Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/engineering/extranet/research-groups/neuroengineering-lab/ There are always more papers that can be discussed. OK, sure, but this is a more recent paper **by the same authors, discussing the same data*** and more recent similar data. But

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

>> >> http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/engineering/extranet/research-groups/neuroengineering-lab/ > > > There are always more papers that can be discussed. OK, sure, but this is a more recent paper **by the same authors, discussing the same data*** and more recent similar data. > > But that does

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: Richard, It might be more useful to discuss more recent papers by the same authors regarding the same topic, such as the more accurately-titled *** Sparse but not "Grandmother-cell" coding in the medial temporal lobe. Quian Quiroga R, Kreiman G, Koch C and Fried I. Trends in

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Richard, It might be more useful to discuss more recent papers by the same authors regarding the same topic, such as the more accurately-titled *** Sparse but not "Grandmother-cell" coding in the medial temporal lobe. Quian Quiroga R, Kreiman G, Koch C and Fried I. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: Hi, BTW, I just read this paper For example, in Loosemore & Harley (in press) you can find an analysis of a paper by Quiroga, Reddy, Kreiman, Koch, and Fried (2005) in which the latter try to claim they have evidence in favor of grandmother neurons (or sparse collections o

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben, Thanks for this analysis. V interesting. A question: Are these investigations all being framed along the lines of : "are invariant representations encoded in single neurons/sparse neuronal populations/distributed neurons?" IOW the *location* of the representation? Is anyone actually spe

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Hi, BTW, I just read this paper > For example, in Loosemore & Harley (in press) you can find an analysis of a > paper by Quiroga, Reddy, Kreiman, Koch, and Fried (2005) in which the latter > try to claim they have evidence in favor of grandmother neurons (or sparse > collections of grandmother n

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: I don't think Qiroga et al's statements are contradictory, just irritatingly vague... I agree w Richard that the distributed vs sparse dichotomy is poorly framed and in large part a bogus dichotomy I feel the same way about the symbolic vs subsymbolic dichotomy... Many of t

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

I don't think Qiroga et al's statements are contradictory, just irritatingly vague... I agree w Richard that the distributed vs sparse dichotomy is poorly framed and in large part a bogus dichotomy I feel the same way about the symbolic vs subsymbolic dichotomy... Many of the conceptual distinct

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They want some kind of mixture of "sparse" and "multiply redundant" and "not distributed". The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no consistent interpretation of what they tried to g

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Bringing this back to the earlier discussion, What could be happening, not to say that it is provably happening but there certainly is no evidence (that I know of) against it, is the following, with probabilities represented internally by voltages that are proportional to the logarithm of the proba

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural knowledge representation ... so that draw

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> They want some kind of mixture of "sparse" and "multiply redundant" and "not >> distributed". The whole point of what we wrote was that

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They want some kind of mixture of "sparse" and "multiply redundant" and "not > distributed". The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no > consistent interpretation of what they tried to give as their conc

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >> I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available >> neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural >> knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclu

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions about neural KR from available data involves loads of theoretical presuppositions ..

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, object-concepts and the like. Not place, motion or action 'concepts'. For example, Quiroga et al showed their subjects pictures of famous places and people, then made assertions about how th

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions about neural KR from available data involves loads of theoretical presuppositions ... However, my view is

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, object-concepts and the like. Not place, motion or action 'concepts'. > > For example, Quiroga et al showed their subjects pictures of famous places > and people, then made assertions about how those things were

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: > The neuron = concept 'theory' is extremely broken: it is so broken, that when neuroscientists talk about bayesian contingencies being calculated or encoded by spike timing mechanisms, that claim is incoherent. This is not always true ... in some cases there are

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: Richard, My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you are in vehement agreement w

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >> Richard, >> >> My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there >> who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you >> are in vehement agreement with the

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

And we don't yet know whether "the assembly keeps reconfiguring its reprsentation" for conceptual knowledge ... though we know it's mainly not true for percpetual and motor knowledge... On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben: > The idea that concepts may be

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: Richard, My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you are in vehement agreement with the neuroscience community on this point. The idea that concepts may be represented by cell assem

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben: > The idea that concepts may be represented by cell assemblies, or attractors within cell assemblies, are more prevalent. Ben, My question was whether the concepts - or, to be precise, the terms of the concepts, e.g. the sounds/ letters/word "ball" - may not be "neuronally locatable" (

