Ah, then we're on the same page!
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Marek Otahal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chetan, > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Chetan Surpur <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> As for your hot plate example, I don't think it's the fact that the pain >> comes 1 second or 1 hour later that makes the difference, it's that 1 >> second's worth of inputs to the brain vs 1 hour's worth of inputs to the >> brain has been processed before the pain is processed. >> > > Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. From the texts above (I hope) it's > clear I assume a certain # of (brain) ticks per second. And the stream > always runs. So, more accurate to say would be, there;s 1000 ticks between > the touch and pain, contrary to 10^6, say. > > >> >> One hypothesis is that the brain doesn't need to keep track of time >> internally, it just has a feel for how much relative time has passed due to >> how much input it's had to process and learn from since a particular event. >> Now, I don't know if this is the case, but suffice to say that in NuPIC, we >> can use time input as just another datum if we need, but if we just want to >> measure the relative passing of time, we can just let the number of records >> processed take care of correlating inputs that are close together in "time". >> > > This is what I was trying to say is sufficient. > > Cheers, M. > > > -- > Marek Otahal :o) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
