> I simply don't buy the argument that the algorithms of cognition inherit any substantial amount of functionality from their physical implementation
I'm somewhere in the middle on that. I wish for things biological to be clear-cut and deterministic enough that we can fully understand them the way we understand mechanical systems.
But precisely because the brain is encoded in precious little DNA there is some evidence that there is more to it than meets the eye, after all if 50M of gzipped data can encode the whole thing why do we have such a hard time understanding it.
There is enough repetition in there that some died-in-the-wool reverse engineer would have put 2 and 2 together by now if the secret was in the wiring or in some simple algorithm (ANNs for instance).
Apparent order appearing from chaos is a field that has seen some study and the amount of complexity that can arise form simple starting data is quite amazing, witness the mandelbrot set and other fractal forms.
It may be very hard to short-circuit such understanding and to 'divine' the workings of the formula without first going the long way around to understand the whole system rather than the 'seed' from which it grows. This is not simple mathematics where a simple equation on complex numbers gives you the mandelbrot set, it's possibly machinery interpreting an equation with 50 million terms.
In different terms, given a very distorted (dissected) picture of the 3 dimensional mandelbrot set would you be able to figure out the formula that gave rise to it without prior knowledge of the mathematics involved?
FWIW, I'm not too far away from you on this - I don't think we are going to find a very simple algorithm to do whatever general pattern recognition the brain does. All indications suggest that while there may be such an algorithm programmed in and repeated (a lot more times in humans than other animals), it's far too complex for us to simply read off or guess at.
But it does suggest that we should be considering the functions that such higher level units might have, such that they become more intelligent as we compose them. Easier said than done,of course, especially since it's very difficult to actually observe brain dynamics in any detail.
I'm somewhere in the middle on that. I wish for things biological to be clear-cut and deterministic enough that we can fully understand them the way we understand mechanical systems.
But precisely because the brain is encoded in precious little DNA there is some evidence that there is more to it than meets the eye, after all if 50M of gzipped data can encode the whole thing why do we have such a hard time understanding it.
There is enough repetition in there that some died-in-the-wool reverse engineer would have put 2 and 2 together by now if the secret was in the wiring or in some simple algorithm (ANNs for instance).
Apparent order appearing from chaos is a field that has seen some study and the amount of complexity that can arise form simple starting data is quite amazing, witness the mandelbrot set and other fractal forms.
It may be very hard to short-circuit such understanding and to 'divine' the workings of the formula without first going the long way around to understand the whole system rather than the 'seed' from which it grows. This is not simple mathematics where a simple equation on complex numbers gives you the mandelbrot set, it's possibly machinery interpreting an equation with 50 million terms.
In different terms, given a very distorted (dissected) picture of the 3 dimensional mandelbrot set would you be able to figure out the formula that gave rise to it without prior knowledge of the mathematics involved?
http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/2mandelbulb.html#epi...