Connectionists: How the brain works

[Brad Wyble]

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.

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.

-Brad



On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Levine, Daniel S <levine at uta.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Connectionists [mailto:connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu]
> On Behalf Of Janet Wiles
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:01 PM
> To: Yu Shan
> Cc: connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: Connectionists: How the brain works
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Janet Wiles
> Professor of  Complex and Intelligent Systems, School of Information
> Technology and Electrical Engineering The University of Queensland
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Connectionists [mailto:connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu]
> On Behalf Of Yu Shan
> Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 7:37 AM
> To: Juyang Weng
> Cc: connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: Connectionists: How the brain works
>
> > Suppose that one gave all in this connectionists list a largely
> > correct model about how the brain works, few on this list would be
> > able to understand it let alone agree with it!
> >
>
> Let's look at a recent example. Nikolic proposed his theory
> (http://www.danko-nikolic.com/practopoiesis/) 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.
> 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.
> Actually I am thinking how to implement those ideas in my own future
> research.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Shan Yu, Ph.D
> Brainnetome Center and National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition
> Institute of Automation Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100190, P. R.
> China http://www.brainnetome.org/en/shanyu
>
>
>


-- 
Brad Wyble
Assistant Professor
Psychology Department
Penn State University

http://wyblelab.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20140522/89033a5c/attachment.html>