DOCSLIB.ORG

The Brain As Artificial Intelligence : Prospecting the Frontiers of Neuroscience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Brain As Artificial Intelligence : Prospecting the Frontiers of Neuroscience Original citation: Fuller, Steve (2018) The brain as artificial intelligence : prospecting the frontiers of neuroscience. AI & SOCIETY .doi:10.1007/s00146-018-0820-1 Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/101005 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. This article is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) and may be reused according to the conditions of the license. For more details see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ A note on versions: The version presented in WRAP is the published version, or, version of record, and may be cited as it appears here. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications AI & SOCIETY https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0820-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The brain as artificial intelligence: prospecting the frontiers of neuroscience Steve Fuller1 Received: 12 March 2017 / Accepted: 24 January 2018 © The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract This article explores the proposition that the brain, normally seen as an organ of the human body, should be understood as a biologically based form of artificial intelligence, in the course of which the case is made for a new kind of ‘brain exception- alism’. After noting that such a view was generally assumed by the founders of AI in the 1950s, the argument proceeds by drawing on the distinction between science—in this case neuroscience—adopting a ‘telescopic’ or a ‘microscopic’ orientation to reality, depending on how it regards its characteristic investigative technologies. The paper concludes by recommending a ‘microscopic’ yet non-reductionist research agenda for neuroscience, in which the brain is seen as an underutilised organ whose energy efficiency is likely to outstrip that of the most powerful supercomputers for the foreseeable future. Keywords Brain exceptionalism · Cognitive agriculture · Microscope · Neural nets · Neuroscience · Reductionism · Supercomputer · Telescope In what follows, I explore the proposition that the brain, nor- long term may see organically grown neural networks—if mally seen as an organ of the human body, should be under- not full-fledged brains—carrying out many if not most of stood as a biologically based form of artificial intelligence the functions that nowadays are taken to be the purview of (AI). As I observe in the “Introduction”, this proposition silicon-based computers. In this respect, I am arguing for was assumed by the founders of AI in the 1950s, though it a new kind of ‘brain exceptionalism’, one based not on the has been generally side-lined over the course of AI’s history. brain’s natural mysteries but on its relative energy efficiency However, advances in both neuroscience and more conven- vis-à-vis competing (silicon) technologies. tional AI make it interesting to consider the issue anew. The main body of the paper approaches the matter from a dis- tinction that the philosopher Bas van Fraassen has drawn in 1 Introduction: the brain as a work terms of science adopting a ‘telescopic’ or a ‘microscopic’ in progress orientation to reality. The history of neuroscience has exhib- ited both tendencies from its inception, not least in terms of The history of artificial intelligence (AI) is normally told in the alternative functions performed by the field’s character- terms of three research strategies that coalesced in the wake istic technologies. Appreciating the full implications of this of the Macy Conferences, which were first held at Dartmouth distinction requires escaping from the ‘reductionist’ prob- College in 1956: one focused on neural networks, one on lematic that continues to haunt philosophical discussions of cybernetic systems and one simply on computational power neuroscience’s aspirations as a mode of inquiry. As becomes (Gardner 1985: Chap. 6). The third, which carried the least clear by the Conclusion, my own preference is for an ambi- ontological baggage, became the dominant understanding of tious ‘microscopic’ agenda for neuroscience, which in the AI. A striking feature of all three strategies—which perhaps helps to explain the dominance of the third—is the failure to clearly distinguish modelling and making the target phe- * Steve Fuller [email protected] nomenon, ‘intelligence’ (Dupuy 2000: Chap. 2). This may have been to do with the preponderance of mathematicians 1 Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology, Department among the AI founders, who privileged the search for ana- of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, lytic clarity over the need to provide concrete instantiation, UK Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 AI & SOCIETY sometimes to the exasperation of interloping physicists assumption that the way in which biological brains instanti- (Malapi-Nelson 2017: Chaps. 