1. Ghost machine Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

How do neurons work in the brain?

A
  • Consists of about 100 billion neurons
  • Each neuron can form between 5,000 and 200,000 connections with other neurons.
    These interconnected systems are organised into very complex and powerful information processing networks
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the levels of organisation in the brain?

A
  • Molecules (1 Å)
  • Synapses (1 μm)
  • Neurons (100 μm)
  • Networks (1 mm)
  • Maps (1 cm)
  • Systems (10 cm)
    CNS (1m)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the schools of thought?

A

· There are diverse schools of thought in Philosophical Psychology
· These are based on positions taken in relation to fundamental issues
· The schools of thought are often inter-related and include
– Dualism
– Materialism
– Functionalism
– Behaviourism
– Reductionism …and many others!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is Cartesian Dualism?

A

· The relationship between the mind and the body has been an important area in philosophy and science for many hundreds of years.
· Cartesian Dualism: Descartes recognised that mind and brain were inextricably linked, but also believed that they were separate.
He relegated the body to the status of a marvellously constructed machine

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is behaviourism?

A

· Behaviour can be researched scientifically without recourse to inner mental states.
· – Learning organisms are ‘black boxes’ that somehow convert inputs into outputs. There is no need to understand how the black box does it.
· – It is a form of materialism, denying any independent significance for the mind.
– Free will is illusory, and that all behaviour is determined by a combination of forces (environment, genetics etc. through association or reinforcement).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is ‘Occams Razor’?

A

– A logical principle: one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. The simplest explanation is the best.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is Materialism ?

A

– The only thing that can exist is ‘matter’
– All things are composed of matter and all phenomena are the result of material interactions
– The construct we call ‘the mind’ must therefore be a property of matter (the brain).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was Dennet’s view on consciousness?

A

· Dennets dismisses the notion of a ‘Cartesian theatre’…
“In a cobbled-together collection of specialist brain circuits, which . . . conspire together to produce a . . . more or less well-designed virtual machine . . . By yoking these independently evolved specialist organs together in common cause, and thereby giving their union vastly enhanced powers, this virtual machine, this software of the brain, performs a sort of internal political miracle: It creates a virtual captain of the crew . . . “

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Monism to dualism?

A
  • Substance (Cartesian) Dualism: Mind and matter fundamentally different
  • Identity Theory: Mind = Matter in an absolute sense
    There are a spectrum of views between Substance Dualism and Identity Theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How did dualism change?

A
  • Property dualism: Even if mind comes from brain, subjective experience has properties that cant be reduced to brain states
  • Identity Theory: Mind = Matter in an absolute sense
    Science dismisses substance dualism because of the hopelessly insoluble problem of the Cartesian Gap…but there are other forms of dualism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the arguments for property dualism?

A
  • The arguments…
  • ‘Non-reductive physicalism’: Although there are low-level physical states that cause higher-level states, one can’t explain higher level effects in terms of lower-level causes. So, mind states do come from brain states, but we can’t explain mind states in terms of brain states.
  • They have ‘properties’ that are distinct from the properties of brains
  • Subjective experience is fundamental: We know that mental states are real because we experience them
  • (This is suspiciously close to Cartesian ideas that separate the observer and the observed)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is functionalism?

A
  • “The mind is the software of the brain” Ned Block (1995)
    -A form of property dualism
    • Developed as an answer to the mind-body problem in response to behaviourism.
    • Mental life can be explained in terms of higher-level functions.
    • Assumes that information processing occurs at a level of abstraction that does not depend on the physical composition of a system
    • In theory, all functional systems can be implemented in any hardware
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Arguments against functionalism?

A

· Taken to its logical conclusion, functionalism argues that in theory, even consciousness can be implemented in any computer
· John Searle (1980) argues against this idea:
– Emulating the functional behaviour of the brain, or some part of it, is insufficient grounds for attributing to a machine or computing device the cognitive states such as those experienced by conscious beings like ourselves
– Such devices could never possess such states solely as a result of having the appropriate formal properties, or to put it another way, simply by ‘running the right program’.
– He proposed a ‘thought experiment’ based on the Turing test…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the Turing test?

