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 represented. >
Now that I have a bit better understanding of neuroscience than a year ago, I reread relevant part of your paper and skimmed the Quiroga et al's paper ("Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain", for those who don't want to look it up in Richard's paper). I don't see a significant disagreement. They didn't mean to imply obviously wrong assertion that there are only few cells corresponding to each high-level concept (to quote: "the fact that we can discover in this short time some images -- such as photographs of Jennifer Aniston -- that drive the cells, suggests that each cell might represent more than one class of images"). Sparse and distributed representations are mentioned as extreme perspectives, not a dichtomy. Results certainly have some properties of sparse representation, as opposed to extremely distributed, which doesn't mean that results imply extremely sparse representation. Observed cells as correlates of high-level concepts were surprisingly invariant to the form in which that high-level concept was presented, which does suggest that representation is much more explicit than in the extremely distributed case. Or course, it's not completely explicit. So, at this point I see at least this item in your paper as a strawman objection (given that I didn't revisit other items). -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com