IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

monkeys learn to use brain-machine interface

BilZ0r BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com
Thu Oct 16 16:53:05 EST 2003

I stop reading once you started talking about TD E/I-minimization, but 
you're right, there are lots of problems with directly inferring between 
neural nets and nervous systems (especailly back propogation, could you 
be more on physiological?)... and in the past I wouldn't have done it, 
but I've become increasingly awear of how scarely accurate neural nets 
can be at predicted the architecture of the nervous system.

You hook them up to an "eye" and the produce a 'V1' with occular 
dominance colums, with blobs and generally stuff that looks very much 
like the back of your head.

Likewise with the motor cortex...

So this makes me suspect that neural nets arn't things we should just 
throw away.

"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:KDvjb.181204
$0v4.13912084 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94168DEE266C8BilZ0rhotmailcom at
>| Catastrophic forgetting is what happens
>| when you train a neural net to do a
>| certain task, and then we you train it to
>| do a new task, it is completely
>| unable to do the old task.
>| This can be overcome by training the
>| net at the old task intermitantly
>| between trials and the new task.
>| Interestingly (and this is what I was
>| getting at in my OP), when you do the
>| intermitant 'reminding' of the old task,
>| so you get a net that can do the
>| two tasks, the nodal connection
>| strengths are completely altered from
>| the | original task. i.e. for a net to
>| remember 2 things, the nodes arn't a
>| superposition of the patern for task 1
>| and task 2, they are completely
>| remodeled.
> Thanks for this explanation.
> From the perspective in which I work,
> my reaction was, "Of course" - be-
> cause the 'complete remodeling'
> "addresses" the underpinning inform-
> ation 'via' its cross-correlations.
> The analogous thing occurs within
> biological nervous systems.
> NDT's view on it is briefly discussed
> in AoK, Ap6.
> Biological nervous systems don't do
> it like neural nets - they don't 'cram'
> everything into a single collection of
> 'nodes' and their interactions.
> In biological nervous systems, there's
> a lot of hierarchical processing, which
> is, nevertheless, integrated via global
> TD E/I-minimization.
> It's the global-integration, via TD E/I-
> minimization, that rigorously-couples
> all of the hierarchical stuff across its
> hierarchy, and with respect to physical
> reality - via TD E/I-minimization's rig-
> orous coupling to WDB2T.
> Global-integration via TD E/I-minimiza-
> tion 'knows' that Correct solutions cor-
> respond to WDB2T ^ -1, so they just
> 'cut-to-the-chase', 'blindly' and auto-
> matically 'seek' TD E/I-minimization,
> and information-convergence occurs
> as a 'blindly'-automated by-product
> of such TD E/I-minimization.
> What I've been working to do with
> NDT's synthesis of the Neuroscience
> experimental results is to show folks
> thatm, iff they acquire an understand-
> ing of how and why nervous systems
> process information via 'blindly'-auto-
> mated TD E/I-minimization, they can
> achieve 'transcendance' with respect
> to the 'blind'-automation.
> In the dark-'light' of the Savagery that
> the 'blind'-automation precipitates with-
> in 'blindly'-automated Human interactive
> dynamics, elimination of the 'blind'-auto-
> mation is easily seen to be a Worthy
> goal.
> I'm sorry that my reply only addresses
> the neural-net focus of yours. I long ago
> took a look into 'neural nets' and found
> their approach lacking-necessary-sub-
> stance, in particular, in the way they
> were trying to do everything within a
> single collection of 'cloned' 'nodes' - so
> I 'looked-elsewhere'.
> I've also been long-aware that the work
> I've done has fed-back into 'neural-net'
> efforts. It's been routinely both Sorrow-
> ful and funny to see the AI folks' efforts
> 'discovering' what's been handed-to
> them in NDT's stuff.
> It's been as if folks've seen the work I've
> done as being 'exempt' from any need
> for citation - as if I'm some sort of 'daddy'
> whose only purpose has been to 'give
> other researchers' their weekly-'allowances',
> and that, because I'm this 'daddy', 'there's
> no need' for otherwise Accepted Priority.
> It's funny to me that it's been so.
> And it's been killing-me, 'two'.
> Part of it is that folks presume that the
> traditional route has been open to me,
> but it has not been.
> They feel it's 'OK' to usurp the work I've
> done, 'because', 'all I'd have to do to re-
> ceive credit for the work I've done would
> be to go to grad school' - 'merge with the
> way things are supposed to be'.
> But I tried all of that back in the 70's, and
> 'the system' rejected me - be-cause my
> work was, then, already so far ahead of
> 'the system' that no one who acted on be-
> half of 'the system' could See its stuff.
> They 'just' rejected it all, abjectly.
> So, how could I have 'merged with the sys-
> tem'?
> Now, there's this tacit 'conspiracy' that
> derives in the fact that so many folks've
> 'borrowed' from the work I've done, without
> crediting it, that doing so, now, is 'unthink-
> able, because everyone knows that doing
> so would result in a pan-Academia 'scandal'.
> Part of what's funny, though, is that, if I 'go
> dark', folks bash me for 'withholding' the
> work I've done :-]
> Don't I realize that I'm their 'daddy', and that,
> 'of course', I have to just give them their
> 'allowances'? :-] [show them how to do
> their work, so that they can 'earn' their
> slaries].
> I've been trying =HARD= to avoid 'scandal' -
> to "hold open the door", but it's obvious that
> that's why folks have come to treat me as
> their 'daddy'.
> It's been funny.
> But it's also been killing me.
> [Please Forgive me my Lament, but
> it's what seeing the "of course" stuff
> in your reply, and seeing how old the
> same-stuff is in NDT, evoked within
> me. And please don't receive my
> comments as if they are directed
> 'to you', personally. They are not. They
> are directed to 'the system's coersed,
> and coersing, consensus, that sanctions
> such theft of Life itself from folks like me.]
> ken [K. P. Collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net