[Comp-neuro] Discussion - Kuhn - and brief comments

Asim Roy ASIM.ROY at asu.edu
Mon Sep 1 09:39:25 CEST 2008


Asim Roy:  "a "blank slate" simply implies a network whose connection weights and other parameters have not been set yet -"

Jim Bower's response: And, no such thing in biology, where development doesn't end and learning begins - it is continuous, and development probably recapitulating evolutionary history.  Another reason why the mainstream ANN models make no sense.
 
 
Jim, would love to get some references for your statement:- "development probably recapitulating evolutionary history." This really is the kind of process in the brain that I am looking for. Just a few references would suffice.
 
By the way, learning takes place during development too. Just ask anyone in cognitive science. Development is not disassociated from learning. And ANN never implied learning begins after development. That's a misconception. 
 
On the "blank slate" idea in ANN, just look at the phenomenon of adult neurogenesis. Our adult brains generate new cells in the thousands on a daily basis and they are part of the "blank slate" because they don't come with ready-made connections or anything. The process that you refer to as "development probably recapitulating evolutionary history" is called "learning" in ANN. It's that process that constructs networks out of these new cells and makes them operational.
 
Asim
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: comp-neuro-bounces at neuroinf.org [mailto:comp-neuro-bounces at neuroinf.org]On Behalf Of james bower
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:05 AM
To: CompNeuro List
Subject: [Comp-neuro] Discussion - Kuhn - and brief comments


A few brief comments -- given that school has started, and I now have to prepare to "influence" the latest next generation.

First a BIG POINT:


Klaus Stiefel:  pre-paradigmatic " What he meant by that is a disagreement about the basic explainanda"

No, Kuhn was focused on process to quote:  "the early developmental stages of most sciences (are) characterized by continual competition between a number of distinct views of nature, each partially derived from, and all roughly compatible with, the dictates of scientific observation and method,  (In pre-paradigmatic science) what differentiates these various schools (is) not one or another failure of method - they are all "scientific" - but what we shall come to call their incommensurable ways of seeing the world and practicing science within it"  (pg 4 The Structure of Scientific Revolution.)   If this discussion over the last two months doesn't make it clear that, as a field, we currently have "incommensurate ways of seeing the world and practicing science within it"  I don't know what does.  Kuhn goes on to say:  "Men (sic) whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice."  Again, this discussion makes it pretty clear to me that we have not yet reached that point. In fact,  (and I would say reflecting this fact) the kind of discussion we have been having here seldom ever happens as we are content (and being pre-paradigmatic can get away with) agreeing to not discuss what we don't agree on, another characteristic of pre-paradigmatic science -- and the reason I don't mind starting these discussions.

Bryan Bishop:  "There's a few too many layers of folk psychology here,"

I agree, and have characterized all of biology as fundamentally folkloric in nature -- based on story telling, with few real definitions of anything.  Something comp bio (neuro) will, I hope, eventually fix.



And on to the approaches we don't agree on:

Bryan Bishop:  "I bet it  becomes clear that trying to do "natural language processing" from statistical inferences doesn't get us as much hard science as the brain could provide."

Of course, I agree -- and also agree that this field continues to be distorted by what is essential snake oil we sell to the Department of Defense about how studying the brain will help win wars.  This rather self serving commitment to "neuro-morphic engineering" as it is now called, has been distorting our science for a while.  In the last 8 years even more dramatically.  

Mario Negrello:  "I'd say instead that some approaches gather more acolytes, and then overflow others in sheer voluminous quantity,"

Unfortunately, as just noted, very often related to who you are selling the science to (funders) and also, unfortunately, how 'easy' the methods are and therefore how many can jump on the bandwagon without much preparation (or even knowledge of the brain in this case)   -- 20 years studying the realistic model of the Purkinje cell and counting.  


Bard Ermentrout:  " I suspect that it would be too hard to adjust parameters for realistic models "

Is hard bad?  Or is the brain, in fact, hard?


Igor Carron: "The groundwork of theory as you put it has, in nuclear technology, always been a way to acquire and use experimental findings." 

And this, in fact, is the value of theory -- not to capture 'truth' as many in comp neuro seem be believe, but to organize experimental studies -- the more the theory is removed from the actual structure of the brain - the more it exists by itself, disconnected from the ability to improve, or more importantly to refute it.


Asim Roy:  "a "blank slate" simply implies a network whose connection weights and other parameters have not been set yet -"

And, no such thing in biology, where development doesn't end and learning begins - it is continuous, and development probably recapitulating evolutionary history.  Another reason why the mainstream ANN models make no sense.


Asim Roy: "Is there a way in computational neuroscience to verify any of these theories of learning? "

Wrong question.


Axel Hutt:  " can (neuro)biology really treat a population of some thousand elements ? "

We will need to figure out how - numerous groups are working on it.


Anibalmastobiza:  "cerebellum, usually considered as a center for motor processing and coordination just  as it was for the basal ganglia that now we know that is also involve in cognition"

While I appreciate the support, I have another question for cognitive neuroscientists, how come anything that lights up in a brain scan becomes a "cognitive center"  seems weird to me.  


Jim








==================================

Dr. James M. Bower Ph.D.

Professor of Computational Neuroscience

Research Imaging Center
University of Texas Health Science Center - 
-  San Antonio
8403 Floyd Curl Drive
San Antonio Texas  78284-6240

Main Number:  210- 567-8100
Fax: 210 567-8152
Mobile:  210-382-0553 

CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:
The contents of this email and any attachments to it may be privileged or
contain privileged and confidential information. This information is only
for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you have received this
e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any
action in reliance upon, any of the information contained in this e-mail, or
any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this
e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be
immediately returned to the sender or destroyed and, in either case, this
e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from
your computer without making any copies hereof and any and all hard copies
made must be destroyed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by e-mail immediately.









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.neuroinf.org/pipermail/comp-neuro/attachments/20080901/3f9f48ed/attachment.html


More information about the Comp-neuro mailing list