<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Brian,<br>
<br>
Practopoiesis is not a theory of the entire organism such that it
would be some sort of an overkill for explaining the brain and
behavior. Practopoiesis is primarily a theory of how the brain
creates behavior. It was just to my surprise to discover post hoc
that these same principles apply to the rest of biology (including
genotype-phenotype relation).<br>
<br>
You asked:<br>
<br>
"Personally, I just want to create a happy being that can think
faster than me and answer my philosophical questions and lend a hand
with solving physics problems. How will p<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px">ractopoiesis</span> help
me do this, beyond me using basic heuristics from psychology, such
as just taking a quick look at lesion studies and psychopathologies,
which can help inform which parts of the brain, and which details I
need to include?"<br>
<br>
Practopoiesis tells you why the current approaches did not work so
far. It explains what was missing. It also describes some of the
properties of this missing component so that one could go ahead and
look for it in the brain. Also, it describes the contribution of
this component to working memory, attention, semantics and to a few
other aspects of cognition (I am not sure about happiness though). <br>
<br>
You wrote:<br>
<br>
"For example, I already have a quite functional system that seems to
accomplish the same thing as practopoiesis. I call the "genotype"
the first principle component, and the "phenotype" all the rest of
the components."<br>
<br>
The first principle component of brain network variance is an
interesting idea of compressing a brain model. You could use it also
in a practopoietic system. However, practopoiesis tells you that you
will need something else in addition. The network of the brain,
irrespective of whether it is compressed or not, can produce only
one traverse. Plasticity can add another traverse. So, you would
then have in total two traverses. Practopoiesis tells you that you
need in total three traverses. You can think of it as three stages
of transition from genotype to phenotype, whereby in each new
transition, the previous phenotype plays a role of genotype of the
new phenotype, and so on. Thus you would need to scan three
different levels of the brain: network + plasticity + one more named
'anapoiesis' (and then perhaps one can use your idea and compress
each by PCA). Practopoietic theory explains why you need three and
why one or two are not enough.<br>
<br>
Danko<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/19/2014 9:55 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ=QoBTuqvHcSdkFNrSLDapEsdDFFAv+qTEpdvERpgGh1PHrYA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Danko,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think I grok what you are saying and this sounds like a
useful contribution to me. That said, I don't think most folks
are interested in understanding the entire organism, and
indeed, such an endeavor would seem to require an almost
complete description of reality. Personally, I just want to
create a happy being that can think faster than me and answer
my philosophical questions and lend a hand with solving
physics problems. How will p<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px">ractopoiesis</span> help
me do this, beyond me using basic heuristics from psychology,
such as just taking a quick look at lesion studies and
psychopathologies, which can help inform which parts of the
brain, and which details I need to include?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, I already have a quite functional system that
seems to accomplish the same thing as practopoiesis. I call
the "genotype" the first principle component, and the
"phenotype" all the rest of the components.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Brian</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Danko
Nikolic <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danko.nikolic@googlemail.com" target="_blank">danko.nikolic@googlemail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Hi all,<br>
<br>
The problem of detailed vs. abstract forms that is being
discussed is in the heart of practopoietic theory: It
addresses that problem in a way similar to the distinction
between genotype and phenotype. For example, if the basic
architectural principles of cortex would correspond to
genotype, then the specific variation due to a particular
sensory modality would correspond to phenotype.
Practopoiesis generalizes these genotype-phenotype--like
relations to all levels of system organization: It defines
hierarchical organization of cybernetic knowledge, each
higher level possessing more specific version of the
knowledge provided by the preceding one.<br>
<br>
Practopoiesis suggests that the most interesting part is
not a choice of describing the system either with detailed
or with abstract operations. Instead, the process of
transition from abstract to details is the important one
to understand. This transition process, called 'traverse',
is responsible for development of the organism, learning
new knowledge, execution of cognitive operations, and
generation of behavior. In each case, some general
knowledge gets instantiated into more specific one.
