Gary, Our notes crossed in the mail. Thank you for citing that article about executive functions in the brain. If you notice, they cite Baddeley & Hitch who introduced the idea of a central executive. And your idea about implementing executive functions in a computer system is very similar (maybe identical) to what I have been proposing. Implement executive functions along the lines of the article you cited (and the other articles I cited) are the key point. It's irrelevant whether you call the top-level program THE central executive or whether you say that it implements executive functions. Except for details of terminology, we are in violent agreement. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gbergcross(a)gmail.com> Sent: 5/8/24 2:15 PM To: ontolog-forum(a)googlegroups.com Cc: "Dr. Lars Ludwig" <mail(a)lars-ludwig.com>om>, Peirce List <peirce-l(a)list.iupui.edu>du>, CG <cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The central executive As I mentioned in today's Ontolog Summit meeting on ethics for Modern AI systems, It might be more useful to talk about executive function (EF) than an executive. You can see a good summary argument in this article: A new era for executive function research: On the transition from centralized to distributed executive functioninghttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8420078/ This follows some ideas people may remember from Minsky's Society of Mind and modular ideas of intelligence. Distributed theories of cognitive abilities conceptualizes "EFs as emergent consequences of highly distributed brain processes that communicate with a pool of highly connected hub regions, thus precluding the need for a central executive." There is much more in the article including ideas on testing distributed models and from a risk point of view this on trust based on distributed robustness: a "key property of a DCS is its robustness to perturbations. In contrast to centralized systems, in which a nonbrain biological systems such as swarm would be vulnerable to the loss of its leading agent, a swarm organized as a DCS has been shown to be robust to degradation (Sumpter, 2006). Similarly, decentralized (i.e. distributed) networks have been shown to be resilient systems which are capable of absorbing large external perturbations without undergoing functional breakdown (Achard, 2006; Bassett and Bullmore, 2006; Bullmore and Sporns, 2009; Buzsáki, 2006). A DCS network organization in the brain may therefore explain how EFs can be preserved to some extent in the face of pathological attack by lesion and substance-related disorders...." Gary Berg-Cross Potomac, MD 240-426-0770 On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 4:06 PM Ravi Sharma <drravisharma(a)gmail.com> wrote: John As you already probably know, in the Indian systems, there is a tremendous amount of literature on Mind, Brain,intellect, applying reasoning, state of alertness and cognition levels, attention span and like. I am a listener to many of these dialogs embedded in the knowledge system, and have studied brain lobes size enhancements through recitations and repetitions over years. Are there fMRI or PET studies that confirm the role of Central Executive relating to: - Level of cognition and awareness, - Decision making and outcomes or response handling, - etc.? Regards. Thanks.Ravi(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA) NASA Apollo Achievement Award Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ Ontolog Board of Trustees Particle and Space Physics Senior Enterprise Architect SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 6:52 PM John F Sowa <sowa(a)bestweb.net> wrote: Lars, List, The Homunculus is a totally different concept proposed by philosophers. It has no relationship to anything that the psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying. The origin is an idea that goes back to the 1960s with George Miller and his hypothesis about short-term memory and the "Magic Number 7, plus or minus 3". The psychologists Baddeley & Hitch wrote their initial article in 1974. They wrote in response to Miller's hypothesis. They realized that there is much more to short-term memory than just words and phonemes. They called Miller's storage "the phonological loop" and they added a "visuo-spatial scratchpad" for short-term memory of imagery and feelings. And they continued to revise and extend their research for another 20 or 30 years. Neuroscientists, who are specialists in different aspects, have been working on related issues. The consensus is not a single hypothesis, but a branch of research on issues related to conscious control of action by a central executive in the frontal lobes vs. subconscious control by the brainstem and the cerebellum. For example, when you're walking down the street and talking on your cell phone, several different systems are controlling your actions: (1) the central executive is in charge of what you're doing on the phone in talking and pushing buttons; (2) the cerebellum is guiding your steps in walking and maintaining your balance; (3) the brain stem is maintaining your breathing, heart beat, and other bodily functions; and (4) the nerves running done the spine and branching to all parts of your body are controlling every movement and monitoring any abnormalities, such as a burn, a scratch, or a more serious injury. In Freud's terms. the central executive is the ego, and the lower-level systems are the id. Those ideas are much older, but they illustrate the kinds of issues involved. The more recent research relates the observational data to actual neural functions in specific regions of the brain. Since aspects of those functions can be traced back to the earliest bacteria, worms, and fish, there must be something fundamental about them. AI systems that do not support related functions do so at their peril. In my notes and the articles I cite, there are many references to ongoing research. For more background, don't use those GPT-based things that summarize surface-level trivia. You can start with Wikipedia, which cites the original research. Then continue with more detailed studies in neuroscience. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Dr. Lars Ludwig" <mail(a)lars-ludwig.com> John, if I remember correctly that what you propose here via a central executive was rejected in the cognitive sciences as the so called "homunculus theory of cognition", meaning, in short, that the "decision making" of a system cannot be explained by an instance (central executive) making decisions. Lars John F Sowa <sowa(a)bestweb.net> hat am 05.05.2024 21:23 CEST geschriebe Lars, Doug, List, There is a huge difference between a reasoning system and a decision system. Give a set of axioms and raw data, a reasoning system derives conclusions. It does not make any value judgments about the any of them, And it does not take any actions based on any conclusions. But every living system from bacteria on up must make decisions about which of many sources of information must be considered in taking action. I agreed with Mihai Nadin that the sources of knowledge are distributed among all components of the brain, but I should have added "brain and body". Every part of the body generates signals of pain and pleasure of varying strength. And the most brilliant or pleasurable thoughts must be deferred when a pain signal from a finger touches a hot stove. In any animal, there are an immense number of signals coming from every part of the brain and body. There must be something that decides which one(s) to consider immediately and which ones may be deferred. The central executive is not my idea. But I have done a fair amount of studying of all the branches of the cognitive sciences, and I have learned important ideas from comparing different ways they deal with common problems. I'm not asking anybody to believe me. But I am asking everybody to consider the wide range of insights that come from the different branches of all six: Philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology. Please look at the references. And if you don't like the references I cited, look for more. As for the central executive, please let me know of any other mechanism that can decide whether it's better to (a) read a book, (b) take a nap, (c) eat lunch, or (d) duck and cover. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Dr. Lars Ludwig" <mail(a)lars-ludwig.com> Doug, John, I am just reading this catching up: I think it is noteworthy that in modern (autopoietic) system theory (Humberto Maturana, esp. Niklas Luhmann) any (not only societal) systems basically operate and evolve without a central executive. Systemic intelligence is thus independent of any central control instance, which is sometimes understood as a weakness of modern societies. The memory system as the central conscious reproductive (intelligence) system of humans is also not centrally controlled in any meaningful way I could think of (I have written about/explained the (functioning of the) memory sytem and its central importance for any technology in my thesis on "extended artificial memory", which is basically a general autopoietic theory of all memory sub-systems). Thus, theoretically, I don't yet get John's point. I guess these are relicts of pre-systemic sequential/hierarchical operational thinking (that is classic information science) not yet touched by the pradoxical problem of closed cycles of (control /) system operations. Lars John F Sowa <sowa(a)bestweb.net> hat am 11.04.2024 02:44 CEST geschrieben: Doug, The central executive controls all the processes that are controllable by the human ego. But the term 'executive' should be considered the equivalent of what the chief executive officer (CEO) of a business does in managing a corporation. There are intermediaries at various points. Baddeley & Hitch wrote their initial article in 1974. They wrote that in response to George Miller's "Magic Number 7, plus or minus 2." They realized that there was much more to short-term memory than just words and phonemes. They called Miller's storage "the phonological loop" and they added a visuo-spatial scratchpad for short-term imagery and feelings. And they continued to revise and extend their hypotheses for another 20 or 30 years. Other neuroscientists, who are specialists in different aspects, have been working on related issues. The idea is an important one that the Generative AI gang has not yet latched onto. But some AI people are starting to take notice, and I believe that they are on the right track. In summary, there is more to come. See the references I cited, and do whatever googling and searching you like. John ---------------------------------------- From: "doug foxvog" <doug(a)foxvog.org> John, Baddeley & Hitch's "central executive" (CE) is described as an attentional controlling system. I have just briefly glanced at it, but it seems that the point is coordinating and accessing memory through an episodic buffer, phonological loop, and visio-spatial "sketchpad". The hypothesized CE deals with information, language, memory, imagery, & spatial awareness. That covers a lot, and i assume it would also cover conscious actions and processes. But i don't see it covering neurohormone production or things like heartrate. Lower level processes like basal signaling between neurons would have no need of a central executive, as they are just basal processes. It's the word "all" in "all processes" that indicates to me that the claim is excessive. FWIW, i note that sharks also have brains -- as do "higher" orders of invertebrates. -- doug f