There are plenty of things that HTM is not aligned with in terms of biology. 
For example global inhibition I mentioned earlier. The only reasoning behind 
global and local inhibition that I have seen so far is that 'there is 
inhibition so we inhibit in A way'. If that weren't the case there would only 
be the one choice and it would be closely related to the reasoning and results 
of biology. Which that is completely fine, I'm not saying that you need to know 
everything to start working on a theory. That is by definition what a theory 
is, you don't know everything and you are trying to work it out. But as 
scientists, if you start assuming "the way we are doing it is getting results 
so lets just assume that's the way biology does it until someone tells us 
different" then honestly that's only slightly different than the current AI 

It maybe the case that things like inhibition method, biasing local spatial 
processing before temporal, ignoring minicolumn functionality for the overall 
hypercolumn results, resetting, etc., might not actually affect the overall 
effect that cortical columns create. My point is that there are things that 
have been done that exclude key components, like a neurons connection to higher 
and horizontal neighbors, that make the assumption will give the same results. 
A layers inhibition methodology is the replacement for lateral connections and 
interneurons. And as scientists, you can't possibly comfortably say that that 
method its neurally confirmed rather than neural plausible.

That's my point, really that it's a step toward proving but design choices have 
made the theory much different than biology's methods but still trying to stay 
true to the end result. Hopefully with no unintended consequences of biasing 
the learning in certain ways.

 or reply to this email to respond.

You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.

To unsubscribe from these emails, [click 

Reply via email to