7–8). ate intelligence captures something deep about intelligence To be sure, this persistent ambiguity has contributed to itself, which remains untapped if we only focus on the the Turing Test’s iconic status as popular culture’s portal brain’s known functionalities, as these may simply reflect the into the world of AI. After all, the test’s fascination rests on specific pathways through which brains have so far evolved. the difficulty that humans normally have in distinguishing a In other words, what McCulloch and Pitts had captured ‘natural’ from an ‘artificial’ intelligence (i.e. a fellow human was the idea that the organic is organized—not only that from an android) simply based on the candidate being’s per- brains perform as they do because of the environments in formance in response to their questions. It led one of the AI which they have been so far placed, but also that in differ- pioneers, psychiatrist Ross Ashby, to quip that passing the ent environments brains would behave in (potentially better) Turing test simply meant that questioner and respondent had ways precisely because of their material composition. The established a common standard of something they agree to latter point, which also informs the thinking behind contem- call ‘intelligence’ without saying what it is. For Ashby, the porary ‘synthetic biology’, envisages the genes and cells that ‘brain’ was whatever could reliably enable an entity to pass compose ‘natural’ living beings as literal building blocks— such a test, regardless of its material composition (Malapi- self-contained energy modules, if you will—that could be Nelson 2017: Chap. 6). This orientation to intelligence is ‘organized’ to produce new (and improved) bio-based edi- rather like the economist’s view that a good’s value is simply fices by drawing on the expertise of both biologists and engi- the price that it fetches in a free market or, perhaps more to neers (Church and Regis 2012; cf.; Fuller 2016a). The most the point, the Popperian view that what both scientists and obvious precedent for this line of thought is capitalism’s lay people mean by ‘true’ is simply whatever passes critical default understanding of labour as an underutilised produc- scrutiny. In each of these cases, the normative standard— tive force or unexploited potential that may be improved by intelligence, value and truth—functions as a reversible con- ‘better organisation’. Indeed, one of the British AI pioneers, vention rather than as a fixed essence. Stafford Beer, picked up on this point to become one of the However, the blurring of the natural/artificial distinction early exemplars of the ‘management guru’ (Pickering 2010: cannot simply be reduced to the abstractness—or ontologi- Chap. 6). The final section of this paper revisits this sensibil- cal neutrality—of the AI research agenda itself. After all, ity via ‘cognitive agriculture’. the one arguably ‘natural’ focus of AI research, the brain, To be sure, more than a half-century after AI’s original has itself always been regarded within this tradition a work encounters with the brain, biochemistry continues to offer in progress, an artefact in the making. Indeed, Ashby pub- much the same appraisal of the organ’s self-creative capac- lished a book in 1952 with the bold title, Design for a Brain. ity, even in its natural carbon-centred terms: human genes Moreover, the original AI researchers specifically focused produce 100 billion neurons that are only locally organised on the brain—Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts—did not at an individual’s birth but become more globally integrated try to model the entire organ in terms of its multiple known through repeated experience and feedback over the individ- functionalities, which one might think would have been the ual’s lifetime (Williams and Frausto da Silva 2007: 483). most logical way to go and is probably the dominant sense Observations of this sort have helped to fuel the recent inter- in which AI researchers today think about the prospect of est in ‘epigenetics’, with its promise of training up an always computers possessing ‘brains’. Instead they constructed an only partially formed brain via a cocktail of chemicals and idealised version of the biological brain’s functional equiva- external stimuli, even to the point of allowing for an ‘adult lent to an atom, the neuron. Vast combinations of these neu- neurogenesis’ (Rubin 2009). rons were portrayed as engaged in the parallel processing of But more directly relevant for our purposes, this general data from a variety of sensory sources, resulting in emergent ‘neuroplastic’ understanding of the brain casts doubt on the patterns of co-activity which over time become so integrated popular but crude distinction that the brain is ‘hardware’ to that they then—and only then—constitute a ‘brain’. the mind’s ‘software’. The metaphor jars because it suggests In effect, McCulloch and Pitts had proposed to grow a too strong an association between computer hardware and brain in a silicon setting.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Neuroscience and Critique
    NEUROSCIENCE AND CRITIQUE Recent years have seen a rapid growth in neuroscientific research, and an expansion beyond basic research to incorporate elements of the arts, humanities and social sciences. Some have suggested that the neurosciences will bring about major transformations in the understand- ing of our selves, our culture and our society. Ongoing debates within psychology, philoso- phy and literature about the implications of these developments within the neurosciences, and the emerging fields of educational neuroscience, neuroeconomics and neuro-aesthetics also bear witness to a “neurological turn” which is currently taking place. Neuroscience and Critique is a groundbreaking edited collection that reflects on the impact of neuroscience in contemporary social science and the humanities. It is the first book to consider possibilities for a critique of the theories, practices and implications of contemporary neuroscience. Bringing together