A

· Can machines simulate intelligent behaviour? Alan Turing devised a test in the 1950’s
· A person converses ‘virtually’ with another person (A) and a computer (B) but does not know the true identity of either
· The machine tries to cause the interrogator to mistakenly conclude that the machine is the other person
The other person tries to help the interrogator to correctly identify the machine.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Searle’s thought experiment: The Chinese room?

A
  • Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room full of boxes of Chinese symbols (a database) together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (the program).
  • Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (the input).
  • Imagine that by following the instructions in the program the man in the room is able to pass out Chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions (the output).
    Against functionalism: The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not actually understand Chinese. Computers merely use rules to manipulate symbols, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is neurophysiology?

A
  • “The goal of science is not to open the door to everlasting wisdom, but to set a limit on everlasting error” Galileo
  • What is Neurophilosophy?
  • “Neurophilosophy arises out f the recognition that at long last, the brain sciences and their adjunct technology are sufficiently advanced that real progress can be made in understanding the mind-brain…[it] focuses on problems at the intersection of a greening neuroscience and a greying philosophy.” Churchland (2002)
    Neurophilosophy seeks to explain the mind in terms of observable evidence from the physical world that is obtained using scientific methods.
17
Q

What is reductionism?

A
  • Reductionism: The principle that complex phenomena can be explained in terms of the interactions between simpler phenomena
  • Neurophilosophy argues that reductionism is essential for understanding the mind in terms of the brain.
    The aim of this course (and the other courses in this stream) is to explain mental phenomena in terms of the physical events that take place in the brain.
18
Q

Churchland and reductionism?

A

· “Neuroscientists would be silly to make a point of ignoring all behavioural data, just as psychologists would be silly to make a point of ignoring all biological data”
· “If you want to understand how a thing works, you need to understand not only its behavioural profile, but also its basic components and how they are organised to constitute a system”
· “Insofar as I am trying to discover macro-to-micro explanations, I am a reductionist”
“So far as neuroscience and psychology are concerned, my view is simply that it would be wisest to conduct research on many levels simultaneously, from the molecular, through networks, systems, brain areas, and of course behaviour”.

19
Q

What is folk theory?

A

· Our common sense understanding of reality (including our understanding of the ‘self’) is often misguided.
· Science overturns our common sense understanding…
- Mendelian inheritance to genetics
- Classical optics to quantum optics
- The earth is not flat (even though this is what our subjective experience tells us)!
- Surfaces appear to be solid but there is mostly space between the atoms and molecules that it is made of!
· Churchland argues that Functionalist psychology is actually ‘folk’ psychology: Notions of mind based on our common sense, everyday, subjective understanding of mental life.
· Folk psychology is based on concepts that are based on language (syntax and the semantics of ‘beliefs’ and ‘desires’).
· Eliminative materialism suggests that folk psychology (functionalism) will
eventually be replaced by rational, scientific (not subjective) explanations of mind in terms of neuroscience.

20
Q

What is Inter-theoretic reduction?

A

· A process that explains the relationship between two theories at different levels
· Explaining a ‘high level’ theory in terms of a more fundamental lower-level theory.
· Neurophilosophers / neuroscientists (but not functionalists) think that psychological phenomena can be explained in terms of neural function through the process of inter-theoretic reduction.
· Inter-theoretic reduction is remarkably common across many disciplines science.
There are many examples where general descriptions of phenomena are explained in terms of physical causal mechanisms

21
Q

Eliminative materialism: Cogito ergo sum?

A

· Takes inter-theoretic reduction to its logical conclusion
· The radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist.
· Behaviour and experience can only be adequately explained on the biological level
· There are no mental states, just brain states.
· This seems counter-intuitive: Surely we have mental states because we actually experience them?
The argument from subjective experience is the commonest argument against eliminative materialism

22
Q

Eliminative materialism: Sperry split brain?

A

· Another example of how our introspections can be wrong
· The notion of a unified ‘self’ is also a percept. Could it be an illusion?
• Sperry: The divided self
– Experiments completely changed our understanding of consciousness
and the brain
– Patients with epilepsy underwent surgery to prevent epileptic seizures
from spreading from one hemisphere to the other via the corpus callosum
· – Callosal transection: Corpus Callosum was severed surgically
· – Patients seemed remarkably normal after recovery from surgery
· – Controlled psychological testing revealed two independent streams of
This suggests that our subjective experience of a unified self (and probably many other introspections about out mental states) is wrong!

