This message was removed on demand of the author.
On Fri, 28 May 1999, Comp-Neuro Mailing List wrote:
>
> >From RobinsoD@gwgate.nhlbi.nih.gov Thu May 27 17:07:07 1999
> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 08:01:54 -0400
> From: David Robinson <RobinsoD@gwgate.nhlbi.nih.gov>
> To: cneuro@bbb.caltech.edu
> Subject: RE: Some more questions in the search for sources of control in the brain -Reply
>
> I enjoyed reading this, but I suspect you may have the wrong David Robinson,
> since I have yet to make any comments myself at any stage. Regards, David
> Robinson, NHLBI
>
>
>
> >>> Comp-Neuro Mailing List <cneuro@bbb.caltech.edu> 05/21/99
> 09:15pm >>>
>
> >From ASIM.ROY@asu.edu Fri May 21 16:08:00 1999
> Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:12:09 -0700
> From: Asim Roy <ASIM.ROY@asu.edu>
> To: "'cneuro@bbb.caltech.edu'" <cneuro@bbb.caltech.edu>,
> "'dmurchie7@home.com'" <dmurchie7@home.com>
> Subject: RE: Some more questions in the search for sources of control in t he
> brain
>
> Dear David,
>
> Here are several comments/questions on your note.
>
> 1) You "agreed" to my statement: "It is perhaps now an accepted fact
> that the brain controls the rest of the body." I would be curious to know on
> what basis you "agreed" to that statement? The basic question is, how was it
> ever "scientifically" determined "that the brain controls the rest of the
> body?" I am asking this question because the answer might give us some clues
> on how to determine who the controller is, if there is one, in any unknown
> system. So I would really like to know from anyone how this question was
> settled by this science.
>
> 2) If you "agree" to the statement "that the brain controls the rest of the
> body," then further observations can be made. First, it is thus possible for
> natural, living systems to have "controllers" in them. And this "controller"
> conjecture may not be that stupid a conjecture after all, given the fact
> that the whole science of genetics is the search for "controllers" in these
> systems. So the "controller" concept is definitely valid at the lowest
> (genetic) level of these systems. (I suppose there is enough factual
> evidence in genetics to not dispute this theory.) And if we "agree" "that
> the brain controls the rest of the body," (as I stated above, I am still
> looking for the scientific evidence to support this statement) then the
> "controller" concept is also valid at the macro level of these systems. I
> think if the notion of "controllers" is valid at the lowest (genetic) and at
> the highest (the brain as a whole) levels of abstractions in these systems,
> then the intermediate levels (subparts of the brain) could also be based on
> the same kind of principles and mechanisms. That possibility can't be ruled
> out.
>
> 3) So these questions about sources of control in the brain are an attempt
> to find such controllers at these intermediate levels, a level higher than
> genetics. I think there might already be enough evidence in different
> neurobiological studies to support such a conjecture. We need to look at
> these studies much more carefully. My hunch is that the
> neurotransmitter/neuromodulator system is the source of control in the
> brain. I hope some more people will come forward pointing to recent
> neurotransmitter/neuromodulator studies that show the controlling nature of
> this subsystem.
>
> And some of the ideas used in genetics to determine who does what - altering
> genes, etc. - could also be the basis for determining the "controllers" at
> this next higher level of abstraction. I think the Univ. of Washington study
> was attempting to do just that.
>
> 4) These are not philosophical questions at all. Our engineering of
> human-like robots and human-like autonomous learning systems may be stalled
> until we straighten out some of these ideas. So these are not just abstract
> questions and arguments, they have real implications for engineering and
> science.
>
> With best regards,
> Asim Roy
> Arizona State University
>