<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline">Asim
Roy</SPAN>: "a "blank slate" simply implies a network whose connection
weights and other parameters have not been set yet -"<BR><SPAN
class=281005119-02092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><STRONG><U>Jim Bower's
response</U></STRONG>: </SPAN>And, no such thing in biology, where development
doesn't end and learning begins - it is continuous, and development probably
recapitulating evolutionary history. Another reason why the mainstream ANN
models make no sense.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT color=#0000ff>Jim, would love
to get some references for your statement:- "development probably
recapitulating evolutionary history." This really is the kind of process in the
brain that I am looking for. Just a few references would
suffice.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT color=#0000ff>By the way,
learning takes place during development too. Just ask anyone in cognitive
science. Development is not disassociated from learning. And ANN never implied
learning begins after development. That's a
misconception. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT color=#0000ff>On the "blank
slate" idea in ANN, just look at the phenomenon of adult neurogenesis. Our adult
brains generate new cells in the thousands on a daily basis and they are part of
the "blank slate" because they don't come with ready-made connections or
anything. The process that you refer to as "<FONT color=#000000>development
probably recapitulating evolutionary history" </FONT></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff>is called "learning" in ANN. It's that process that
constructs networks out of these new cells and makes them
operational.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT color=#0000ff>Asim<SPAN
class=281005119-02092008><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Roy</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=531280007-01092008><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=281005119-02092008><FONT face=Arial size=2>Arizona State
University</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
comp-neuro-bounces@neuroinf.org
[mailto:comp-neuro-bounces@neuroinf.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>james
bower<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:05 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
CompNeuro List<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Comp-neuro] Discussion - Kuhn - and brief
comments<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>A few brief comments -- given that school has started, and I now have
to prepare to "influence" the latest next generation.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>First a BIG POINT:</DIV>
<DIV apple-content-edited="true"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Klaus Stiefel: pre-paradigmatic " What he meant by that is a
disagreement about the basic explainanda"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>No, Kuhn was focused on process to quote: "the early
developmental stages of most sciences (are) characterized by continual
competition between a number of distinct views of nature, each partially
derived from, and all roughly compatible with, the dictates of scientific
observation and method, (In pre-paradigmatic science) what
differentiates these various schools (is) not one or another failure of
method - they are all "scientific" - but what we shall come to call their
incommensurable ways of seeing the world and practicing science within it"
(pg 4 The Structure of Scientific Revolution.) If this
discussion over the last two months doesn't make it clear that, as a field,
we currently have "incommensurate ways of seeing the world and practicing
science within it" I don't know what does. Kuhn goes on to say:
"Men (sic) whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed
to the same rules and standards for scientific practice." Again, this
discussion makes it pretty clear to me that we have not yet reached that
point. In fact, (and I would say reflecting this fact) the kind of
discussion we have been having here seldom ever happens as we are content
(and being pre-paradigmatic can get away with) agreeing to not discuss what
we don't agree on, another characteristic of pre-paradigmatic science -- and
the reason I don't mind starting these discussions.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bryan Bishop: "There's a few too many layers of folk psychology
here,"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I agree, and have characterized all of biology as fundamentally
folkloric in nature -- based on story telling, with few real definitions of
anything. Something comp bio (neuro) will, I hope, eventually
fix.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And on to the approaches we don't agree on:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Bryan
Bishop</SPAN>: "I bet it becomes clear that trying to do
"natural language processing" from statistical inferences doesn't get us as
much hard science as the brain could provide."</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Of course, I agree -- and also agree that this field continues to be
distorted by what is essential snake oil we sell to the Department of
Defense about how studying the brain will help win wars. This rather
self serving commitment to "neuro-morphic engineering" as it is now called,
has been distorting our science for a while. In the last 8 years even
more dramatically. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Mario Negrello: "I'd say instead that some approaches gather more
acolytes, and then overflow others in sheer voluminous quantity,"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Unfortunately, as just noted, very often related to who you are selling
the science to (funders) and also, unfortunately, how 'easy' the methods are
and therefore how many can jump on the bandwagon without much preparation
(or even knowledge of the brain in this case) -- 20 years studying
the realistic model of the Purkinje cell and counting. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bard Ermentrout: " I suspect that it would be too hard to
adjust parameters for realistic models "</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Is hard bad? Or is the brain, in fact, hard?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV apple-content-edited="true">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline">Igor
Carron</SPAN>: "The groundwork of theory as you put it has, in nuclear
technology, always been a way to acquire and use
experimental findings."
<DIV><BR></DIV>And this, in fact, is the value of theory -- not to capture
'truth' as many in comp neuro seem be believe, but to organize experimental
studies -- the more the theory is removed from the actual structure of the
brain - the more it exists by itself, disconnected from the ability to
improve, or more importantly to refute it.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline">Asim
Roy</SPAN>: "a "blank slate" simply implies a network whose connection
weights and other parameters have not been set yet -"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And, no such thing in biology, where development doesn't end and
learning begins - it is continuous, and development probably recapitulating
evolutionary history. Another reason why the mainstream ANN models
make no sense.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Asim Roy: "Is there a way in computational neuroscience to verify any
of these theories of learning? "</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Wrong question.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Axel Hutt: " can (neuro)biology really treat
a population of some thousand elements ? "</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>We will need to figure out how - numerous groups are working on
it.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Anibalmastobiza: "cerebellum, usually considered as a center for
motor processing and coordination just as it was for the basal
ganglia that now we know that is also involve in cognition"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>While I appreciate the support, I have another question for cognitive
neuroscientists, how come anything that lights up in a brain scan becomes a
"cognitive center" seems weird to me. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Jim</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>==================================</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Dr. James M. Bower Ph.D.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Computational Neuroscience</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Research Imaging Center</DIV>
<DIV>University of Texas Health Science Center - </DIV>
<DIV>- San Antonio</DIV>
<DIV>8403 Floyd Curl Drive</DIV>
<DIV>San Antonio Texas 78284-6240</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Main Number: 210- 567-8100</DIV>
<DIV>Fax: 210 567-8152</DIV>Mobile: 210-382-0553
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:<BR>The contents of this email and any attachments
to it may be privileged or<BR>contain privileged and confidential
information. This information is only<BR>for the viewing or use of the
intended recipient. If you have received this<BR>e-mail in error or are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified<BR>that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any<BR>action in reliance
upon, any of the information contained in this e-mail, or<BR>any of the
attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this<BR>e-mail
and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be<BR>immediately
returned to the sender or destroyed and, in either case, this<BR>e-mail and
all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from<BR>your
computer without making any copies hereof and any and all hard
copies<BR>made must be destroyed. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please<BR>notify the sender by e-mail immediately.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>