There has been a break in
the brain storming – in part because I have been distracted by
other things and in part because my ideas had become stuck in a box –
and I hadn't realised the implications.
The box I was stuck in
was the one relating to the handling of numbers in conventional
computer systems . I had already decided that because hunter-gatherer
man would not be doing much, if any, counting – much less
arithmetic - I should strip the arithmetic facilities out of the
CODIL model if I was to relate it to how the brain works. However
when I came to think about mapping onto a neural net there were some
problems
Perhaps the easiest way
is to relate the problem to CODIL's history. The original ideas
developed in a very large commercial data processing department where
numbers (quantities, prices, dates, customer identity numbers, etc.)
were of paramount importance. It was also concerned with the real
world text names of objects such as people, goods for sale, and
places. In developing the CODIL paradigm I did many unconventional
things but I still kept the equivalent of the conventional computing
concept of a data field – which had a name so that the computer
could address it and a value which was directly linked to something
in the real world. The result was the CODIL item, such as the
following examples:
QUANTITY > 27
PRODUCT = Diesel
This structure has been
retained in al subsequent developments – when the aim was to design
a flexible and user friendly tool and the idea of having a “data
base” package that could not handle numbers would have been
ridiculous.
... But in modelling the
brain I am not building a “user friendly” tool, I am trying to
model how the pre-civilization brains worked. I note that there is no
difference between Australian Aborigine brains and Western European
brains – despite the fact that in evolutionary terms they are at
least 50,000 years apart – while modern civilization is no more
than 10,000 years old. This means that in developing a brain model
anything which could be an artefact resulting from the development of
civilization can safely be excluded.
So back to the little
example. “PRODUCT” is the name given to a set which includes
“Diesel” ... but wait - isn't “Diesel” the name given to a
set which includes different grades of diesel oil ... If we get rid
of numbers (and also some of the features for manipulating strings of
characters) we can redefine the item value as a set name where the
set contains a single member – the name of the set being a
representation of its value. This could be represented (with trivial
changes to the existing software) by representing the item “PRODUCT
= Diesel” as:
PRODUCT
DIESEL
However
at the paradigm level it is possible to say that an item is just a
pair of symbolic set names where one set is a member of the other.
What we have done is to simplify the CODIL model by discarding a
component (the item value) and made the approach more general.
The
implications of this will be discussed in later “Brain Storms”
posts.
Earlier Brain Storms
- Introduction
- The Black Hole in Brain Research
- Evolutionary Factors starting on the African Plains
- Requirements of a target Model
- Some Factors in choosing a Model
- CODIL and Natural Language
No comments:
Post a Comment