. Isn't it the case that through the >> interweaving of dendrites neurons can effect their probabilities of >> firing >> over substantial distance? So the "powers" of a neuron include not only >> firing or not firing, but influencing analogically the firing of other >> neurons through dendritic potentials. >> >> Or is this just old-fangled neurology? >> >> N >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> nickthompson at earthlink.net >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson >> >> >> > [Original Message] >> > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> >> > To: <friam at redfish.com> >> > Date: 7/9/2006 12:00:16 PM >> > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 >> > >> > Send Friam mailing list submissions to >> > friam at redfish.com >> > >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > friam-request at redfish.com >> > >> > You can reach the person managing the list at >> > friam-owner at redfish.com >> > >> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." >> > >> > >> > Today's Topics: >> > >> > 1. Re: Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result (Bill Eldridge) >> > 2. 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) >> > 3. Re: 100 billion neurons (doug) >> > 4. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) >> > 5. Re: 100 billion neurons (Martin C. Martin) >> > 6. Re: 100 billion neurons (Robert Cordingley) >> > 7. Mexican Elections fraud (Carlos Gershenson) >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Message: 1 >> > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:29:19 +0200 >> > From: Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result >> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> > <friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <44B023AF.7070208 at volny.cz> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> > >> > Robert Holmes wrote: >> > > Google now offer a product called Google Trends >> > > (http://www.google.com/trends) which aggregates peoples' searches by >> > > city, region etc. It's been described as "a place holder for the >> > > intentions of humankind ? a massive database of desires, needs, >> > > wants, >> > > and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, tracked, and >> > > exploited to all sorts of ends." (From the New York Times >> > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?ex=1152763200&en >> =94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1 >> > > >> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?ex=1152763200&e >> n=94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1>) >> > > >> > > Anyway, just for fun I type in LANL. The "Cities" tab gives the >> > > expected results: >> > > 1. *Los Alamos*, NM, USA >> > > >> > > >> > > 2. *Livermore*, CA, USA >> > > >> > > >> > > 3. *Santa Fe*, NM, USA >> > > >> > > >> > > 4. *Oak Ridge*, TN, USA >> > > >> > > >> > > 5. *Albuquerque*, NM, USA >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The "Regions" tab is altogether more intriguing. >> > > 1. *Iran* >> > > >> > > >> > > 2. *United States* >> > > >> > > >> > > 3. *India* >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Time to call our friends at Homeland Security? >> > > >> > Not until you make sure that "lanl" doesn't mean "holiday spice cake" >> > in >> > Persian ;-) >> > >> > -------------- next part -------------- >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > URL: >> > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060708/0b8ae453/attachment-0001.h >> tml >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 2 >> > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:03:10 +0200 >> > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> >> > Subject: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >> > <friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <000001c6a2eb$11017400$19568a54 at Toshiba> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >> > >> > A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) >> neurons, >> > >> > but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules. If >> > we >> > distribute a comparatively simple program on 1.000.000 machines (which > is >> > only a small fraction of the Internet, Google alone has between 50.000 >> and >> > 100.000 machines, and SETI at home has over five million volunteers), and >> each >> > is responsible for the simulation of 100.000 neurons, then we come >> > close >> > to the capacity of the human brain. How long will it take until we can >> > build such a system and connect it successfully to the real world >> > (through a robot) or a realistic virtual world (through an agent) ? >> > I guess it won't be long. As Greg Egan describes in his novel >> > "Permutation City", at first the simulation may be much slower than >> > reality, but enough computers are already there. What do you think ? >> > >> > -J. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 3 >> > Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:23:37 -0700 >> > From: "doug" <doug at dougcarmichael.com> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >> > <friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <000c01c6a2ed$ec7928f0$c56b7ad0$@com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >> > "A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) >> > neurons, >> > >> > but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules.' >> > >> > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't >> each >> > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it > sits, >> > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? >> > >> > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of >> > analog >> > events. >> > >> > doug >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >> > archives, >> > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 4 >> > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:53:31 +0200 >> > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >> > <friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <000101c6a2f2$19cae330$19568a54 at Toshiba> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >> > >> > Interesting remark, but I don't think it really works this way. >> > It is not an infinite ensemble of an infinite number of analog events. >> > A neuron fires or not - a boolean event - and spikes are certainly >> > discrete events. The ion channels, the gradients of ions, and all >> > the chemical substances are only the "hardware" of the brain. One >> > could compare it to transistors, wires, etc. If the genes could >> > produce transistors instead of proteins, they would perhaps use >> > digital circuits. However, the interesting part seems to be the >> > software, esp. the code which is used (if there is any). There >> > are of course at least four different levels of modelling, >> > from boolean networks and sigmoid networks to spiking networks, >> > see Fig. 3 in http://www.vs.uni-kassel.de/~fromm/Articles/LI.pdf >> > >> > -J. