Connectionists: AI at 50 videos...

[Aurel A. Lazar]

Fred,

The notion of “meaning” (semantics) used to be unquestionably an ill-defined term in the neuroscience literature.
However, with the case of olfaction, I believe that to no longer be true. 
Odorant semantics is now formally defined as odorant identity. Please see the review paper below:

Aurel A. Lazar <http://www.bionet.ee.columbia.edu/publications/aurel+a.+lazar/> and Yiyin Zhou <http://www.bionet.ee.columbia.edu/publications/yiyin+zhou/>
The Connectome and the Quest for the Functional Logic of the Drosophila Early Olfactory System <http://www.bionet.ee.columbia.edu/publications/6275039297011712/>
arxiv , August 2026 
BibTex   <http://www.bionet.ee.columbia.edu/publications/6275039297011712/?bibtex>   DOI <http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19290>

Happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Best,
Aurel
http://www.bionet.ee.columbia.edu






> On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:46 AM, Rothganger, Fred <frothga at sandia.gov> wrote:
> 
> Be Careful With This Message
> The sender's identity could not be verified and someone may be impersonating the sender.
> Asim,
> 
> It makes sense for you to put "meaning" in scare-quotes, since it is another ill-defined term. IMHO, the important thing is adaptive behavior. That a particular neuron fires when the organism is exposed to a stimulus is significant because that spike does work on other parts of the system, ultimately shaping behavior. The notion of "meaning" may just be a convenience for us as observers discussing the system.
> 
> -- Fred
> 
> 
> From: Connectionists <connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu <mailto:connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu>> on behalf of Asim Roy <ASIM.ROY at asu.edu <mailto:ASIM.ROY at asu.edu>>
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 10:47 PM
> To: KENTRIDGE, ROBERT W. <robert.kentridge at durham.ac.uk <mailto:robert.kentridge at durham.ac.uk>>; Gary Marcus <gary.marcus at nyu.edu <mailto:gary.marcus at nyu.edu>>; Stephen José Hanson <jose at rubic.rutgers.edu <mailto:jose at rubic.rutgers.edu>>; Hava Siegelmann (hava.siegelmann at gmail.com <mailto:hava.siegelmann at gmail.com>) <hava.siegelmann at gmail.com <mailto:hava.siegelmann at gmail.com>>; Juergen Schmidhuber <juergen.schmidhuber at kaust.edu.sa <mailto:juergen.schmidhuber at kaust.edu.sa>>; Ali Minai <minaiaa at gmail.com <mailto:minaiaa at gmail.com>>
> Cc: director at inc.ucsd.edu <mailto:director at inc.ucsd.edu> <director at inc.ucsd.edu <mailto:director at inc.ucsd.edu>>; connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu <mailto:connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu <mailto:connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Connectionists: FW: AI at 50 videos...
>  
> By the way, most of these microelectrode-based studies, starting with Horace Barlow, are single cell studies. And the single cell studies are the ones that have won Noble prizes because of the insights they produced. The overall evidence from these studies is not just about grandmother cells, but about single cells encoding abstractions and “meaning.” Reddy and Thorpe (2014) conclude:
>  
> “In conclusion, evidence is accumulating that “concept cells” carry high-level, abstract stimulus information.”
>  
> Single cells having “meaning” was (and still is) at the heart of discussion at that time because it contradicts the fundamental population coding idea where single neurons by themselves have no meaning, they only have meaning collectively. And Walter Freeman at that time could not accept the idea that single cells have meaning. We were supposed to have a public debate about this at IJCNN 2011 in San Jose. Walter posed the question directly to Rodrigo Quian Quiroga, who conducted many of these experiments under the supervision of Itzhak Fried and Christof Koch. Walter also knew Rodrigo, having been co-authors or co-editors of a book. Rodrigo came through at the last minute before the public debate, acknowledging that the single cells in his studies indeed had “meaning.”
>  
> “Meaning” and abstraction is at the heart of these debates, not grandmother cells. And finding “meaning” in activations of single cells directly contradicts the population coding hypothesis and supports instead the symbol system hypothesis.
>  
> Asim Roy
> Professor, Information Systems
> Arizona State University
> Lifeboat Foundation Bios: Professor Asim Roy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lifeboat.com/ex/bios.asim.roy__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!NHg1P4byXZZmMFLMgr8A4dQNxSlqyvsqWef4wrPXtCXR0f0bo0eMm-rIF8G6ZV0$>
> Asim Roy | iSearch (asu.edu) <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://isearch.asu.edu/profile/9973__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!U_TC-q4ErOzkCF5phc2VLI_Oq_ix6JWSJ-G8CUCAPjjAHJ1xvQd7MPbiGxKbpN7Z3_RG2YOYDyjzBca3e4KR$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20260824/8fbcbac8/attachment.html>