<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Mike, <br>
<br>
the main idea for Autonomous Mental Development (AMD) is to
automatically generate (develop) brain regions and detailed circuits
recursively (scaffolding) using three things:<br>
(1) The developmental program (simulating the functions of the
genome)<br>
(2) The circuits already generated so far from the birth time<br>
(3) The experience of autonomous interactions with the environments.<br>
Why? The brain circuits are too complex to hand craft. Every brain
circuit is very different. For this reason, I think that the NIH
Connectome project is not very useful for understanding how the
brain works even one gets the perfect connection map without any
error. <br>
<br>
We have shown that different areas of the DN so developed indeed
have very different circuits.<br>
<br>
However, we have not yet identified which part of a DN is
hippocampus and
which part is cerebellum, etc., because we still mainly use <br>
one or two sensory modalities (e.g., vision and audition, or vision
and touch) and a very small set of effectors. A hippocampus uses
all five sensory modalities of a human body and all human body
effectors to develop. A cerebellum uses very rich sets of receptors
in the somatosensory system and almost all body effectors. To
truly generate (develop) hippocampus and cerebellum correctly, one
needs to have at least all major receptors and effectors that they
use. Therefore, I do not think that anybody should statically model
a hippocampus or a cerebellum because without the developmental
causality, any such static circuits are grossly wrong and
computationally inefficient. <br>
<br>
In summary, the brain is nearly optimally developed to perform the
sensorimotor experience that a child/human has experience up to the
current time. <br>
<br>
This is probably not a view supported by most people on this list,
but I respectfully ask everybody to at least consider patiently. <br>
<br>
-John<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/19/14 4:27 PM, Michael Arbib
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:201403192257.s2JMr87U028279@mx0b-00164701.pphosted.com"
type="cite">
Ignoring the gross differences in circuitry between hippocampus
and
cerebellum, etc., is not erring on the side of simplicity, it is
erring,
period. Have you actually looked at a Cajal/Sxentagothai-style
drawing of
their circuitry?<br>
<br>
At 01:07 PM 3/19/2014, Brian J Mingus wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi Jim,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
> On 3/14/14 3:40 PM, Michael Arbib wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>>> At 11:17 AM 3/14/2014, Juyang Weng wrote:<br>
</dd>
<dd>>>> 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>
</dd>
<dd>>><br>
</dd>
<dd>>> Gosh -- and I thought cerebral cortex,
hippocampus and
cerebellum were very different from each other.
</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
Juyang (John) Weng, Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU Neuroscience Program
428 S Shaw Ln Rm 3115
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
Tel: 517-353-4388
Fax: 517-432-1061
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu">weng@cse.msu.edu</a>
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/">http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/</a>
----------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>