I found a short lecture by Fuster, Joaquin Fuster: Distributed Memory and the Perception-Action Cycle (2007) http://archive.org/details/Brain_Network_Dynamics_2007-13-Joaquin_Fuster
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > However, I probably won't be able to read it for a few weeks > > It will take you much longer to actually read through it :). > See esp. chapter 3: Functional Architecture of the Cognit (buzzword > alarm). > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > If you want a mainstream source, read "Cortex & Mind" by Joaquin Fuster, > he is a paramount authority on the subject. > > If it was convenient I would get it tonight. However, I probably won't be > able to read it for a few weeks. > Jim > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> Jim, >> >> >> >> "You keep confusing source with destination, because you insist on >> >> operating within your declarative memory, which is a rather >> >> superficial subset of your cognitive model :)." >> > >> > Are you replying using your theory as a model of the mind (indeed, as >> > a model of my mind!) >> >> It's not *my* theory, a mainstream position in neuroscience is that >> neocortex is a hierarchy of generalization, from primary sensory & motor >> areas to incrementally higher association areas. It's also well known that >> declarative memory is restricted to the latter. Besides, these things are >> tautologically self-evident to me. >> >> >> > with a smiley face to represent some humor about doing that? >> >> That mostly represents my self-satisfaction with putting things well >> :). >> >> > And, are you saying that declarative memory is a destination in your >> > model rather than a source? Is declarative memory derived? That is >> > what you are saying right? >> >> Yes, see the above. If you want a mainstream source, read "Cortex & Mind" >> by Joaquin Fuster, he is a paramount authority on the subject. >> >> >> > Is your theory a theory of how the brain works, a theory for >> > artificial general intelligence using computers or both? >> >> Both, but the artificial version is a whole lot cleaner, the brain is >> loaded with evolutionary artifacts. For example, I don't have this >> artificial distinction between implicit & declarative memory, between >> sensory & motor hierarchies, & a bunch of other things. >> >> >> > Do you regularly see the kinds of thinking that people do in the terms >> > of your model? >> >> Yes, except that "my" part of it is well below the surface (low-level >> processing), the mainstream part is usually sufficient to qualitatively >> explain declarative thinking. >> >> http://www.cognitivealgorithm.info/2012/01/cognitive-algorithm.html >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Jim Bromer" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:42 AM >> To: "AGI" <[email protected]> >> Subject: [agi] Boris Explains His Theory >> >> >> > Boris, >> > I am just not getting this. So let me try starting with some simple >> questions. >> > I had said, "Forcing semantic values into 3-dimensional orthogonal >> > space seems amazingly confused to me." >> > You replied, >> > "You keep confusing source with destination, because you insist on >> > operating within your declarative memory, which is a rather >> > superficial subset of your cognitive model :)." >> > >> > Are you replying using your theory as a model of the mind (indeed, as >> > a model of my mind!) with a smiley face to represent some humor about >> > doing that? Did you think that my statement about forcing semantic >> > values was made in reference to something in your theory? Because >> > that is not what I meant. I was just saying that I have read papers >> > about using semantic vectors and my thoughts on that is that trying to >> > force semantic vectors into 3-dimensional space seems confused. >> > >> > And, are you saying that declarative memory is a destination in your >> > model rather than a source? Is declarative memory derived? That is >> > what you are saying right? >> > >> > Is your theory a theory of how the brain works, a theory for >> > artificial general intelligence using computers or both? >> > >> > Do you regularly see the kinds of thinking that people do in the terms >> > of your model? >> > Jim Bromer >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------- Previous Messages --------------- >> > Jim, >> >> I don't understand your comments about detecting patterns. You said: >> > >> > This is interactive pattern projection, but you have to discover those >> > patterns first. Technically, you simply multiply all the vectors in a >> > pattern by a relative distance to a target coordinate. And then you >> > compare multiple patterns projected to the same coordinate, & multiply >> > the difference by relative strength of each pattern. That gives you a >> > combined prediction, or probability distribution if the patterns are >> > mutually exclusive. >> > >> > That comment was about projecting patterns, not detecting them. >> > >> >> What kind of patterns are you talking about? How do the elemental >> observations (from the sensory device) get turned into vectors? >> > >> > Comparisons generate derivatives. A vector is d(input) over >> > d(coordinate). Conventionally, it's over multiple coordinates >> > (dimensions), & the input can be a lower coordinate, but that's not >> > essential. >> > >> >> Are you saying that the "higher level of search and generalization" >> are where/how the pattern vectors are created? >> > >> > No, all levels. >> > >> >> Why or how would you pick out a particular target coordiate to use to >> combine a prediction? >> > >> > Well, coordinate resolution is variable, so I am talking about a >> > min->max span. Basically, vector projection is part of input selection >> > for a higher-level search. The target coordinate span is a feedback >> > from that higher level, or, if there aren't any, current_search_span * >> > selection_rate: preset lossiness / sparseness of representation on the >> > higher level. >> > >> >> Are you saying that all predictions have individual coordinates? >> > >> > Individual coordinate span. It's what + where, you got to have both. >> > >> >> That alone means that they would have to exist