23
Q

Inter-theoretic reduction: Example 1

- Laws of Mendelian Inheritance reduce to Genetics ?

A

· Laws of inheritance derived by Gregor Mendel (19th century Austrian monk)
· Conducting plant hybridity experiments.
· Between 1856 and 1863, he cultivated and tested some 28,000 pea plants.
· His experiments brought forth two generalizations which later became
known as Mendel’s Laws of Heredity or Mendelian inheritance.
· These laws are now obsolete because they are explained entirely by classical genetics.
· The laws don’t exist separately from their mechanisms. They are explained in terms of these mechanisms.
In this example a higher level theory is reduced to (and eliminated by) a lower level, more fundamental theory that explains causal effects.

24
Q

Example 2

-Classical Optics reduces to Quantum Optics ?

A

· Classical optics is concerned with the geometry of light (how it can be refracted by transparent material etc).
· Classical Optics: Light behaves like a wave
– Johannes Kepler (1604): The eye focuses light; light moves in a straight line
– Isaac Newton’s Opticks (1704): Laws that describe how light is refracted
· Quantum Optics: Light behaves like a particle
– Max Planck (1899): The exchange of energy between light and matter only
occurred in discrete amounts he called quanta
Light is electromagnetic radiation, just as mental events are neural events
Again - a higher level descriptive theory is reduced to (and eliminated by) a lower level, more fundamental theory that explains causal effects.

25
Q

Example 3

- An example from behaviours and brains?

A
  • Learning reduced to neural information processing
    · Rescorla-Wagner: Very clear and reliable higher level explanation of how various factors account for learning during classical conditioning
    · David Marr proposed a theory of how Hebbian synapses work in the cerebellum
    · We now have an understanding of how CS, US, CR and UR information is processed by synapses that learn within cerebellar neurons
    · Learning is described by Rescorla-Wagner, but learning is the processing of this information in neural pathways.
    In the case of this kind of classical conditioning, learning theory is reduced to a neural theory (for which there is empirical evidence)
26
Q

What is Emergence?

A
  • Triani and Tuci (2009) : What do ants and neurons have in common?
  • “An ant is part of a colony, much as a neuron is part of the brain.
    · An ant cannot do much in isolation, but a colony is a highly resilient adaptive system. Similarly, a neuron is individually able just of limited interactions with other neurons, but the brain displays highly complex cognitive processes.
    · In other words, both ants and neurons behave/act in harmony with other conspecifics/cells to accomplish tasks that go beyond the capability of a single individual.”
  • “while no individual [ant] is aware of all the possible alternatives, and no individual possesses an explicitly programmed solution, all together they reach an ‘unconscious’ decision. This is particularly true also for neural systems, where the relevance or the meaning of the self-organised pattern is not found at the individual level, but at the collective one.”
    Some have suggested that ‘swarm intelligence’ operates as much in the brain as in other biological systems.
27
Q

Strong and weak emergence?

A
  • Weak emergence: “…the high level phenomena emerge from the low level domain, but the truths concerning that phenomenon are unexpected [but still deducible] given the principles governing the low level domain….”
    Strong emergence: “……a high-level phenomenon is strongly emergent with respect to a low-level domain, but truths concerning that phenomenon are not deducible, even in principle, from truths in the low-level domain.”
28
Q

Irreducibility and emergence?

A
  • Some have suggested that consciousness is an emergent property.
  • Weak Emergence, Reductionism and Neurophilosophy:
    · Churchlands approach resonates with weak emergence.
    · Even though the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it is possible to apply reductionist approaches so that the whole can be explained in terms of the parts.
    · They argue that emergent consciousness could be explained using reductionist approaches.
    -Strong Emergence and Irreducibility:
    · The whole emerges from the sum of its parts, but it is impossible to ‘reverse engineer’ to explain the whole in terms of its parts.
    · It has qualities that cannot be traced to the systems components
    This argument is often used against Churchlands reductionism.