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RL:So, to clarify: yes, it is perfectly true that the very low level > perceptual and motor systems use simple coding techniques. We have > known for decades (since Hubel and Weisel) that retinal ganglion cells > use simp

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

RL:So, to clarify: yes, it is perfectly true that the very low level perceptual and motor systems use simple coding techniques. We have known for decades (since Hubel and Weisel) that retinal ganglion cells use simple coding schemes, etc etc.But the issue I was discussing was about the times wh

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Richard, My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you are in vehement agreement with the neuroscience community on this point. The idea that concepts may be represented by cell assemblies, or attractors w

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Steve Richfield wrote: Richard, On 11/20/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Steve Richfield wrote: Richard, Broad agreement, with one comment from the end of your posting... On 11/20/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROT

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

> I stated a Ben's List challenge a while back that you apparently missed, so > here it is again. > > You can ONLY learn how a system works by observation, to the extent that its > operation is imperfect. Where it is perfect, it represents a solution to the > environment in which it operates, and a

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Richard, On 11/20/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Richfield wrote: > >> Richard, >> Broad agreement, with one comment from the end of your posting... >> On 11/20/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >>Another, closely related th

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lastly, I did not say that the neuroscientists picked old, broken theories > AND that they could have picked a better, not-broken theory I only said > that they have gone back to old theories that are known to be

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: > The neuron = concept 'theory' is extremely broken: it is so broken, that when neuroscientists talk about bayesian contingencies being calculated or encoded by spike timing mechanisms, that claim is incoherent. This is not always true ... in some cases there are solidly

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

> The neuron = concept > 'theory' is extremely broken: it is so broken, that when neuroscientists > talk about bayesian contingencies being calculated or encoded by spike > timing mechanisms, that claim is incoherent. This is not always true ... in some cases there are solidly demonstrated conne

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Vladimir Nesov wrote: Referencing your own work is obviously not what I was asking for. Still, something more substantial than "neuron is not a concept", as an example of "cognitive theory"? I don't understand your objection here: I referenced my own work because I specifically described seve

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Referencing your own work is obviously not what I was asking for. Still, something more substantial than "neuron is not a concept", as an example of "cognitive theory"? On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vladimir Nesov wrote: >> >> Could you give some

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Trent Waddington wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since such luminaries as Jerry Fodor have said much the same thing, I think I stand in fairly solid company. Wow, you said Fodor without being critical of his work. Is that legal? Trent A

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting yourself to a whole raft of assumptions about how knowledge is

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since such luminaries as Jerry Fodor have said much the same thing, I think > I stand in fairly solid company. Wow, you said Fodor without being critical of his work. Is that legal? Trent -

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Ben Goertzel wrote: Richard, The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting yourself to a whole raft of assumptions about how knowledge is generally represented and processed. However, there are *huge* probl

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the > role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting yourself to a > whole raft of assumptions about how knowledge is generally repres

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the >> role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting y

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Steve Richfield wrote: Richard, Broad agreement, with one comment from the end of your posting... On 11/20/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Another, closely related thing that they do is talk about low level issues witout realizing just

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Richard, > The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the > role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting yourself to a > whole raft of assumptions about how knowledge is generally represented and > processed. However, there are *huge* problems with that s

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Richard, Broad agreement, with one comment from the end of your posting... On 11/20/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another, closely related thing that they do is talk about low level issues > witout realizing just how disconnected those are from where the real story > (proba

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Pei Wang wrote: Derek, I have no doubt that their proposal contains interesting ideas and will produce interesting and valuable results --- most AI projects do, though the results and the values are often not what they targeted (or they claimed to be targeting) initially. "Biologically inspired

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Derek, I have no doubt that their proposal contains interesting ideas and will produce interesting and valuable results --- most AI projects do, though the results and the values are often not what they targeted (or they claimed to be targeting) initially. "Biologically inspired approaches" are a

RE: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

Pei Wang:> --- I have problem with each of these assumptions and beliefs, though> I don't think anyone can convince someone who just get a big grant> that they are moving in a wrong direction. ;-) With his other posts about the Singularity Summit and his invention of the word "Synaptronics", Mo

Re: [agi] Hunting for a Brainy Computer

The basic assumptions behind the project, from the webpage of its team lead at http://www.modha.org/ : "The mind arises from the wetware of the brain. Thus, it would seem that reverse engineering the computational function of the brain is perhaps the cheapest and quickest way to engineer computers