Practopoiesis explains how this happens within a
hierarchy, and what the role of a continuous interaction
with the environment is.<br>
<br>
Danko
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 3/19/2014 9:07 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Jim,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Focusing too much on the details is risky in and
of itself. Optimal compression requires a balance,
and we can't compute what that balance is (all
models are wrong). One thing we can say for sure
is that we should err on the side of simplicity,
and adding detail to theories before simpler
explanations have failed is not Ockham's
heuristic. That said it's still in the space of a
Big Data fuzzy science approach, where we throw as
much data from as many levels of analysis as we
can come up with into a big pot and then construct
a theory. The thing to keep in mind is that when
we start pruning this model most of the details
are going to disappear, because almost all of them
are irrelevant. Indeed, the size of the
description that includes all the details is
almost infinite, whereas the length of the
description that explains almost all the variance
is extremely short, especially in comparison. This
is why Ockham's razor is a good heuristic. It
helps prevent us from wasting time on unnecessary
details by suggesting that we only inquire as to
the details once our existing simpler theory has
failed to work.
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Brian</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at
12:42 PM, james bower <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bower@uthscsa.edu"
target="_blank">bower@uthscsa.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">Actually, the previous
statement is only true in its most abstract
form -which in that form also applies to the
heart, the kidney and trees too. So not sure
what use that is. (trees used cellular based
communication to react to predation by insects
- and at least mine look like they are in pain
when they do so).<br>
<br>
<br>
the further statement about similar
developmental processes for cortical like
brain structures is also only true in its most
abstract sense. In particular, the cerebellum
has a quite unique form of cortical
development (very different from the frontal
cortical structures. cell migration patterns,
the way cellular components get connected, as
well as general timing - all of which are
almost certainly important to its function.
The cerebellum, for example, largely develops
entirely postnatally in most mammals. It is
also important to note that cerebellar
development is also considerably better
understood than is the case for cerebral
cortex.<br>
<br>
Again, as I have argued many times before - in
biology (perhaps unfortunately) the devil (and
therefore the computation) is in the details.
Gloss over them at your risk.<br>
<br>
Jim<br>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Juyang Weng
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu"
target="_blank">weng@cse.msu.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Mike,<br>
><br>
> Yes, they are very different in the
signals they receive and process after at
least several months' development
prenatally, but this is<br>
> not a sufficiently deep causality for
us to truly understand how the brain
works. Cerebral cortex, hippocampus and
cerebellum are all very similar in the
mechanisms that enable them to develop
into what they are, prenatally and
postnatally.<br>
><br>
> An intuitive way to think of this
deeper causality is: Development is
cell-based. The same set of cell
properties enables cells to migrate,
connect and form cerebral cortex,
hippocampus and cerebellum while each cell
taking signals from other cells.<br>
><br>
> -John<br>
><br>
> On 3/14/14 3:40 PM, Michael Arbib
wrote:<br>
>> At 11:17 AM 3/14/2014, Juyang
Weng wrote:<br>
>>> The brain uses a single
architecture to do all brain functions we
are aware of! It uses the same
architecture to do vision, audition,
motor, reasoning, decision making,
motivation (including pain avoidance and
pleasure seeking, novelty seeking, higher
emotion, etc.).<br>
>><br>
>> Gosh -- and I thought cerebral
cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum were
very different from each other.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Juyang (John) Weng, Professor<br>
> Department of Computer Science and
Engineering<br>
> MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU
Neuroscience Program<br>
> 428 S Shaw Ln Rm 3115<br>
> Michigan State University<br>
> East Lansing, MI 48824 USA<br>
> Tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:517-353-4388"
value="+15173534388" target="_blank">517-353-4388</a><br>
> Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:517-432-1061"
value="+15174321061" target="_blank">517-432-1061</a><br>
> Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu"
target="_blank">weng@cse.msu.edu</a><br>
> URL: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cse.msu.edu/%7Eweng/"
target="_blank">http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/</a><br>
>
----------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<pre cols="72"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolic
Web: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.danko-nikolic.com" target="_blank">http://www.danko-nikolic.com</a></font></span><div class="">
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:danko.nikolic@gmail.com" target="_blank">danko.nikolic@gmail.com</a>
----------------------------
</div></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolic
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.danko-nikolic.com">http://www.danko-nikolic.com</a>
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:danko.nikolic@gmail.com">danko.nikolic@gmail.com</a>
----------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>