Hi Marek, I think there are several elements to this. You're right about "fast reactions" such as removing your hand to avoid burning - these reactions can occur with zero brain involvement (reflexes are due to processing and motor outputs in the spine, only passing the resulting motor data up to the brain "for the record"). Slightly slower are reactions in the reptilian brain such as those used to control muscles when your feet hit the ground after a drop, for example. As you go up the hierarchy into the neocortex, the processing becomes ever slower but you get more complex sequences of reactions being produced.
"Training" in the everyday sense of the word (e.g. soldiers drilling, athletic training, ballroom dancing, musical rehearsal etc) is all about converting *knowledge* of complex sequences (eg instructions in a book, coaching, theatre directing, drill instructiors, etc) into sequence memories which can be played back at full speed and generalised to fit the circumstances. Thus the endless repetition of seemingly useless drills and exercise routines, which are just formal, adult versions of the endless repetition seen when children sit in the bath and pour the same water out of the same containers for hours. Regards, Fergal Byrne On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Marek Otahal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Stewart Mackenzie <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ... >> >> When things get rough am I correct in assuming the lower levels in the >> hierarchy become saturated with signals to the point nothing can be made >> out. At this point the patterns instilled at higher levels of the hierarchy >> take over. >> > I don't think this is correct. Do you have any support? > > I believe we have "hardwired" centers for critical operation - think of a > special CLA region whose output has priority (=higher permanences) before > others, we've developed these as "animals". These centers recieve low-level > input (bcs it's fast), that is directly from sensors, or from low level > CLAs. > > The examples are, when you put your hand in fire, you move your hand, no > thinking. When we try to drown you :), you shut the mouth under water and > stop breathing. > > My support for why not higher level concepts - empirically, the idea of > Al-Queida bombing your house does not trigger such panic, while the > examples above do. And practical too, if you need an autopilot, you dont > build it on Windows 8 which asks FB API, but in an embedded device. > > Back to your training example, I think hard training (Pavlov's dogs, 10yrs > of kung-fu) makes the trained pathways in brain so strong to act > sub-counsiously like the survival centers. So if you were to scare such a > trained soldier, he can react automatically and kill you, even if you're > his friend. Because he's been trained to kill. > > You mention lower levels become (over-)saturated with signals to conclude > we must use higher levels for quick reactions. I think this is false, > because low levels operate always at the same speed - your eyes do percieve > at a given "frame-rate", no matter what happens, they don't become > oversaturated. When we act real quick (==automatic) it's because you don't > wait for high level concepts to decide "Hmm, this man with a gun pointing > at me. He wears enemy uniform. But he's smiling, maybe we should chat?" > > > > -- > Marek Otahal :o) > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > > -- Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT <http://www.examsupport.ie>http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
