<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: John's brain - Frances Bolton</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"> Hello everyone, <TT>Frances Bolton </TT><TT>Once again, you offer an irrelevant challenge. Why does finding "rules in the brain" prove anything? Doyle If one canąt find rules in the brain that proves that the brain works with neural networks not with logical rules like a universal grammar rule that Chomsky proposes.  That is really the debate as I understand these things and subsumes the questions that SnitgrrRl asks concerning morality, because SnitgrrRl is asking how can we get along without argumentation and logic in human affairs.  So in some sense a cultural "norm" such as logic and for instance logical positivism rest upon false assumptions.  In addition certain kinds of guesses about what is right and wrong about how the mind works can be directly addressed.  For example Frances writes; Frances One cannot think or engage in discourse without Logic Or Frances Here is one of the reasons I think your project is doomed to failure. It is neither simple nor elegant Doyle I have often heard such a statement with regard to math, i.e. a theorem is simple and elegant.  Neural networks donąt solve problems in the same way as formal logic works, so it would be inappropriate to characterize them as simple and elegant.  If anything human brains are the most complex system in the universe, with a lot of evolved structures which are adaptations to new uses, and not in an engineering sense elegant and simple.  But neural networks are what the brain does and is composed of.  In addition neural networks can produce logical operations, hence human beings invented logic, but to confuse logic with how the mind works is an indication of a confusion about thinking that needs to be resolved.  Is the brain a logical engine is what you seem to be claiming Frances. Frances The last part of the above section sounds like you are using NS simply because you know about it and think you have authority in this area. Doyle I have no personal authority in anything. I have a right to raise what I think is important.  If what I raise rests upon some kind of material foundation then that is all I can claim to.  That is a form of authority in the sense that materialism gives the working class a basis in reality to judge whether something is true or not in plain old every day life. Frances I wonder if perhaps you take more seriously the criticisms leveled at your theory‹if your subject were the bible instead of NS, I would have to label you a religious fundamentalist. Doyle First off it is always a concern that one might be a religious fundamentalist, because we want to not be compelled by others rigid belief systems to obey arbitrary rules.  Or more generally that someone one talks to, has compulsive tendencies in their thinking pattern.  What does religious fundamentalism mean in a brain sense?  Or sectarian politics, or dysfunctional family patterns?  These are more readily understood in terms of neural network functioning than just labeling of someone as a religious fundamentalist.  In other words Frances calls me a religious fundamentalist, but what scientifically is a religious fundamentalist? Doyle I have a paradigm of how the brain works in my mind. Since paradigms are debated in science one finds something that works to explain a field of work.  One finds a theory being used publicly in journals and in teaching.  In this case neural networks give me new insights into how the mind works but is an established opinion (independent of my understanding completely) in academic discussions about the mind.   Doyle In regard to religious fundamentalism I think neural network research gives us some means to directly understand what happens to minds when the forces of sectarianism (or more concretely when high stress shapes the mind) take hold of ones thoughts.  I would hope then that we can understand why people become rigid and dogmatic in whatever human activity we encounter. Frances Well, it might be exciting to you, but it is pseudoscience in the Popperian sense. Your claim that everything is reducible to neural networks holds the same scientific value as astrology, or creationism. It is completely unverifiable. It is a myth. How can you talk about brain functions without at the same time talking about interpersoanl and human-environment interactions? Do you really suppose that these neural networks evolved in a vacuum? And do you suppose that NS evolved in a socio-political vacuum? Obviously this work was done by people with prior epistemological/philosophical/political committments, and traces of that is in there work. To assume that science, any science, not just NS, is objectively true seems to be naive at best. Doyle I donąt know Popper.  You advise me elsewhere to read articles about what is wrong with scientific reductionism.  Ok that is fine, but that doesnąt prove anything about a neural network.  In other words capitalism is wrong is a "moral" belief I hold for what that is worth, and most U.S. science gets done under capitalism, so is the science about neural networks wrong from a materialist and Marxist perspective? Doyle To say neural networks have the same scientific value as astrology or creationism is simply to say I have a belief system that is not scientifically or materially grounded.  Perhaps a better analogy from your point of view, Frances, would be the chemists who claimed cold fusion in the nineteen eighties because they let their imaginations run wild about the experiments they conducted.  You are using scientific standards to criticize what I am saying.  Ok maybe what I am raising will be falsified in a scientific sense elsewhere. And then like most people in that place they or I would have to admit my understanding was wrong materially and move on to the better theoretical understanding or perhaps cling to a position until death like a religious fundamentalist.  In any case better theory displaces theory that canąt explain as well independent of personal opinion.  But I am not a scientist and that will be done elsewhere by other people whom I canąt control and they donąt give a damn what I think anyway.   Doyle No I donąt think neural networks evolved in a vacuum.  That is why neural networks are interesting because they have a natural history in evolution through many animals, through many millions of years, and through the genetic code structures.  The functioning of neural networks explain why we make writing systems the way we do because the way neural networks work forces us to conform the writing system to the networks in principle.  They better explain the origin of language.  They explain human social institutions in new ways.  They supplant older paradigms (in the Kuhn sense of paradigm) such as those that rely exclusively upon logical thinking as the main foundation for human thought. Doyle Let me say again how much I appreciate you telling how you feel about my words.  While I know you reject my views as fatally doomed, I think it is necessary to include how people feel about what they express. I think we cannot have purely "rational" discussion that are human, and therefore any sort of public acknowledgement of how we feel is very welcome from my point of view, and is more useful than are statements trimmed of the feelings to make the logical argumentation more clear.  I would gather that continuing to discuss this with you Frances, is not what you want to do.  I will not direct anything else toward you unless you make it clear you what some more opinion from me.  I appreciate what you have said to me in the whole of this.  Your strong feelings were welcome.  Take good care of yourself. Regards, Doyle </TT> </BODY> </HTML>