in dynamic virtual >> space of many dimensions. Forcing semantic values into 3-dimensional >> orthogonal space seems amazingly confused to me. >> > >> > You keep confusing source with destination, because you insist on >> > operating within your declarative memory, which is a rather >> > superficial subset of your cognitive model :). >> > >> > We *derive* all our "semantic" values from 4D-continuous observation, >> > no need to "force" them into it. >> > >> >> What kind of space would your vectors exist in, how do they get there >> and why do you choose a particular coordinate for a combination of >> predictions? >> > >> > As I said, hierarchical search generates incremental syntax, & >> > variables within it are individually evaluated for search on >> > successive levels. The strongest variable, whether it's an original >> > coordinate | modality or a derivative thereof, becomes a coordinate >> > for a higher level. The strength here must be averaged over higher >> > level span. >> > >> > It's hard to explain this on "semantic" level, which is profoundly >> > confused in humans anyway. But a good intermediate example is Periodic >> > Table. You take atomic mass (which is a derived, not an original >> > variable) as top coordinate, compare pH value along that coordinate, & >> > notice recurrent periodicity in it's variation. Since pH is a main >> > chemical property, you then use it as a primary dimension that defines >> > a period, & atomic mass becomes a secondary dimension that defines a >> > sequence of periods. Both dimensions are derived, they may seem kind >> > of a halfway between original & "semantic", but the same derivation >> > process will get you to the latter >> > >> > http://www.cognitivealgorithm.info/2012/01/cognitive-algorithm.html >> > >> > Boris, >> > >> > I don't understand your comments about detecting patterns. You said: >> > >> > This is interactive pattern projection, but you have to discover those >> > patterns first. Technically, you simply multiply all the vectors in a >> > pattern by a relative distance to a target coordinate. And then you >> > compare multiple patterns projected to the same coordinate, & multiply >> > the difference by relative strength of each pattern. That gives you a >> > combined prediction, or probability distribution if the patterns are >> > mutually exclusive :). >> > >> > What kind of patterns are you talking about? How do the elemental >> > observations (from the sensory device) get turned into vectors? Are >> > you saying that the "higher level of search and generalization" are >> > where/how the pattern vectors are created? Why or how would you pick >> > out a particular target coordiate to use to combine a prediction? Are >> > you saying that all predictions have individual coordinates? >> > >> > I have read papers on Semantic Vectors, (I do not need to be told that >> > the sources of semantic vectors are different than the sources of the >> > products of your system) and I have always felt that they were >> > absurdly inappropriate for semantics (or concepts) because they forced >> > the semantic concepts into a system that they did not fit into. As is >> > so obvious to Two-Door, concepts are relativistic. That alone means >> > that they would have to exist in dynamic virtual space of many >> > dimensions. Forcing semantic values into 3-dimensional orthogonal >> > space seems amazingly confused to me. >> > >> > What kind of space would your vectors exist in, how do they get there >> > and why do you choose a particular coordinate for a combination of >> > predictions? >> > >> > (Incidentally, just to remind you, my ideas of concepts are not >> > necessarily expressed as vectors although I am not close minded about >> > the idea.) >> > >> > Jim Bromer >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On the other hand I am interested in conjectures about conceptual >> vectors and stuff like that >> > >> > You can't formalize "conceptual" vectors, except in terms of >> > "conceptual" coordinates . >> > >> > Jim Bromer >> > >> > Thanks for the smiley faces Boris... >> > I disagree that you have to multiply all the vectors in a pattern by >> > a relative distance to a target coordinate in order to combine >> > imagined complex ideas and related observations. Our theories are >> > very different. (On the other hand I am interested in conjectures >> > about conceptual vectors and stuff like that.) >> > >> > I am interested in a continuation of the explanation of your theories >> > and I hope to get back to it soon. >> > Jim Bromer >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Jim, >> > >> >>Where Boris and I disagree is that I feel that because of >> relativity the input source of an idea may not be the most elemental >> source of the idea that needs to be considered. >> > >> > Right, but that's the simplest assumption, you must make it unless >> > you know otherwise. And you only know otherwise if you've >> > discovered more "elemental" (stable) source on some higher level of >> > search & generalization. That would generate a focusing / motor >> > feedback, always derived from prior feedforward. As I keep saying, >> > complexity must be incremental :). >> > >> >> One simple example is that we can use our imagination and study of >> the subject of the concept in order to extend our ideas about the >> subject beyond those ideas which came directly from observations of it. >> > >> > This is interactive pattern projection, but you have to discover >> > those patterns first. Technically, you simply multiply all the >> > vectors in a pattern by a relative distance to a target coordinate. >> > And then you compare multiple patterns projected to the same >> > coordinate, & multiply the difference by relative strength of each >> > pattern. That gives you a combined prediction, or probability >> > distribution if the patterns are mutually exclusive :). >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------- >> > AGI >> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> > RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18407320-d9907b69 >> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18407320-d9907b69> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
