If you want to convince people - especially scientists - of your
theories, you have to do a better job of communicating them than you
have. At least try referring me to some of these discussions. Serve
the truth, as you say.
So I guess then the question becomes this: if "all" the issues of TD E/
I optimization have been addressed in the 70s, how well has it stood
up over time? For example, LTP and LTD had barely even been
discovered, let alone applied as models of learning in memory; and are
today considered building blocks of what brains do. Or, does TD E/I
optimization account for pattern recognition by neurons better than
theories governing self-organizing distributed neuronal networks with
lateral inhibitory connections? What about back-propagation, dendritic
action potentials, calcium waves in astrocytes and their effects on
neuronal excitability? Or that cells of the hippocampus do, in fact,
die and get replaced by newly-born neurons throughout the lifespan of
the organism? It can't have dealt with these fundamental parts of
brain function because we hadn't discovered them in the 70s.
But my basic issue here is that brains have evolved over all this time
to do the opposite of maintain equilibriums. They produce and maintain
very discrete disequilibriums in a parallel distributed manner that
influences another set of neurons to react about the same way to the
same environmental stimuli. To form representations subject to
graceful degradation, you need fuzzy boundaries of your topological
distribution (and ALWAYS elicit activation in several brain areas at
once), in which energy (heaps of it!) is spent to change gene
expression and the structures of involved neurons. This is the
opposite of an equilibrium, and incidentally why we eat so much.
On Feb 19, 1:51 am, "Benjamin" <Benja... from verizon.net> wrote:
> "ian.vitro" <ian.vi... from gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171813429.015903.73650 from t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...>> > [...]
>> Is there anyone who can send Ian a
> copy of AoK?
>> Ian, everything you discussed in your
> post was Completely-Resolved back
> in the 1970s.
>> Don't 'blame' me that the Resolution
> has not reached you.
>> I've tried to reach 'you' with it.
>> Unfortunately, it's all been thoroughly
> discussed in former threads here in
> b.n, so, these 'days', I'm working on
> advancing higher-'level' stuff.
>> I understand that my current posts
> 'must' seem 'incomprehensible' to
> folks who've not been reading 'all
> along', but I'm writing for folks who
> have been reading 'all along'.
>> The rest is Sorrow.