Also I agree with the whole, "t's not a simulation and doesn't need to be"
sentiment. If you can just get either the minicolumn or hypercolumn
functionality right, than aside from connecting other modules and their
functionality of the brain, then you don't need an individual neuron
There are plenty of things that HTM is not aligned with in terms of biology.
For example global inhibition I mentioned earlier. The only reasoning behind
global and local inhibition that I have seen so far is that 'there is
inhibition so we inhibit in A way'. If that weren't the case there
[quote="Cairo, post:4, topic:5259"]
So I wouldn’t say it is closely based on biology, but it has taken lessons to
try to replicate similar results that are important in what makes intelligence.
But in very different ways.
[/quote]
I don’t quite agree with your statement. I’ve always said that
I would caution people just saying HTM is supported by 'x' papers. As for
@Zoey_Lee question, it's neural plausible, not necessarily neurally confirmed.
If you don't want to read every one of the cited papers, I think the main take
away from neuroscience and cortical columns that HTM has
Thanks for joining @Zoey_Lee. Mark is right, HTM is very closely based on
common accepted neuroscience. If you [read our
papers](https://numenta.com/neuroscience-research/research-publications/papers/)
you will see that they cite relevant neuroscience papers that helped us
develop our
It is the other way around - HTM is closely based on the biology.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discourse.numenta.org/t/neuroscience-verification-of-htm-theory/5259/2)
or reply to this email to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these
Hello, I am very interested in HTM theory and have read relevant papers. I
think HTM theory is very cool. Since I am not particularly familiar with
neuroscience, my question is, which theories of HTM have been confirmed by
neuroscientists so far? Can you provide relevant papers? Thank you