leading scholars from several disciplines, the contributors draw upon a range of perspectives, including cognitive neuroscience, critical philosophy, psychoanalysis and feminism, and also critically examine several key ideas in contemporary neuroscience, including: • The idea of “neural personhood” • Theories of emotion in affective neuroscience • Empathy, intersubjectivity and the notion of “embodied simulation” • The concept of an “emo-rational” actor within neuroeconomics The volume will stimulate further debate in the emerging field of interdisciplinary studies in neuroscience and will appeal to researchers and advanced students in a number of disciplines, including psychology, philosophy and critical studies. Jan De Vos is a post-doctoral FWO Research Fellow at the Centre for Critical Philosophy at Ghent University, Belgium. His main research area is that of the neurological turn and its implications for ideology critique.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation of Neuroscience
    The Creation of Neuroscience The Society for Neuroscience and the Quest for Disciplinary Unity 1969-1995 Introduction rom the molecular biology of a single neuron to the breathtakingly complex circuitry of the entire human nervous system, our understanding of the brain and how it works has undergone radical F changes over the past century. These advances have brought us tantalizingly closer to genu- inely mechanistic and scientifically rigorous explanations of how the brain’s roughly 100 billion neurons, interacting through trillions of synaptic connections, function both as single units and as larger ensem- bles. The professional field of neuroscience, in keeping pace with these important scientific develop- ments, has dramatically reshaped the organization of biological sciences across the globe over the last 50 years. Much like physics during its dominant era in the 1950s and 1960s, neuroscience has become the leading scientific discipline with regard to funding, numbers of scientists, and numbers of trainees. Furthermore, neuroscience as fact, explanation, and myth has just as dramatically redrawn our cultural landscape and redefined how Western popular culture understands who we are as individuals. In the 1950s, especially in the United States, Freud and his successors stood at the center of all cultural expla- nations for psychological suffering. In the new millennium, we perceive such suffering as erupting no longer from a repressed unconscious but, instead, from a pathophysiology rooted in and caused by brain abnormalities and dysfunctions. Indeed, the normal as well as the pathological have become thoroughly neurobiological in the last several decades. In the process, entirely new vistas have opened up in fields ranging from neuroeconomics and neurophilosophy to consumer products, as exemplified by an entire line of soft drinks advertised as offering “neuro” benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Final (Sept 17, 2012)
    Program Final (Sept 17, 2012) Where not otherwise indicated, the chair of the session is the final speaker. Session 1 - Thurs 1:30pm - 3pm Session 1 (D) Frontier 202A Disease and Subjectivity M.K. Nixon. Keep Bleeding: Hemorrhagic Sores, Trade, and the Necessity of Leaky Boundaries in Defoe’s Journal of the Plague Year This paper considers the way in which nonhuman contagious disease is crucial in shaping human subjectivity. To this end, this essay probes notions of two boundaries that are both political and personal—the border between the national subject and the international other, and the boundary between the self and all that lies outside of it—in a consideration of Daniel Defoe’s 1722 text, A Journal of the Plague Year. Operating from the notion that the personal is indeed political, this essay asserts that these two borders are largely intertwined, particularly when considering infectious diseases. By way of examining attitudes towards national and personal boundaries, this paper focuses in large part on Defoe’s representation of the eponymous buboes of the bubonic plague, juxtaposing and exploring his depiction of suppurated and calcified bubonic sores as metonymic signifiers of both personal and national boundaries that are transgressed or fortified, respectively. Examination of Defoe’s illustration of bubonic sores shows that Defoe depicted the Great Plague of 1665 in ways that I assert were thoroughly influenced by his conceptualization of international trade—a conceptualization which resisted the nationalistic xenophobia typical of his day and instead embraced a type of individualistic mercantilism. Defoe’s views on economics and trade, then, influenced his understanding of the Great Plague and cycled back to result in a view of man and nation that advocates permeable boundaries even in response to the hugely threatening potential of a complete breakdown of self- and nation-constituting borders.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Neuroscience
    Choudhury_bindex.indd 391 7/22/2011 4:08:46 AM Critical Neuroscience Choudhury_ffirs.indd i 7/22/2011 4:37:11 AM Choudhury_ffirs.indd ii 7/22/2011 4:37:11 AM Critical Neuroscience A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience Edited by Suparna Choudhury and Jan Slaby A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication Choudhury_ffirs.indd iii 7/22/2011 4:37:11 AM This edition first published 2012 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Suparna Choudhury and Jan Slaby to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment, Culture, and the Brain New Explorations in Neurohistory
