Robot Dreams

Rick Craik NOSPAMrcraik at
Fri Sep 15 09:44:27 EST 2000

George Bajszar wrote in message <8ps9qn$nf2$1 at>...
>In article <hq5w5.82708$UO.258456 at>,
>  "Rick Craik" <NOSPAMrcraik at> wrote:
>> George Bajszar wrote in message <8pq1o7$uq$1 at>...
>> >In article <39BFF09B.1FAC at>,
>> >  jgcasey at wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >Perhaps what is happening is that neurons generate
>> >random noise with their signals in the background of
>> >our attention,
>> What other ways of generating signals that appear
>> random do we have? How about "chaotic", "arbitrary",
>> or "out of tune" for examples.

>In general if an independent component that can fit or blend naturally
>into a system of other already functioning components, it must be
>harmonious, synchronized with the other components. The smooth
>harmonious functionality of a working system is the "music" of the
>Perhaps in a way that is what you were referring to in the information
>processing level.

In a way, yes. It is more of a good inference of what I was refering to.
It does fit well, and I do not find it at all disagreable. It reveals
the "neuron generates random noise" from a new perspective.

The "random noise" can be viewed as dissonance; a harsh,
disagreeable combination of sounds. The disagreeable
combinations may be what your dreaming theory is trying
to resolve. Dischord does not have to build up from "random"
frequencies, it can build up from "random" tones of an
existing scale of frequencies. We can get carried away here
and start seeing "tuning" to a scale, or "tuning" to a chord, and
so on. There may be something useful here, I don't know.

I just think your "random noise" is a place holder in your
theory, and could bear some closer scrutiny that might
provide more insights. And if we find a mechanism that
provides emergent properties that appear like the above,
then all the better. It is that particular mechanism used in
a neuron that is interesting.

>I also think that information received through sensory inputs
>might be represented as unique waves:
>Perhaps the memories storing the image of an apple might
>represent similar brainwaves to the brainwaves sparked by
>our eyes when seeing an actual apple.

Whoa there. For a naive view, this is ok. Brainwaves and neuron
wave trains are two different things. The "unique waves" holds
some promise. Perhaps a Fourier analysis can show this
relationship, but it looks like a tough nut to crack. But I wouldn't
recommend pursuing brainwaves as information at the neuron
scale. Perhaps there is some entrainment value that might
support the "out of tune" view.

> Perhaps we can visualize an apple in our mind because the
>brainwaves of the memory of the apple's image sparks the
>same waves and those waves are received by the same
>neurons whose job is to transmit images from our eyes into
>our brain.

I'd have to throw out this description, and rework it for it
to make more sense to me. How about:

  Perhaps we can visualize an apple in our mind because the
  [unique waves, a chord,] of the apple's image is in memory.
  [Strike the same chord] and [that chord is] received by the same
  neurons whose job is to transmit images from our eyes into
  our brain.

Close enough, I was restricted by your grammer. :)

>I think the theory I described above is quite old, it makes sense but
>perhaps noone really knows if that corresponds with the reality.
>Experiments have been made to record brain waves received during visual
>inputs and were retransmit back somehow to the brain to see if those
>images would reappear in our consciousness. Those particular experiment

Of course they would, if viewed as above.

>We may observe waves in the brain, but as far as information is
>concerned, the reality may be more digital in nature. What may be
>important or relevant is individual neuron level activity. Brain waves
>may be just a sideeffect we are observing of repetative neuron
>activities. The image from the eye's retina cells are transmitted
>individually to neurons where the information moves from neuron to
>neuron, and is processed maybe independently.

I concur.

>But then again, it may be otherwise, I don't know.

Hope this helps,

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list