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On >> Behalf >> > Of doug >> > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:24 AM >> > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> > >> > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't >> each >> > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it > sits, >> > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? >> > >> > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of >> > analog >> > events. >> > >> > doug >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 5 >> > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:15:48 -0400 >> > From: "Martin C. Martin" <martin at martincmartin.com> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> > <friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <44B058C4.9000300 at martincmartin.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> > >> > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: >> > >> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 >> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 >> > >> > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to >> > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget >> > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very >> > interesting consequences of this. >> > >> > - Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 6 >> > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:56:08 -0500 >> > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> > <friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <44B08C68.3090500 at cirrillian.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> > >> > I recollect that some years ago the AI community (at a AAAI conference >> > I >> > attended) claimed that each of the 10^11 neurons also had on average >> > 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the >> > brain. They also predicted we'd have a computer of similar power by >> > 2015. Furrthermore it also stuck in my mind that 40% of the brain was >> > claimed to be involved in vision (including reading). So these >> > estimates lead one to think that it's going to be quite close to 2015 >> > before we have a system with just the power of human vision. Being >> > able >> > to program such a machine was not part of the discussion at the time, >> > which is a big question to me. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Robert Cordingley >> > www.cirrillian.com >> > >> > Martin C. Martin wrote: >> > >> > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: >> > > >> > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 >> > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 >> > > >> > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to >> > >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget >> > >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very >> > >interesting consequences of this. >> > > >> > >- Martin >> > > >> > >============================================================ >> > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 7 >> > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:51:21 +0200 >> > From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> >> > Subject: [FRIAM] Mexican Elections fraud >> > To: ECCO ECCO <evolcomp at listserv.vub.ac.be>, The Friday Morning >> > Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> >> > Message-ID: <7508A12F-CCA2-401B-97AF-D36C496E274F at vub.ac.be> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; >> > format=flowed >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > This has not much to do with research, but I feel everybody should >> > know... >> > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/mexican-presidential-election- >> > fraud.html >> > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-mexican-elections- >> > fraud.html >> > >> > And also >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/americas/09mexico.html >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Carlos Gershenson... >> > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel >> > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium >> > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ >> > >> > ?Tendencies tend to change...? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Friam mailing list >> > Friam at redfish.com >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > >> > >> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 >> > ************************************ >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Louis Macovsky, Dynamic BioSystems
Yea, I go with the sense that there might be more going on in the brain
than a bunch of yes-no sparks. It might seem irrelevant but there's never been any intelligence that didn't grow from a single sell. That's not how we make computers, and we don't have any idea what purpose nature is serving by making things that way. Something could be missing in our model. Perhaps even more of a stretch, but a perfectly good question, is what is nature doing in connecting neurons with gaps anyway? You and I wouldn't make things that way, ever. If you want to connect things just connect them for God's sake! Why the gaps? It's an inscrutable design, found in only very few other natural system structures, where critical intimate connections are made through a fluid medium that freely circulates between all the other similar connections. What the hell is that for anyway!? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Louis > Macovsky, Dynamic BioSystems > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 3:52 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > > Hi, > There is also chemical feedback at the synapse such that the > neuron can influence itself as to when the next transmission > of nerotransmitter packet can be released. And The gap > between polarization and depolarization along the neuron > introduces a temporal importance as to the role a particular > neuron will play within the network for any single set of > information transmission. > > Lou > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:15 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > > > Dear All, > > > > I think I am with Doug on this one. Isn't it the case that through > > the interweaving of dendrites neurons can effect their > probabilities > > of firing over substantial distance? So the "powers" of a neuron > > include not only firing or not firing, but influencing analogically > > the firing of other neurons through dendritic potentials. > > > > Or is this just old-fangled neurology? > > > > N > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > nickthompson at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > > Date: 7/9/2006 12:00:16 PM > > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > > friam at redfish.com > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is > more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. Re: Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result > (Bill Eldridge) > > > 2. 