I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available
neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural
knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions about neural
KR from available data involves loads of theoretical presuppositions
...
However, my view is that this is well known among neuroscientists, and
your reading of the Quiroga et al paper supports this...
ben g
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
>
> --
> 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/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert
Heinlein
-------------------------------------------
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
