[Comp-neuro] Discussion - Kuhn - and brief comments
Garrison Cottrell
gary at cs.ucsd.edu
Wed Sep 3 17:30:06 CEST 2008
I hate to jump into this, but...
Speaking as a true novice, I would like to point out that the
neurogenesis that occurs on a daily basis is very specific to the
dentate gyrus; if someone knows of "daily neurogenesis" elsewhere, I
would like to hear about it.
This is not the same as learning in an ANN - these new neurons have a
specific function, which some of the best minds in our field are
currently trying to figure out (see Aimone, J., Wiles, J., & Gage, F.
(2006). Potential role for adult neurogenesis in the encoding of time
in new memories. Nature Neuroscience, 9(6), 723-727. for one example).
It is only if you don't have a good weight change rule (e.g., STDP)
and/or you believe in localist encodings that you need neurogenesis to
learn.
(shields up! ;-))
g.
On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Asim Roy wrote:
> 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 Roy
> Arizona State University
>
>
> -----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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Comp-neuro mailing list
> Comp-neuro at neuroinf.org
> http://www.neuroinf.org/mailman/listinfo/comp-neuro
Gary Cottrell 858-534-6640 FAX: 858-534-7029
Computer Science and Engineering 0404
IF USING FED EX INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LINE:
CSE Building, Room 4130
University of California San
Diego -
9500 Gilman Drive # 0404
La Jolla, Ca. 92093-0404
"Only connect!" -E.M. Forster
"I am awaiting the day when people remember the fact that discovery
does not work by deciding what you want and then discovering it."
-David Mermin
Email: gary at ucsd.edu
Home page: http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~gary/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.neuroinf.org/pipermail/comp-neuro/attachments/20080903/f08e1b8a/attachment.html
More information about the Comp-neuro
mailing list