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 > (probably) lies. Thus, Mohdra emphasizes the importance of "spike timing" > as opposed to average firing rate. There are plenty of experiments that show that consecutive closely-spaced pulses result when something goes "off scale", probably the equivalent to computing Bayesian probabilities > 100%, somewhat akin to the "overflow" light on early analog computers. These closely-spaced pulses have a MUCH larger post-synaptic effect than the same number of regularly spaced pulses. However, as far as I know, this only occurs during anomalous situations - maybe when something really new happens, that might trigger learning? IMHO, it is simply not possible to play this game without having a close friend with years of experience poking mammalian neurons. This stuff is simply NOT in the literature. He may well be right that the pattern or the timing is more important, but > IMO he is doing the equivalent of saying "Let's talk about the best way to > design an algorithm to control an airport. First problem to solve: should > we use Emitter-Coupled Logic in the transistors that are in oour computers > that will be running the algorithms." Still, even with my above comments, you conclusion is still correct. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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