    Perspectives Environment, Culture, and the Brain New Explorations in Neurohistory Edited by EDMUND RUSSELL 2012 / 6 RCC Perspectives Environment, Culture, and the Brain New Explorations in Neurohistory Edited by Edmund Russell 2012 / 6 Environment, Culture, and the Brain 3 About the Authors Peter Becker teaches modern history at the University of Vienna. His main research interests are in the history of public administration, criminology, and policing. More recently he has embarked on a research project on the recurrence of biological think- ing in social research and social policy with a focus on the role of neurosciences in public discourse. Benedikt Berninger is an associate professor of physiological chemistry at the Johan- nes Gutenberg University Mainz. His research in neurobiology focuses on forcing fate conversion of somatic cells into neurons by a process called “reprogramming.” The essay “Causality and the Brain” in this volume was inspired by his interest in history and philosophy of history. Kirsten Brukamp is a research fellow in theoretical medicine at RWTH Aachen Uni- versity. She specializes in bioethics and neuroethics and holds degrees in medicine, philosophy, and cognitive science. Carlos Collado Seidel is a professor of modern and contemporary history at the Uni- versity of Marburg. His main research fields are comparative European history and the contemporary history of Spain. Together with Karin Meissner, he is currently working on a research project on neurological processes during decision-making in politics and diplomacy. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is closely associated with the field of “social epistemology,” which is also the name of a quarterly journal he founded in 1987.
    [Show full text]
  • Violence on the Brain: a Critique of Neuroscience in Criminal Law
    VIOLENCE ON THE BRAIN: A CRITIQUE OF NEUROSCIENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW Amanda C. Pustilnik* Is there such a thing as a criminally "violent brain"? Does it make sense to speak of "the neurobiology of violence" or the "psychopathology of crime"? Is it possible to answer on a physiological level what makes one person engage in criminal violence and another not, under similar circumstances? Current research in law and neuroscience is promising to answer these questions with a "yes." Some legal scholars working in this area claim that we are close to realizing the "early criminologists' dream of identifying the biological roots of criminality." These hopes for a neuroscientific transformation of the criminal law, although based in the newest research, are part of a very old story. Criminal law and neuroscience have been engaged in an ill-fated and sometimes tragic affair for over two hundred years. Three issues have recurred that track those that bedeviled earlierefforts to ground criminal law in brain sciences. First is the claim that the brain is often the most relevant or fundamental level at which to understand criminal conduct. Second is that the various phenomena we call "criminal violence" arise causally from dysfunction within specific locations in the brain ("localization"). Third is the related claim that, because much violent criminality arises from brain dysfunction, people who commit such acts are biologically different from typical people ("alterity"or "otherizing"). This Article first demonstrates parallels between certain current claims about the neurobiology of criminal violence and past movements that were concerned with the law and * Climenko Fellow & Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael M. Merzenich
    Michael M. Merzenich BORN: Lebanon, Oregon May 15, 1942 EDUCATION: Public Schools, Lebanon, Oregon (1924–1935) University of Portland (Oregon), B.S. (1965) Johns Hopkins University, Ph.D. (1968) University of Wisconsin Postdoctoral Fellow (1968–1971) APPOINTMENTS: Assistant and Associate Professor, University of California at San Francisco (1971–1980) Francis A. Sooy Professor, University of California at San Francisco (1981–2008) President and CEO, Scientifi c Learning Corporation (1995–1996) Chief Scientifi c Offi cer, Scientifi c Learning Corporation (1996–2003) Chief Scientifi c Offi cer, Posit Science Corporation (2004–present) President and CEO, Brain Plasticity Institute (2008–present) HONORS AND AWARDS (SELECTED): Cortical Discoverer Prize, Cajal Club (1994) IPSEN Prize (Paris, 1997) Zotterman Prize (Stockholm, 1998) Craik Prize (Cambridge, 1998) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. (1999) Lashley Award, American Philosophical Society (1999) Thomas Edison Prize (Menlo Park, NJ, 2000) American Psychological Society Distinguished Scientifi c Contribution Award (2001) Zülch Prize, Max-Planck Society (2002) Genius Award, Cure Autism Now (2002) Purkinje Medal, Czech Academy (2003) Neurotechnologist of the Year (2006) Institute of Medicine (2008) Michael M. Merzenich has conducted studies defi ning the functional organization of the auditory and somatosensory nervous systems. Initial models of a commercially successful cochlear implant (now distributed by Boston Scientifi c) were developed in his laboratory. Seminal research on cortical plasticity conducted in his laboratory contributed to our current understanding of the phenomenology of brain plasticity across the human lifetime. Merzenich extended this research into the commercial world by co-founding three brain plasticity-based therapeutic software companies (Scientifi c Learning, Posit Science, and Brain Plasticity Institute).
