>I've made a little web page about some ideas I had a while back:
>>http://www.reiss.demon.co.uk/neural/neural.htm
Mick, hi: I found your materials as interesting as laconic. Thanks for the
opportunity to become familiar.
I am making a very inconsistent attempt to understand the computational
stuff as, for a very good reason, such models do help when attempting to
piece several brain regions together, as in information processing modeling
in norm and pathology. So, intuitively, I like your concept as it is based
on - what you seem to ID as the main activity of a neuron - monitoring of
what's happening around, everywhere. I am not sure I understood it right,
but in the case I did it is the same reason I liked Ken's ideas, if you
bothered following some recent exchanges here. Perhaps a long one, but there
is a connection between what the two of you are saying.
If you are not busy, could you consider answering the following questions:
1. Would you agree that if one makes a statement similar to yours as in "to
continuously attempt to learn to predict the activities of other neurons but
based on different inputs", we really are talking about one of the two main
forms of neuronal activity with one as being a part of a specific "message
delivery", and the other of doing exactly what you have described, i.e.
"just being a part of the crowd"? Or you saying that this is all in one? The
other way to describe my question: I am attempting to interpret what I am
lately reading about which is the paradigm of Intrinsic Brain Activity, but
was having a problem to ID its implications on the view about how neurons
act. Am I clear here? (I am way out of my wits here). There must be a
mechanism allowing each neuron to "respond" to every other one.
2. are you familiar with a take on networks described as "small-world, but
not scale-free network"? would you be able to provide a "customized" version
of your theory for such networks, especially if one consists of a specific
number of nodes? In other words, how would an HTM approach differ from
yours, the ILM? in relation to a "small-world, but not scale free, network"?
3. would you agree with me that the ILM approach would better explain some
seemingly bizarre clinical phenomena when a part of a drastically truncated
and isolated nervous system would spontaneously produce rather organized
(although not exactly responsive to external stimuli) action? I am referring
to, say, a very recent reference of a cat with practically separated from
the "head brain" spine still walking; would you agree that the HTM approach
would require the cat not to be able to be spontaneously active, while the
ILM approach would demand freed spontaneity, freed from the connections
"upstream"?
Cheers,
KK
_________________________________________________________________
Exclusive Ed Byrne daily comedy clips on MSN Video
http://specials.uk.msn.com/edbyrne/
