Vladimir, Yes, the deleted point "FIVE" mentioned that I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Valiant was looking for enough interconnect to do traditinal Hebbian learning, which as normally defined would require synapses from either A and/or B cell assemblies firing directly on each other. But I hypothesized that with a loosening of the hebbian timing requirements, or through the hebbian timing requirements being more driven by a sychronisity pattern, rather than precise phase matching, it would be possible for indirect connections between A and B through the associated nodes of each to produce learned associations.
There is a very interest paper at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~granger/RHGenginesJ1s.pdf that I have referred to before on this list that states the cortico-thalmic feedback loop functions to serialize the brain's activated feature set, to as to broadcast the currently activated features to other areas of the brain in what is in effect a serail grammer, and that associations are learned across the multiple time delays between the concepts sequentially broadcast in such statements, which I presume would operate at a gama wave freqency of about 30 to 40 concept broadcasts a second. So it might be possible learning could operate with the time delays necessary for correllated actovations of nodes A and B to be be detected through multi-hop connections. It is clear that short term (and even long term) memory lets us detect correllations that are not within a 50th of a second of each other. But this is all just off the top of my head. Edward W. Porter Porter & Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses Edward, Your reply raised very interesting issues which I'll have to think about some more. I'll also need to read Valiant's paper to get a better idea of realistic properties of the brain regarding this kind of process. So, I'll answer in more detailed way when I'm ready. For now, I have to admit that I somewhat shoot myself in the foot with that estimation: I didn't intend to imply that cell assemblies are rigid (which I did do in last sentences). You summarized that paragraph correctly, btw. I skipped a very important issue of structure-formation, and I'm not sure how to proceed about it in brain setting. Let's consider the following 'use case': there are two concepts, A and B, which are originally unrelated. When they are repeatedly observed together, they should start referencing each other, so that activation of A alone tends to activate B. This is a more strong requirement: in my estimation I searched for _any_ neuron which will be able to notice regularity, but here some neuron that is _included in B_ must notice that A is active, even though A and B are originally not related to each other. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _____ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/? <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > & ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56079780-de5021