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Past Two Decades of Neuroscience
    VIEWPOINT medium of conceptual space is: how do we combine these twin paths to understand Reflections on the past two decades the transmission of representations in the network of the brain? Although answering of neuroscience that question will surely build on the prior paradigms, neither seems equipped to Danielle S. Bassett , Kathleen E. Cullen , Simon B. Eickhoff , provide a complete solution; the former offers the dots within, whereas the latter Martha J. Farah , Yukiko Goda , Patrick Haggard , Hailan Hu , offers the lines between. Yet obtaining such Yasmin L. Hurd , Sheena A. Josselyn , Baljit S. Khakh , Jürgen A. Knoblich , a solution is important for deciphering the Panayiota Poirazi , Russell A. Poldrack , Marco Prinz , Pieter R. Roelfsema , mechanism of the brain’s fundamental goal: Tara L. Spires-Jones , Mriganka Sur and Hiroki R. Ueda information processing. The efforts towards such a solution that I find particularly Abstract | The first issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience was published 20 years promising are those that move beyond ago, in 2000. To mark this anniversary, in this Viewpoint article we asked a selection descriptive characterization or correlative of researchers from across the field who have authored pieces published in the approaches, and towards theory; that is, journal in recent years for their thoughts on notable and interesting developments theory instantiated in an interpretable and generalizable mathematical model in neuroscience, and particularly in their areas of the field, over the past two that encodes a conceptual principle, and decades. They also provide some thoughts on current lines of research and theory as supported by (but not composed questions that excite them.
    [Show full text]
  • THE IDEA of the BRAIN Also by Matthew Cobb
    THE IDEA OF THE BRAIN also by matthew cobb Life’s Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack the Genetic Code The Egg and Sperm Race: The 17th-Century Scientists Who Unravelled the Secrets of Sex, Life and Growth Smell: A Very Short Introduction The Resistance: The French Fight Against the Nazis Eleven Days in August: The Liberation of Paris in 1944 THE IDEA OF THE BRAIN THE PAST AND FUTURE OF NEUROSCIENCE MATTHEW COBB New York Copyright © 2020 by Matthew Cobb Cover design by XXX Cover image [Credit here] Cover copyright © 2020 Hachette Book Group, Inc. Hachette Book Group supports the right to free expression and the value of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to encourage writers and artists to produce the creative works that enrich our culture. The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author’s intellectual property. If you would like permission to use material from the book (other than for review purposes), please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your support of the author’s rights. Basic Books Hachette Book Group 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104 www.basicbooks.com Printed in the United States of America First published in Great Britain in 2020 by Profile Books Ltd First US Edition: April 2020 Published by Basic Books, an imprint of Perseus Books, LLC, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group, Inc. The Basic Books name and logo is a trademark of the Hachette Book Group. The Hachette Speakers Bureau provides a wide range of authors for speaking events.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Neuroscience Neurobiology & Behavior 255 Winter 2017
    History of Neuroscience Neurobiology & Behavior 255 Winter 2017 Course Syllabus “The past is never dead. It isn’t even past.” William Faulkner Course Description: An overview of the conceptual and technical foundations of neuroscience from ancient times to the present. The subjects include synapses, neurons, brain organization, sensory, motor, regulatory and cognitive systems, learning and memory and human brain function and dysfunction. Course Coordinator: Larry Cahill, [email protected] Room 116 Bonney Bldg (inner office) Lecturers: Faculty from several UCI Schools and Departments (see roster) Time: Fridays 9:00 - 11:50 A.M. There will be two lectures per day, starting at 9:00 A.M. and 10:30 A.M., respectively. Place: Room 1201 McGaugh Hall Course text: Minds behind the brain: A history of the pioneers and their discoveries, Stanley Finger, Oxford University Press, 