Connectionists: how the brain works? (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Danko Nikolic]

Dear Jon,

Please see my comments below.

>
> Much of your views are consistent to our DN model, an overarching 
> model for developing brains.
>
I agree that there are some consistencies. Moreover, I agree that 
development is important and cannot be neglected in any theory. 
Development and learning cannot be dissociated because development is 
just a way of learning.

> > The system always adjusts--to everything(!)
>
> Yes, since the system does not know which is new and which is old. 
> However, the amount of adjustment is different.
> There is also a novelty system imbedded into the basic brain circuits, 
> realized by neurotransmitters such as ACh and NE.
I believe that this above is the description of your DN system, but it 
is not a description of an anapoietic system. In an anapoietic system 
the amount of adjustment corresponds to the degree to which the mental 
contents (e.g., those of working memory) have changed. So, if in one 
moment we think about vacation and then, the next moment we think about 
chess, the change is large because the mental contents have changed. The 
novelty of those contents does not matter so much. We may be recalling 
familiar information about chess and still the change is large. Novelty 
makes this process slower but largely does not determine the amount of 
change during anapoiesis.

>
> > The only simple input-output mappings that take place are the 
> sensory-motor loops that execute the actual behavior.
>
> Sorry, I do not quite agree. All sensory-motor loops that execute the 
> actual behavior are not simple input-output mappings.
> They affect all related brain representations, including perception, 
> cognition and motivation, as the DN system implies.
Again, I agree that this is what DN system does. However, I was 
describing the properties of a practopoietic system that implements 
anapoiesis. This system has different properties.
>
> > If the current goals of the system requires treating a slightly 
> novel stimulus as new, it will be treated as "new". However, if a 
> slight change in the stimulus features does not make a difference for 
> the current goals and the situation, than the stimulus will be treated 
> as "old".
>
> The brain does not seem to have an if-then-else circuit like your 
> above statement seems to suggest. Regardless new or old,
> the brain uses basically the same set of mechanisms. Only the outcome 
> is always different.
>
There is no if-then. It is more accurate to say that, with anapoiesis, 
these properties emerge.


> > Importantly, practopoietic theory is not formulated in terms of 
> neurons (inhibition, excitation, connections, changes of synaptic 
> weights, etc.).
>
> Then, does it fall into the trap of symbolic representations? 
No, no symbolics. It is more like cybernetics organized into a 
creational (i.e., poietic) hierarchy.

> How does the theory explain the development of various types of 
> invariance?
An anapoietic system only can learn in an invariant way. In fact, it is 
very hard to learn things literally, much like non-invariant learning is 
very hard for a human mind. The system must put a lot of effort, a lot 
of learning, in order to reduce its invariance.

Too understand why invariance is a natural property of anapoiesis, 
please see the section 2.4 entitled "Practopoietic transcendence of 
knowledge: Generality-­‐specificity hierarchy".

Best regards,

Danko


-- 
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić

Web:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com

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
danko.nikolic at gmail.com
----------------------------