Feedback is too broad. It happens in everything from reflex pathways to intra regional circuits.
Ian On Mar 5, 2014 3:28 PM, "Subutai Ahmad" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would phrase it as "feedback is fundamental to biological intelligence". > > > --Subutai > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Ian Danforth <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Using the same weights going up and coming down isn't biological but >> reconstruction in general is fundamental to biological intelligence. >> >> Ian >> On Mar 5, 2014 10:20 AM, "Subutai Ahmad" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Yes, that is what the old reconstruction algorithm tried to do. I looked >>> around and found an old writeup of it which I've attached here. The >>> language in it is outdated, but perhaps still helpful? Section 3 (top down >>> compute) is the most relevant. >>> >>> Historically, we stopped using it in nupic because the classifier based >>> approach worked much better in the OPF for prediction. >>> >>> Also, this algorithm is not at all biologically realistic. However, it >>> may still be quite useful! >>> >>> --Subutai >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Marek Otahal <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> If by the 'old reconstruction' we mean that each block (SP, TP, >>>> encoder) can process in reverse direction (top-down)? then YES for me. I'd >>>> have lots usages. >>>> I'd be willing to mentor this task in SoN. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Chetan Surpur <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> In order to use CEPT SDRs with both the spatial pooler and the >>>>> temporal pooler (rather than just the TP directly), we will need some form >>>>> of reconstruction. This will allow us to bring back the output of the TP >>>>> into the original CEPT SDR space. >>>>> >>>>> This reasoning applies to any predetermined SDRs that you want to feed >>>>> into a region and get a prediction for. >>>>> On Feb 27, 2014 9:37 AM, "Matthew Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is the old reconstruction algorithm a good idea and should we bring >>>>>> back a working implementation in NuPIC? This is a meaty topic that >>>>>> Subutai and Ian have started on Github[1][2]. We'd like to have this >>>>>> conversation here on the mailing list before we create further tickets >>>>>> and take action. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please chime in if you have an opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/numenta/nupic/pull/421#issuecomment-30059730 >>>>>> [2] https://github.com/numenta/nupic/issues/683 >>>>>> >>>>>> --------- >>>>>> Matt Taylor >>>>>> OS Community Flag-Bearer >>>>>> Numenta >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