2000. Evaluation: The course grade will be determined primarily by a paper, which is due on the last day of class. No excuses for late papers will be accepted. Late papers will have a reduced grade. Any topic from a historical perspective is OK but it must be approved by Dr. Cahill. The paper should be 20-30 pages in length (double-spaced) plus bibliography, figures, tables and footnotes. Selecting a Topic and Obtaining Materials: Because of the historical nature of the paper, it will be necessary to begin obtaining materials, many of which may have to be gotten through interlibrary loan, about the 4th-5th week. Therefore, the general topic should be selected by the 3rd week. You should do some preliminary bibliographic work and reading at the earliest possible time, refining your topic and preferably formulating a specific question that you will attempt to answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuroscience Innovation Report
    Neuroscience Innovation Report 2018 Powered by Neuroscience Innovation Report 2018 Introduction In 1559, surgeons Ambroise Paré and Andreas Vesalius received permission from Queen Catherine to autopsy the brain of King Henri II of France, who had succumbed to an intracranial haemorrhage. While today this would be seen a normal investigative procedure, at the time it was a daring request. Dissections were usually performed only on criminals, who would be sentenced to the procedure as a posthumous punishment. It is unclear why Catherine gave in to Paré and Vesalius, since it was obvious that the cause of death was the lance injury he sustained in a jousting tournament. But when their predictions of the type of damage they’d find inside Henri’s brain, and where they’d find it, proved to be true, it led to a turning point in the history of neuroscience – proof that a deeper understanding of the brain lay in science rather than superstition. Today, neuroscience is continuing to innovate in our understanding of the structure of the brain. The data generated is so huge that many of these innovations are focused on creating ways to more efficiently catalogue and retrieve information from hundreds of thousands of brain scans made by researchers around the world. Platforms, such as the Human Connectome Project, and Open fMRI, have been established to share brain imaging data and analyse it collaboratively. Researchers like Julie Korenberg, at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, are working on developing 3D coordinate systems to align various types of neuroimaging data to allow anyone to pick a point on one image and look at the same point at another resolution, a Google Earth of neuroimaging.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Philosophy of Neural Networks
    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF NEURAL NETWORKS J. MARK BISHOP Abstract. This chapter conceives the history of neural networks emerging from two millennia of attempts to rationalise and formalise the operation of mind. It begins with a brief review of early classical conceptions of the soul, seating the mind in the heart; then discusses the subsequent Cartesian split of mind and body, before moving to analyse in more depth the twentieth century hegemony identifying mind with brain; the identity that gave birth to the formal abstractions of brain and intelligence we know as `neural networks'. The chapter concludes by analysing this identity - of intelligence and mind with mere abstractions of neural behaviour - by reviewing various philosophical critiques of formal connectionist explanations of `human understanding', `mathematical insight' and `consciousness'; critiques which, if correct, in an echo of Aristotelian insight, sug- gest that cognition may be more profitably understood not just as a result of [mere abstractions of] neural firings, but as a consequence of real, embodied neural behaviour, emerging in a brain, seated in a body, embedded in a culture and rooted in our world; the so called 4Es approach to cognitive science: the Embodied, Embedded, Enactive, and Ecological conceptions of mind. Contents 1. Introduction: the body and the brain 2 2. First steps towards modelling the brain 9 3. Learning: the optimisation of network structure 15 4. The fall and rise of connectionism 18 5. Hopfield networks 23 6. The `adaptive resonance theory' classifier 25 7. The Kohonen `feature-map' 29 8. The multi-layer perceptron 32 9. Radial basis function networks 34 10.
    [Show full text]