<div dir="ltr">I concur with Dan. I'd caution anyone against the idea that a good theory of brain function should also ascribe to standards of mathematical aesthetics (i.e. that it can be reduced to a single function). Nature is functionally elegant, but that does not also mean that it can be reduced to an elegant mathematical formalism. <div>
<br></div><div>That said, I really like the question posed by Janet, which is to wonder at when the research community at large should start to take a new model seriously. I don't think that there is a clear answer to this question but there do seem to be two major factors: one is the degree to which the model compresses data into a simpler form (i.e. how good is the theory), and the other is the degree to which the model fills a perceived explanatory void in the field. Models that are rapidly adopted hit both of these marks. </div>
<div><br></div><div>-Brad </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Levine, Daniel S <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:levine@uta.edu" target="_blank">levine@uta.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I would disagree about the single equation. The brain needs to do a lot of different things to deal with the cognitive requirements of a changing and complex world, so that different functions (sensory pattern processing, motor control, etc.) may call for different structures and therefore different equations. Models of the brain become most useful when they can explain cognitive and behavioral functions that we take for granted in day-to-day life.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Connectionists [mailto:<a href="mailto:connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Janet Wiles<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:01 PM<br>
To: Yu Shan<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a><br>
Subject: Re: Connectionists: How the brain works<br>
<br>
When does a model escape from a research lab? Or in other words, when do researchers beyond the in-group investigate, test, or extend a model?<br>
<br>
I have asked many colleagues this question over the years. Well-written papers help, open source code helps, tutorials help. But the most critical feature seems to be that it can be communicated in a single equation. Think about backprop, reinforcement learning, Bayes theorem.<br>
<br>
Janet Wiles<br>
Professor of Complex and Intelligent Systems, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering The University of Queensland<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Connectionists [mailto:<a href="mailto:connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Yu Shan<br>
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 7:37 AM<br>
To: Juyang Weng<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a><br>
Subject: Re: Connectionists: How the brain works<br>
<br>
> Suppose that one gave all in this connectionists list a largely<br>
> correct model about how the brain works, few on this list would be<br>
> able to understand it let alone agree with it!<br>
><br>
<br>
Let's look at a recent example. Nikolic proposed his theory<br>
(<a href="http://www.danko-nikolic.com/practopoiesis/" target="_blank">http://www.danko-nikolic.com/practopoiesis/</a>) about how the brain works a few weeks ago to the Connectionists. Upon finishing reading this paper, I was quite exited. The theory is elegantly simple and yet has great explanatory power. It is also consistent with what we know about evolution as well as the brain's organization and development.<br>
Of course, we don't know yet if it is a "largely correct model about how the brain works". But, to my opinion, it has a great potential.<br>
Actually I am thinking how to implement those ideas in my own future research.<br>
<br>
However, the author's efforts of introducing this work to the Connectionists received little attention. Connectionists reach 5000+ people, who are probably the most interested and capable audience for such a topic. This makes the silence particularly intriguing. Of course, one possible reason is that lots of people here already studied this theory and deemed it irrelevant.<br>
<br>
But a more likely reason, I think, is most people did not give it much thought. If that is the case, it raises an interesting question: what is the barrier that a theory of how the brain works need to overcome in order to be treated seriously? In other words, what do we really want to know?<br>
<br>
Shan Yu, Ph.D<br>
Brainnetome Center and National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition Institute of Automation Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100190, P. R. China <a href="http://www.brainnetome.org/en/shanyu" target="_blank">http://www.brainnetome.org/en/shanyu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Brad Wyble<br>Assistant Professor<br>Psychology Department<br>Penn State University<div><br></div><div><a href="http://wyblelab.com" target="_blank">http://wyblelab.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>