Question Description
[1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice [1]Part of the confidence, with which artificial intelligence researchers view the prospects of their field stems from the materialist assumptions they make. [2]One is that "mind" is simply a name for the information-processing activity of the brain. Another is that the brain is a physical entity that acts according to the laws of biochemistry and is not influenced by any irreducible "soul" or other unitary, purely mental entity that is incapable of analysis as a causal sequence of elementary biochemical events. [3]This broadly accepted view, together with the rapidly mounting mass of information concerning nervous system physiology, microanatomy, and signaling behavior and with the current technology-based push to construct analogous computing systems involving thousands of elements acting in parallel, has encouraged a shift in emphasis among AI researchers that has come to be identified as "the new connectionism."[4]The emphases that characterizes this school of thought are as follows:[5]Firstly, the brain operates not as a serial computer of conventional type but in enormously parallel fashion. [6]The parallel functioning of hundreds of thousands or millions of neurons in the brain's subtle information-extraction processes attains speed. [7]Coherent percepts are formed in times that exceed the elementary reaction times of single neurons by little more than a factor of ten. [8]Especially for basic perceptual processes like sight, this observation rules out iterative forms of information processing that would have to scan incoming data serially or pass it through many intermediate processing stages. [9]Since extensive serial symbolic search operations of this type do not seem to characterize the functioning of the senses, the assumption (typical for much of the AI-inspired cognitive science speculation of the 1960-80 period) that serial search underlies various higher cognitive functions becomes suspect.[10]Secondly, within the brain, knowledge is stored not in any form resembling a conventional computer program but structurally, as distributed patterns of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strengths whose relative sizes determine the flow of neural responses that constitutes perception and thought.[11]AI researchers developing these views have been drawn to involvement in neuroscience by the hope of being able to contribute theoretical insights that could give meaning to the rapidly growing, but still bewildering, mass of empirical data being gathered by experimental neuroscientists (many of whom regard theoretical speculation with more than a little disdain). [12]These AI researchers hope to combine clues drawn from experiment with the computer scientists' practiced ability to analyze complex external functions into patterns of elementary actions. [13]By assuming some general form for the computational activities characteristic of these actions, they hope to guess something illuminating about the way in which the perceptual and cognitive workings of the brain arise.Q. Neuroscientists would most likely agree to which of the following?a)Mind is a name given to the information-processing activity of the brain.b)Theoretical assumptions and conclusions drawn have little credibility.c)That parallel search underlies various higher cognitive functions become suspect.d)Perception and thought flow from a systematic process akin to a typical computer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.