monkeys learn to use brain-machine interface

BilZ0r BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com
Tue Oct 14 15:58:37 EST 2003


You're not aware of a very common bit of neural network jargon, yet you 
think you've explained consciousness? And you wonder why no one takes you 
seriously.


"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:UjVib.1013$Ec1.92917
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Why does it matter?
> 
> Global integation of TD E/I-minimization
> is what Unifies Consciousness.
> 
> A typo is fixed below.
> 
> k. p. collins
> 
> "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:buTib.178086$0v4.13692702 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>| "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
>| news:Xns94148DDA6D76ABilZ0rhotmailcom at 202.20.93.13...
>| | No neccassarily Ken, Its possible that the
>| | nuerons could control both the
>| | implant and whatever task they
>| | had before. At least with my
>| | understanding of current Neural
>| | network stuff dealing with
>| | Catastrophic Forgetting.
>|
>| I'm not familiar with any work that's
>| referred to as "Catostophic Forgetting"
>| [or are you 'buzzing' me with respect
>| to the fact that I do not reiterate every-
>| thing I've ever posted in every msg I
>| post? :-], but the basics of the stuff you
>| address are handled within the "super-
>| system configuration" discussion of AoK,
>| Ap5. See the rest of AoK [in particular,
>| the rest of Ap5, Ap6 & Ap7] for higher-
>| 'level' discussions of the same-stuff.
>|
>| The =specific= thing that I discussed
>| in the post to which you've replied [and
>| which is not included in what you've
>| quoted below] is that the implant
>| remains non-globally-integrated with
>| respect to globally-integrated TD E/I-
>| minimization dynamics that are innate
>| within 'normal' nervous systems.
>|
>| This means that the implant's circuitry
>| will constitute a non-TD E/I-minimizable
>| 'dynamic' to the rest of the nervous
>| system, and the nervous system's inform-
>| ation-processing dynamics will, therefore,
>| be 'attracted' to TD E/I-minimizing these
>| non-TD E/I-minimizable dynamics - which
>| is why the implant will Dictate to the nervous
>| system in a way that transforms it into some-
>| thing other than a [Human] Nervous System - which <<<
>| is the wellspring of the information-proces-
>| sing deficits that the implant will introduce,
>| and which I wrote about in my prior post.
>|
>| It's =not= that a nervous system cannot
>| alter itself with respect to the implant. It
>| can, and will.
>|
>| It's that the implant cannot 'play-fair' with
>| respect to =globally-integrated= TD E/I-
>| minimization.
>|
>| The point is subtle, but Huge.
>|
>| I'd have to read the article - in order to
>| analyze the external processing that the
>| coupled hardware/software do - to be able
>| to say more [and I've not been able to
>| access it] , but, say, the Researchers
>| have built an analogue of TD E/I-minimiza-
>| tion into such external processing.
>|
>| That could have functionality that =is= Use-
>| ful with respect to 'overcoming' prior Trauma
>| to the nervous system.
>|
>| But it cannot replicate the nervous system's
>| innate information-processing capacities, be-
>| cause there's just no way to achieve the
>| necessary global integration with respect to
>| TD E/I-minimization. Attempts to achieve such
>| would necessitate so much 'wiring' that they
>| would kill the nervous system, and its host
>| organism - and, unless, it were done via a
>| transplant [an awesomely-fancy one] there'd
>| still be no "functional multiplexing" [AoK, Ap9]
>| in-there, and that stuff is necessary if globally-
>| integrated TD E/I-minimization is to occur as
>| it does within 'normal' [organically-intact]
>| nervous systems.
>|
>| There's =HUGE= 'subtlty' in the energydynamics
>| of nervous systems [of brains]. It's all in-there
>| for information-processing reasons. To replicate
>| nervous systems' information-processing
>| dynamics, given the fact that such 'replication' is
>| to occur 'within' a nervous system ['cyborg'-wise],
>| it has to be done the way nervous systems do it.
>|
>| If the goal is an entirely-machine 'replication', the
>| problem is entirely-different. A machine can model
>| nervous system dynamics in a successive-approx-
>| imation way in which global-integration of the
>| machine's 'td e/i-minimization' analogue is also
>| 'maintained' in a successive-approximation way.
>| What =cannot= be done via 'machines'
>| is to interface them with Living nervous systems
>| in a globally-integrated-TD E/I-minimizing way -
>| be-cause the demands of such not-in-accord-
>| with-the-genetic-'blueprint' 'wiring' would kill
>| the nervous system, and still not be anywhere
>| near what's right-there in an organically-intact
>| nervous system. [It would still lack the 'Coulomb
>| force' DNA-RNA tuning capabilities that I've
>| been discussing in other threads both recently,
>| and in long-former posts ["3-D energydynamics"]
>|
>| Again, this's =not= to say that implants cannot
>| partially-address deficits that derive in organic
>| damage to a nervous system.
>|
>| I've explicitly discussed all of this stuff, repeatedly,
>| in long-former posts. Perhaps you missed them?
>|
>| See, the thing is that nervous systems are Truly-
>| Wonderous. There's just no going-in-there, muck-
>| ing-about, and coming-out with 'enhanced' inform-
>| ation-processing capabilities.
>|
>| The WP article, for instance, talked about weapons-
>| system applications - giving G.I.'s implants that'd
>| enable them to do this or that interfacing with
>| weapons systems via 'thought'.
>|
>| I expect that's possible, but it'd come at the Cost
>| of the G. I.'s being rendered incapable of achieving
>| 'normal' Thought - which is "A Bridge Too Far", and
>| all of the Consequences inherent.
>|
>| Such 'proposals' are, in fact, 'Hilarious'.
>|
>| Everything that those who 'propose' thusly can be
>| accomplished by simply allowing NDT's under-
>| standing to be generally-Communicated.
>|
>| Why 'slice-n-dice' when you can 'just' Understand,
>| and achieve far-more-Worthy-of-our-Humanity
>| Stuff while eliminating the 'rationale' for 'weapons
>| systems'?
>|
>| Why alter nervous systems when you can 'just'
>| Use them in accord with their innate informa-
>| tion-processing Capabilities?
>|
>| All this said, I do Hope that the Researchers do
>| not relent until they've become capable of assisting
>| nervous-system-injured individuals.
>|
>| [With respect to the rest [going into 'normal'
>| nervous systems], I Hope that folks'll at least
>| meet with me, in-person, before they decide to
>| Learn the Hard way about the stuff I've discussed
>| in this and my prior posts addressing the same-
>| stuff.]
>|
>| If I've not sufficiently-addressed what you have
>| in-mind, then Please cut-to-the-chase, and
>| explicitly state whatever it is that you want
>| discussed and/or addressed.
>|
>| ken [k. p. collins]
>|
>| | "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:t_wib.175626
>| | $0v4.13511734 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>| |
>| | > Prior to the implant procedures, these
>| | > neurons were doing something else.
>| | >
>| | > The implant has, literally, taken over
>| | > control of the monkey's nervous system.
>|
>|
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list