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > > > 3. Re: 100 billion neurons (doug) > > > 4. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > > > 5. Re: 100 billion neurons (Martin C. Martin) > > > 6. Re: 100 billion neurons (Robert Cordingley) > > > 7. Mexican Elections fraud (Carlos Gershenson) > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:29:19 +0200 > > > From: Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <44B023AF.7070208 at volny.cz> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > > > Robert Holmes wrote: > > > > Google now offer a product called Google Trends > > > > (http://www.google.com/trends) which aggregates > peoples' searches by > > > > city, region etc. It's been described as "a place holder for the > > > > intentions of humankind ? a massive database of > desires, needs, wants, > > > > and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, > tracked, and > > > > exploited to all sorts of ends." (From the New York Times > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?ex > =1152763200&en > > =94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1 > > > > > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?e > x=1152763200&e > > n=94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1>) > > > > > > > > Anyway, just for fun I type in LANL. The "Cities" tab gives the > > > > expected results: > > > > 1. *Los Alamos*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. *Livermore*, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. *Santa Fe*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. *Oak Ridge*, TN, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. *Albuquerque*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "Regions" tab is altogether more intriguing. > > > > 1. *Iran* > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. *United States* > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. *India* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time to call our friends at Homeland Security? > > > > > > > Not until you make sure that "lanl" doesn't mean "holiday > spice cake" in > > > Persian ;-) > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > URL: > > > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060708/0b8ae453/att > achment-0001.h > > tml > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:03:10 +0200 > > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <000001c6a2eb$11017400$19568a54 at Toshiba> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > > > > A typical human brain has about 100 billion > (10^11=100.000.000.000) > > neurons, > > > > > > but each neuron follows only very simple > integrate-and-fire rules. If we > > > distribute a comparatively simple program on 1.000.000 > machines (which > is > > > only a small fraction of the Internet, Google alone has > between 50.000 > > and > > > 100.000 machines, and SETI at home has over five million > volunteers), and > > each > > > is responsible for the simulation of 100.000 neurons, > then we come close > > > to the capacity of the human brain. How long will it take > until we can > > > build such a system and connect it successfully to the real world > > > (through a robot) or a realistic virtual world (through > an agent) ? > > > I guess it won't be long. As Greg Egan describes in his novel > > > "Permutation City", at first the simulation may be much > slower than > > > reality, but enough computers are already there. What do > you think ? > > > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:23:37 -0700 > > > From: "doug" <doug at dougcarmichael.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <000c01c6a2ed$ec7928f0$c56b7ad0$@com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > "A typical human brain has about 100 billion > (10^11=100.000.000.000) > > > neurons, > > > > > > but each neuron follows only very simple > integrate-and-fire rules.' > > > > > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete > events. But isn't > > each > > > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution > in which it > sits, > > > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple > firing neurons? > > > > > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an > infinity of analog > > > events. > > > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, > > > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:53:31 +0200 > > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <000101c6a2f2$19cae330$19568a54 at Toshiba> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > > > > Interesting remark, but I don't think it really works this way. > > > It is not an infinite ensemble of an infinite number of > analog events. > > > A neuron fires or not - a boolean event - and spikes are certainly > > > discrete events. The ion channels, the gradients of ions, and all > > > the chemical substances are only the "hardware" of the brain. One > > > could compare it to transistors, wires, etc. If the genes could > > > produce transistors instead of proteins, they would perhaps use > > > digital circuits. However, the interesting part seems to be the > > > software, esp. the code which is used (if there is any). There > > > are of course at least four different levels of modelling, > > > from boolean networks and sigmoid networks to spiking networks, > > > see Fig. 3 in http://www.vs.uni-kassel.de/~fromm/Articles/LI.pdf > > > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > Behalf > > > Of doug > > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:24 AM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete > events. But isn't > > each > > > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution > in which it > sits, > > > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple > firing neurons? > > > > > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an > infinity of analog > > > events. > > > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:15:48 -0400 > > > From: "Martin C. Martin" <martin at martincmartin.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <44B058C4.9000300 at martincmartin.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's > computing power to > > > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a > computer." I forget > > > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > > interesting consequences of this. > > > > > > - Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 6 > > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:56:08 -0500 > > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <44B08C68.3090500 at cirrillian.