<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/19/2014 9:07 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ=QoBQiesvrAH77Eoak0=Z3Y=0wqx-+1GKNheWvbpGVySSafg@mail.gmail.com"
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 class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><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">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">517-353-4388</a><br>
> Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:517-432-1061" value="+15174321061">517-432-1061</a><br>
> Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu">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>
<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>