On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote:
My assertion was that once you figure out just what it is that the
neurons are doing, that the difference between neural operation and
optimal operation will be negligible. This because of the 200
million years they have had to refine thei
Andrew, Vladamir, Mark, et al,
This discussion is parallel to an ongoing discussion I had with several
neuroscientists back in the 1970s-1980s. My assertion was that once you
figure out just what it is that the neurons are doing, that the difference
between neural operation and optimal operation w
On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
It is an open question as to whether or not mathematics will arrive
at an elegant solution that out-performs the sub-optimal wetware
algorithm.
What is the basis for your using the term sub-optimal when the
question is still open? If mathem
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is an open question as to whether or not mathematics will arrive at an
>> elegant solution that out-performs the sub-optimal wetware algorithm.
>
> What is the basis for your using the term sub-optimal when the question i
On Jun 11, 2008, at 12:05 AM, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
And it extends to much more than 3D physical models -- humans are able
to adjust dynamic representations on the fly, given additional
information about any level of description, propagating consequences
to other levels of description and formi
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having that model and computing interactions with that model are two
> different things. Humans do not actually compute their relation to other
> objects with high precision, they approximate and iteratively make
> co
On Jun 3, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Thanks. I must confess to my usual confusion/ignorance here - but
perhaps I should really have talked of "solid" rather than "3-D
mapping."
When you sit in a familiar chair, you have, I presume, a solid
mapping (or perhaps the word should be
Thanks. I must confess to my usual confusion/ignorance here - but perhaps I
should really have talked of "solid" rather than "3-D mapping."
When you sit in a familiar chair, you have, I presume, a solid mapping (or
perhaps the word should be "moulding") - distributed over your body, of how
it
On Jun 3, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Bob Mottram wrote:
2008/6/3 Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
What are the implications for computing - how would it have to
change - if
the brain uses literal 3D maps - and they turn out to be a necessity?
[Computers, I take it, can't currently produce them?]
2008/6/3 Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What are the implications for computing - how would it have to change - if
> the brain uses literal 3D maps - and they turn out to be a necessity?
> [Computers, I take it, can't currently produce them?]
2D mapping has been achievable for a while, but 3
Ben:As an example, no one yet knows how the brain represents 3D shapes ...
is it a literal 3D map of an object? some kind of symbolic
representation? some combination? something inbetween
Bob:Yes, there does seem to be an increasing amount of evidence that the
brain uses some form of 3D grid b
2008/6/3 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Grid cells ( http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Grid_cells
> ) is a very impressive feature. You can infer a lot from findings like
> this, about the way (low-level) knowledge forms in the brain.
> Presumably representations of 3D scenes
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can tell what parts of the brain tend to be involved in what sorts
> of activities, from fMRI. Not much else.
>
> Puzzling out complex neural functions often involves combining fMRI
> data from humans with data from sing
We can tell what parts of the brain tend to be involved in what sorts
of activities, from fMRI. Not much else.
Puzzling out complex neural functions often involves combining fMRI
data from humans with data from single-neuron recordings in other
animals. But we can generally only measure from a f
This is what we've just been discussing and Richard was criticising as
highly fallible. Your article adds pictures of the predictions, which is
helpful.
But all this raises the question presumably of just how much can be told
from fmri images generally. Does anyone have views about this - or l
Hey kids:
A COMPUTER THAT CAN 'READ' YOUR MIND
http://www.physorg.com/news131623779.html
Cheers,
Brad
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription
16 matches
Mail list logo
