Connectionists: How the brain works

[Tsvi Achler]

I think it is also interesting to ask the opposite question: what type
of models would be especially difficult to introduce to the community?
Here is my short list:
1. Models that go against years of dogma (eg arguing against the idea
that neural networks learn through a gradient descent mechanism)
2. Models reinterpreting existing data in a different way but overall
getting similar results.
-Tsvi


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Brad Wyble <bwyble at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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