Thread: Artificial Neural Networks

Bleh, I'm not particularly interested in that.

I'm more interested in how actual cognitive functions work, which nobody has figured out yet.

It's certainly an interesting area of research. There are some who think that theories of cognition are increasingly going to based on computational models. I'm somewhat skeptical, however, as developing these models requires a large amount of training in mathematics and, to a lesser degree, computer programming, and the people who have traditionally addressed these research questions (i.e., cognitive psychologists) tend to receive their mathematical training in statistics and quantitative measurement.

The emerging, interdisciplinary field of "cognitive science" seems promising. It will be interesting to see how they approach these questions.

I don't see how else we can figure out how the mind works properly if we don't even know how neural networks work.

To be frank, the current knowledge about neuroscience is unimpressive. We know that the brain's made of neurons. That's about it.

'Cognitive psychology' or whatever are never going to get us anywhere. The only way forwards is a brute force cracking of how the brain actually works.

Otherwise it's like trying to design a computer or figure out how one works with only the knowledge that 'it's made of transistors'.

Compared to more established sciences, I agree that it is somewhat disappointing to think of how little neuroscience has really given us. I view it as one of the last frontiers of scientific investigation. The relatively recent development of functional brain imaging has opened up a lot of possibilities, and I am hopeful that soon we can begin tackling the bigger questions.

I have to say that I am a little confused at your comment, "we don't even know how neural networks work." The entire point of neural networks (at least the way that I understand it - which I admit may be flawed) is that we do understand how they work, and that this fact allows us to learn a thing or two about how the cognitive processes that they emulate work. Whereas we cannot break open the black box that is the human mind and examine how it is functioning (at least not currently, or probably any time soon), we can do just that with neural networks and other computational models. So if we have a computational model that appears to mimic human cognition, we can infer that they must be utilizing similar processes. Is this not the way that you understand neural networks?

On a side note: I find the analogy of using "brute force" to understand brain functioning to be very amusing. I have never viewed science as a "brute force" sort of process, but to each his own, I guess.

Well, psychology just strikes me as being science for pussies.

To understand the thing properly you've gotta take it down to the fundamental level...

And about neural networks; nah, it isn't understood how they perform computations etcetera. With computers we know that it uses binary code to represent numbers, etcetera; we don't know what the 'code' is for the brain. I remember the head of the Blue Brain project saying that the field is waiting for a conceptual breakthrough. Until then it's just groping in the dark...

It's something I plan to help crack, once I've got a degree in maths and maybe a master's in neuroscience.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, psychology just strikes me as being science for pussies.

Heh. Okay, I'll bite...

What exactly is it about psychology that strikes you as being, ahem, "for pussies?" (Ironically, many of the people currently studying artificial neural networks received their Ph.D.s in cognitive psychology.)

In point of fact, science is a method rather than a predefined set of topics or body of knowledge, and anything can be studied via the scientific method - yes, even people's thoughts, feelings, and behavior. I've found that people who accuse psychology of lacking rigor tend to misunderstand how it is studied. It doesn't help that psychologists are routinely portrayed by the media as headshrinkers who analyze your dreams while you lie facing away from them on a couch doing free associations . Suffice it to say that this is not an accurate view of what psychology is all about. (I wonder if wearing white lab coats and carrying around colorful beakers could improve our reputation? )

Certainly psychology faces a unique set of challenges by studying what is probably the most complex and dynamic thing on the planet, namely the inner life of human beings. I could rather easily make the case that studying things as relatively simple as elements and atoms is "science for pussies" (but I won't ). Rather than becoming dismayed at the difficulty of scientifically studying people's thoughts, feelings, and behavior, I say that we delve in and try to sort things out as best we can. Psychology is a young science and there is so much left to learn - I find it to be very exciting.

Have Neural Networks ever been observed to become cognitive in any way?

Originally Posted by Xei

'Cognitive psychology' or whatever are never going to get us anywhere. The only way forwards is a brute force cracking of how the brain actually works.

That's exactly what artificial neural networks allow us to do.

Yeah, I know. Although they still haven't actually figured out how they work yet.

Whoops, I meant Artificial Neural Networks...

No, not yet. In the same way it was many years before uranium 235 was observed to undergo stable fission. They're working on it.