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > I recollect that some years ago the AI community (at a > AAAI conference I > > > attended) claimed that each of the 10^11 neurons also had > on average > > > 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the > > > brain. They also predicted we'd have a computer of > similar power by > > > 2015. Furrthermore it also stuck in my mind that 40% of > the brain was > > > claimed to be involved in vision (including reading). So these > > > estimates lead one to think that it's going to be quite > close to 2015 > > > before we have a system with just the power of human > vision. Being able > > > to program such a machine was not part of the discussion > at the time, > > > which is a big question to me. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Robert Cordingley > > > www.cirrillian.com > > > > > > Martin C. Martin wrote: > > > > > > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > > > > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's > computing power to > > > >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a > computer." I forget > > > >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > > >interesting consequences of this. > > > > > > > >- Martin > > > > > > > >============================================================ > > > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 7 > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:51:21 +0200 > > > From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Mexican Elections fraud > > > To: ECCO ECCO <evolcomp at listserv.vub.ac.be>, The Friday Morning > > > Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <7508A12F-CCA2-401B-97AF-D36C496E274F at vub.ac.be> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; > > > format=flowed > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This has not much to do with research, but I feel everybody should > > > know... > > > > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/mexican-presidential-election- > > > fraud.html > > > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-mexican-elections- > > > fraud.html > > > > > > And also > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/americas/09mexico.html > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Carlos Gershenson... > > > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > > > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > > > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > > > > > > ?Tendencies tend to change...? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Friam mailing list > > > Friam at redfish.com > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > > ************************************ > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
|
|
My guess is that the "gaps" or synapses, have a lot to do with fine
tuning the amount of damping in the brain's dynamical function. It appears that brains need to operate near the "edge of chaos", and some global control system fine tuning this would be desirable. This probably explains the evolution of emotions. Phil Husband's group in Sussex have done a fair bit of work with "GasNets", which is inspired by the design, to make effective robotic controllers. Cheers On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 10:32:30PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote: > Yea, I go with the sense that there might be more going on in the brain > than a bunch of yes-no sparks. It might seem irrelevant but there's > never been any intelligence that didn't grow from a single sell. That's > not how we make computers, and we don't have any idea what purpose > nature is serving by making things that way. Something could be missing > in our model. Perhaps even more of a stretch, but a perfectly good > question, is what is nature doing in connecting neurons with gaps > anyway? You and I wouldn't make things that way, ever. If you want to > connect things just connect them for God's sake! Why the gaps? It's > an inscrutable design, found in only very few other natural system > structures, where critical intimate connections are made through a fluid > medium that freely circulates between all the other similar connections. > What the hell is that for anyway!? > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Louis > > Macovsky, Dynamic BioSystems > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 3:52 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > > > > > Hi, > > There is also chemical feedback at the synapse such that the > > neuron can influence itself as to when the next transmission > > of nerotransmitter packet can be released. And The gap > > between polarization and depolarization along the neuron > > introduces a temporal importance as to the role a particular > > neuron will play within the network for any single set of > > information transmission. > > > > Lou > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:15 AM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I think I am with Doug on this one. Isn't it the case that through > > > the interweaving of dendrites neurons can effect their > > probabilities > > > of firing over substantial distance? So the "powers" of a neuron > > > include not only firing or not firing, but influencing analogically > > > the firing of other neurons through dendritic potentials. > > > > > > Or is this just old-fangled neurology? > > > > > > N > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > nickthompson at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Date: 7/9/2006 12:00:16 PM > > > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > > > > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > > > friam at redfish.com > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is > > more specific > > > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > > > 1. Re: Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result > > (Bill Eldridge) > > > > 2. 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > > > > 3. Re: 100 billion neurons (doug) > > > > 4. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jochen Fromm) > > > > 5. Re: 100 billion neurons (Martin C. Martin) > > > > 6. Re: 100 billion neurons (Robert Cordingley) > > > > 7. Mexican Elections fraud (Carlos Gershenson) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:29:19 +0200 > > > > From: Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Google Trends - plus an unexpected(?) result > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <44B023AF.7070208 at volny.cz> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > > > > > Robert Holmes wrote: > > > > > Google now offer a product called Google Trends > > > > > (http://www.google.com/trends) which aggregates > > peoples' searches by > > > > > city, region etc. It's been described as "a place holder for the > > > > > intentions of humankind ? a massive database of > > desires, needs, wants, > > > > > and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, > > tracked, and > > > > > exploited to all sorts of ends." (From the New York Times > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?ex > > =1152763200&en > > > =94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1 > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html?e > > x=1152763200&e > > > n=94404589c34afe7e&ei=5070&emc=eta1>) > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, just for fun I type in LANL. The "Cities" tab gives the > > > > > expected results: > > > > > 1. *Los Alamos*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. *Livermore*, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. *Santa Fe*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. *Oak Ridge*, TN, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. *Albuquerque*, NM, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "Regions" tab is altogether more intriguing. > > > > > 1. *Iran* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. *United States* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. *India* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time to call our friends at Homeland Security? > > > > > > > > > Not until you make sure that "lanl" doesn't mean "holiday > > spice cake" in > > > > Persian ;-) > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > > URL: > > > > > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060708/0b8ae453/att > > achment-0001.h > > > tml > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:03:10 +0200 > > > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <000001c6a2eb$11017400$19568a54 at Toshiba> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > > > > > > > A typical human brain has about 100 billion > > (10^11=100.000.000.000) > > > neurons, > > > > > > > > but each neuron follows only very simple > > integrate-and-fire rules. If we > > > > distribute a comparatively simple program on 1.000.000 > > machines (which > > is > > > > only a small fraction of the Internet, Google alone has > > between 50.000 > > > and > > > > 100.000 machines, and SETI at home has over five million > > volunteers), and > > > each > > > > is responsible for the simulation of 100.000 neurons, > > then we come close > > > > to the capacity of the human brain. How long will it take > > until we can > > > > build such a system and connect it successfully to the real world > > > > (through a robot) or a realistic virtual world (through > > an agent) ? > > > > I guess it won't be long. As Greg Egan describes in his novel > > > > "Permutation City", at first the simulation may be much > > slower than > > > > reality, but enough computers are already there. What do > > you think ? > > > > > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > > Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:23:37 -0700 > > > > From: "doug" <doug at dougcarmichael.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <000c01c6a2ed$ec7928f0$c56b7ad0$@com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > > > "A typical human brain has about 100 billion > > (10^11=100.000.000.000) > > > > neurons, > > > > > > > > but each neuron follows only very simple > > integrate-and-fire rules.' > > > > > > > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete > > events. But isn't > > > each > > > > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution > > in which it > > sits, > > > > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple > > firing neurons? > > > > > > > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an > > infinity of analog > > > > events. > > > > > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, > > > > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:53:31 +0200 > > > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <000101c6a2f2$19cae330$19568a54 at Toshiba> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting remark, but I don't think it really works this way. > > > > It is not an infinite ensemble of an infinite number of > > analog events. > > > > A neuron fires or not - a boolean event - and spikes are certainly > > > > discrete events. The ion channels, the gradients of ions, and all > > > > the chemical substances are only the "hardware" of the brain. One > > > > could compare it to transistors, wires, etc. If the genes could > > > > produce transistors instead of proteins, they would perhaps use > > > > digital circuits. However, the interesting part seems to be the > > > > software, esp. the code which is used (if there is any). There > > > > are of course at least four different levels of modelling, > > > > from boolean networks and sigmoid networks to spiking networks, > > > > see Fig. 3 in http://www.vs.uni-kassel.de/~fromm/Articles/LI.pdf > > > > > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > > Behalf > > > > Of doug > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:24 AM > > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > > > > > Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete > > events. But isn't > > > each > > > > neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution > > in which it > > sits, > > > > the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple > > firing neurons? > > > > > > > > In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an > > infinity of analog > > > > events. > > > > > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:15:48 -0400 > > > > From: "Martin C. Martin" <martin at martincmartin.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <44B058C4.9000300 at martincmartin.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > > > > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's > > computing power to > > > > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a > > computer." I forget > > > > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > > > interesting consequences of this. > > > > > > > > - Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 6 > > > > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:56:08 -0500 > > > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <44B08C68.3090500 at cirrillian.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > I recollect that some years ago the AI community (at a > > AAAI conference I > > > > attended) claimed that each of the 10^11 neurons also had > > on average > > > > 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the > > > > brain. They also predicted we'd have a computer of > > similar power by > > > > 2015. Furrthermore it also stuck in my mind that 40% of > > the brain was > > > > claimed to be involved in vision (including reading). So these > > > > estimates lead one to think that it's going to be quite > > close to 2015 > > > > before we have a system with just the power of human > > vision. Being able > > > > to program such a machine was not part of the discussion > > at the time, > > > > which is a big question to me. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Robert Cordingley > > > > www.cirrillian.com > > > > > > > > Martin C. Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > > > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > > > > > > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's > > computing power to > > > > >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a > > computer." I forget > > > > >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > > > >interesting consequences of this. > > > > > > > > > >- Martin > > > > > > > > > >============================================================ > > > > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 7 > > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:51:21 +0200 > > > > From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Mexican Elections fraud > > > > To: ECCO ECCO <evolcomp at listserv.vub.ac.be>, The Friday Morning > > > > Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > > > > Message-ID: <7508A12F-CCA2-401B-97AF-D36C496E274F at vub.ac.be> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; > > > > format=flowed > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > This has not much to do with research, but I feel everybody should > > > > know... > > > > > > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/mexican-presidential-election- > > > > fraud.html > > > > http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-mexican-elections- > > > > fraud.html > > > > > > > > And also > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/americas/09mexico.html > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Carlos Gershenson... > > > > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > > > > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > > > > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > > > > > > > > ?Tendencies tend to change...? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Friam mailing list > > > > Friam at redfish.com > > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 > > > > ************************************ > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Gaps exists because neurons are not only the building block of the brain and the neural system, they are also cells, the basic building block of any organic lifeform. Cells existed long before any neural system (in eukaroytic and prokaryotic form). To connect neurons by synapses has the additional advantage of high flexibility and adaptivity by providing countless possible combinations that are modifiable during the "runtime" of the system, and by offering the possibility of modulation at the gaps. Emotions in general have indeed a strong correlation to modulation, they seem to be a kind of archaic control system which evaluates situations and controls the behavior (damping undesirable behavior while amplifying desirable actions). They signal the state of the system and control it at the same time - with the help of the reward system, neural modulators and reinforcment learning. It is no accident that pleasant stimuli are commonly associated with reinforcing neural modulators as dopamine. -J. -----Original Message----- From: Russell Standish Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:02 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. My guess is that the "gaps" or synapses, have a lot to do with fine tuning the amount of damping in the brain's dynamical function. It appears that brains need to operate near the "edge of chaos", and some global control system fine tuning this would be desirable. This probably explains the evolution of emotions. Phil Husband's group in Sussex have done a fair bit of work with "GasNets", which is inspired by the design, to make effective robotic controllers. Cheers |
|
|
Yes, the connection at synapses does seem to be a special case of how
cells are connected generally, through the blood stream or other medium of exchange. That relationship, cells creating a larger system by 'floating messages in a bottle' to each other is this same extremely improbable means of running things that nature uses and seems completely illogical from a machine design point of view. When cells interact with each other they just dump stuff in the stream and grab stuff from the stream (or have it sucked out of them and pushed into them), but there's actually no connection between the cells. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:01 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > > > Gaps exists because neurons are not only the building block > of the brain and the neural system, they are also cells, > the basic building block of any organic lifeform. Cells > existed long before any neural system (in eukaroytic > and prokaryotic form). To connect neurons by synapses has > the additional advantage of high flexibility and adaptivity > by providing countless possible combinations that are > modifiable during the "runtime" of the system, and > by offering the possibility of modulation at the gaps. > > Emotions in general have indeed a strong correlation to > modulation, they seem to be a kind of archaic control system > which evaluates > situations and controls the behavior (damping undesirable behavior > while amplifying desirable actions). They signal the state of > the system and control it at the same time - with the help of > the reward system, neural modulators and reinforcment > learning. It is no accident that > pleasant stimuli are commonly associated with reinforcing > neural modulators as dopamine. > > -J. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Standish > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:02 AM > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > My guess is that the "gaps" or synapses, have a lot to do > with fine tuning the amount of damping in the brain's > dynamical function. It appears that brains need to operate > near the "edge of chaos", and some global control system fine > tuning this would be desirable. > > This probably explains the evolution of emotions. > > Phil Husband's group in Sussex have done a fair bit of work > with "GasNets", which is inspired by the design, to make > effective robotic controllers. > > Cheers > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
|
|
I don't understand why it is illogical? It is a kind of "loose coupling", ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(computer_science) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loosely_Coupled ), an architecture where components can be joined together on demand. Loose coupling means low dependency and fewer undesirable side-effects. It is essential in order to achieve scalability, robustness and flexibility. A direct connection between cells instead of synapses could have disastrous consequences: one malfunctioning, damaged or infected cell could immediately affect the function of the whole system. -J. -----Original Message----- From: Phil Henshaw Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:50 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. Yes, the connection at synapses does seem to be a special case of how cells are connected generally, through the blood stream or other medium of exchange. That relationship, cells creating a larger system by 'floating messages in a bottle' to each other is this same extremely improbable means of running things that nature uses and seems completely illogical from a machine design point of view. When cells interact with each other they just dump stuff in the stream and grab stuff from the stream (or have it sucked out of them and pushed into them), but there's actually no connection between the cells. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
