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 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).
Not correct. We covered all the possible interpretations of what they
said. All you have done above is to quote back their words, without
taking into account the fact that we thought through the implications of
what they said, and pointed out that those implications did not make any
sense.
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
conclusion. If you think there is, bring it out and put it side by side
with what we said.
But please, it doesn't help to just repeat back what they said, and
declare that Harley and I were wrong.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
