Thanks for your answer Jeff!
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jeff Hawkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Great question. You are the first person to ask this. I don’t have time > to go through each of the predictions in the book in detail, but I will > share some general observations.**** > > ** ** > > - Lots of neuroscientists thought the book was great and novel. Some were > critical as they felt what I wrote about was not new. No one objected to > what I wrote based on content, at least I am not aware of any.**** > > ** ** > > - When the book came out I spoke to a few neuroscientists who had read the > book and had specific knowledge about some of the predictions. These > conversations were a bit inconclusive, such as “there is some evidence in > support but it isn’t clear”. No one said “yes you got this right”, or “no > you got this wrong”, or “here is contradictory evidence”. That was a > little disappointing.**** > > ** ** > > - Many of the predictions in the book involved details of physiology and > anatomy at a fine level of specificity. There has been relatively little > progress made on tools that can test these predictions. Many of the funds > that in the past went to anatomy and physiology have been directed to fMRI > and other “hot” areas. So these kinds of in vivo cellular studies have > become a bit of a back water. For example the number of people in the > world who study connections in layer 1 could probably be counted on one > hand and it may be as little as zero. Bottom line is there are few tools > and few people who are capable of testing these predictions.**** > > ** ** > > - In neuroscience there isn’t a history of theorists and experimentalists > as you see in physics. Neuroscience experiments are hard, expensive, and > can take years to complete. Because of this most experimentalists don’t > test other people’s theories and often don’t even share their data. So I > wasn’t expecting people to rush out and design experiments to test these > predictions, and they didn’t.**** > > ** ** > > Finally, I have not been out scouring the literature for verification of > these predictions. There may be supporting or contrary evidence that I am > not aware of.**** > > Jeff **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* nupic [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Oreste > Villa > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:41 AM > *To:* NuPIC general mailing list. > *Subject:* [nupic-dev] "On Intelligence" Appendix predictions..**** > > ** ** > > I remember reading "On Intelligence" the first time in 2006 (then in 2009 > and then few months ago). **** > > I am wondering which predictions have been confirmed or denied since the > book was first published in 2004.**** > > It is almost 10 years (I know time flies when you are having fun :-) ) and > I am sure there must be something new out there with respect to these > predictions.**** > > ** ** > > I know literature is huge, but is there someone up to date that is willing > to share some knowledge? **** > > ** ** > > Example of predictions, for people that did not read the book (not to > advertise but you should read it at least once): **** > > ** ** > > Prediction 4**** > > One class of cells in layers 2 and 3 should preferentially receive input > from layer 6 cells in higher cortical regions.**** > > ** ** > > Prediction 8**** > > Sudden understanding should result in a precise cascading of predictive > activity that flows down the cortical hierarchy.**** > > ** ** > > (there are 11 predictions in the appendix and other through the all book)* > *** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > >
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