At birth [and before], one neuron does not "know" which other neuron to
which it should make "contact." It is from internal and external stimuli from which specific contacts are selected. The ability of the developed brain to "normally" react to an external stimuli comes from an architecture that has been created during development stages. A child raised chained and in a closet for 18 years will react differently, physically and emotionally, to external stimuli as compared to a child that has been going to school. Most if not all of the connections made during development are permanent. Synapses allows for this flexibility of "choosing" connections during development rather than being hardwired at the get go. IMHO Lou ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email]> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. Yes, the connection at synapses does seem to be a special case of how cells are connected generally, through the blood stream or other medium of exchange. That relationship, cells creating a larger system by 'floating messages in a bottle' to each other is this same extremely improbable means of running things that nature uses and seems completely illogical from a machine design point of view. When cells interact with each other they just dump stuff in the stream and grab stuff from the stream (or have it sucked out of them and pushed into them), but there's actually no connection between the cells. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:01 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > > > Gaps exists because neurons are not only the building block > of the brain and the neural system, they are also cells, > the basic building block of any organic lifeform. Cells > existed long before any neural system (in eukaroytic > and prokaryotic form). To connect neurons by synapses has > the additional advantage of high flexibility and adaptivity > by providing countless possible combinations that are > modifiable during the "runtime" of the system, and > by offering the possibility of modulation at the gaps. > > Emotions in general have indeed a strong correlation to > modulation, they seem to be a kind of archaic control system > which evaluates > situations and controls the behavior (damping undesirable behavior > while amplifying desirable actions). They signal the state of > the system and control it at the same time - with the help of > the reward system, neural modulators and reinforcment > learning. It is no accident that > pleasant stimuli are commonly associated with reinforcing > neural modulators as dopamine. > > -J. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Standish > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:02 AM > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > My guess is that the "gaps" or synapses, have a lot to do > with fine tuning the amount of damping in the brain's > dynamical function. It appears that brains need to operate > near the "edge of chaos", and some global control system fine > tuning this would be desirable. > > This probably explains the evolution of emotions. > > Phil Husband's group in Sussex have done a fair bit of work > with "GasNets", which is inspired by the design, to make > effective robotic controllers. > > Cheers > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
It was my understanding that in the first four years of life, brain
development is characterized by the selective breaking of connections. More connections exist at birth than are needed. In this way the early architecture of the brain is etched rather than written. Later we lose brain cells at the rate of 17,000 a day. It's a small percentage: over 80 yrs it amounts to 4.96*10^8 or 0.5% of a brain with 10^11 neurons. Later development, through adult life, is characteriszed by new brain connections and cells being created. Is this still accurate or is there a better picture now? Thanks Robert www.cirrillian.com Louis Macovsky, Dynamic BioSystems wrote: >At birth [and before], one neuron does not "know" which other neuron to >which it should make "contact." It is from internal and external stimuli >from which specific contacts are selected. The ability of the developed >brain to "normally" react to an external stimuli comes from an architecture >that has been created during development stages. A child raised chained and >in a closet for 18 years will react differently, physically and emotionally, >to external stimuli as compared to a child that has been going to school. >Most if not all of the connections made during development are permanent. > >Synapses allows for this flexibility of "choosing" connections during >development rather than being hardwired at the get go. > >IMHO >Lou > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> >To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" ><friam at redfish.com> >Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:49 AM >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. > > >Yes, the connection at synapses does seem to be a special case of how >cells are connected generally, through the blood stream or other medium >of exchange. That relationship, cells creating a larger system by >'floating messages in a bottle' to each other is this same extremely >improbable means of running things that nature uses and seems completely >illogical from a machine design point of view. When cells interact with >each other they just dump stuff in the stream and grab stuff from the >stream (or have it sucked out of them and pushed into them), but there's >actually no connection between the cells. > > >Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >680 Ft. Washington Ave >NY NY 10040 >tel: 212-795-4844 >e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com >explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: friam-bounces at redfish.com >>[mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm >>Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:01 AM >>To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. >> >> >> >>Gaps exists because neurons are not only the building block >>of the brain and the neural system, they are also cells, >>the basic building block of any organic lifeform. Cells >>existed long before any neural system (in eukaroytic >>and prokaryotic form). To connect neurons by synapses has >>the additional advantage of high flexibility and adaptivity >>by providing countless possible combinations that are >>modifiable during the "runtime" of the system, and >>by offering the possibility of modulation at the gaps. >> >>Emotions in general have indeed a strong correlation to >>modulation, they seem to be a kind of archaic control system >>which evaluates >>situations and controls the behavior (damping undesirable behavior >>while amplifying desirable actions). They signal the state of >>the system and control it at the same time - with the help of >>the reward system, neural modulators and reinforcment >>learning. It is no accident that >>pleasant stimuli are commonly associated with reinforcing >>neural modulators as dopamine. >> >>-J. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Russell Standish >>Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:02 AM >>To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>Coffee Group >>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. >> >>My guess is that the "gaps" or synapses, have a lot to do >>with fine tuning the amount of damping in the brain's >>dynamical function. It appears that brains need to operate >>near the "edge of chaos", and some global control system fine >>tuning this would be desirable. >> >>This probably explains the evolution of emotions. >> >>Phil Husband's group in Sussex have done a fair bit of work >>with "GasNets", which is inspired by the design, to make >>effective robotic controllers. >> >>Cheers >> >> >>============================================================ >>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060712/2485a74b/attachment.html |
|
|
I read a bunch on that when my son turned 16 and started behaving
strangely... I think that's generally correct, but there's a second big wave in adolescence. Some huge work has been done with longitudinal NMR scans I think it was. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/Publicat/teenbrain.cfm is one good link that comes up with a web search for 'teen brain scan' . There's also been a long series of discoveries on how neurons remain somewhat adaptable throughout life and able to regrow in some circumstances, though I still have nerves I injured as a kid and still don't work about the same. One of the really interesting things about nerve cells I think is accurate to say is that they develop like arteries and capillaries, branching out within the body, being drawn to where they're needed apparently (and then provided in overabundance which is shed as some later time for some reason...). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Cordingley Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:30 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. It was my understanding that in the first four years of life, brain development is characterized by the selective breaking of connections. More connections exist at birth than are needed. In this way the early architecture of the brain is etched rather than written. Later we lose brain cells at the rate of 17,000 a day. It's a small percentage: over 80 yrs it amounts to 4.96*10^8 or 0.5% of a brain with 10^11 neurons. Later development, through adult life, is characteriszed by new brain connections and cells being created. Is this still accurate or is there a better picture now? Thanks Robert www.cirrillian.com Louis Macovsky, Dynamic BioSystems wrote: At birth [and before], one neuron does not "know" which other neuron to which it should make "contact." It is from internal and external stimuli from which specific contacts are selected. The ability of the developed brain to "normally" react to an external stimuli comes from an architecture that has been created during development stages. A child raised chained and in a closet for 18 years will react differently, physically and emotionally, to external stimuli as compared to a child that has been going to school. Most if not all of the connections made during development are permanent. Synapses allows for this flexibility of "choosing" connections during development rather than being hardwired at the get go. IMHO Lou ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Henshaw" <mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. Yes, the connection at synapses does seem to be a special case of how cells are connected generally, through the blood stream or other medium of exchange. That relationship, cells creating a larger system by 'floating messages in a bottle' to each other is this same extremely improbable means of running things that nature uses and seems completely illogical from a machine design point of view. When cells interact with each other they just dump stuff in the stream and grab stuff from the stream (or have it sucked out of them and pushed into them), but there's actually no connection between the cells. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:01 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. Gaps exists because neurons are not only the building block of the brain and the neural system, they are also cells, the basic building block of any organic lifeform. Cells existed long before any neural system (in eukaroytic and prokaryotic form). To connect neurons by synapses has the additional advantage of high flexibility and adaptivity by providing countless possible combinations that are modifiable during the "runtime" of the system, and by offering the possibility of modulation at the gaps. Emotions in general have indeed a strong correlation to modulation, they seem to be a kind of archaic control system which evaluates situations and controls the behavior (damping undesirable behavior while amplifying desirable actions). They signal the state of the system and control it at the same time - with the help of the reward system, neural modulators and reinforcment learning. It is no accident that pleasant stimuli are commonly associated with reinforcing neural modulators as dopamine. -J. -----Original Message----- From: Russell Standish Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:02 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Neurons. My guess is that the "gaps" or synapses, have a lot to do with fine tuning the amount of damping in the brain's dynamical function. It appears that brains need to operate near the "edge of chaos", and some global control system fine tuning this would be desirable. This probably explains the evolution of emotions. Phil Husband's group in Sussex have done a fair bit of work with "GasNets", which is inspired by the design, to make effective robotic controllers. Cheers ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060712/7fb4b043/attachment-0001.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |