GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2014,09:12) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 24 2014,21:18) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 24 2014,18:53) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 24 2014,17:44) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 24 2014,10:40) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2014,12:56) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2014,11:01) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2014,07:03) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,03:59) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2014,03:35) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,03:01) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2014,00:09) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2014,20:26) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 21 2014,18:52) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2014,16:31) | Or in other words we perceive a mapped out virtual spatial representation in our brain with directional vectors showing possible paths from place to place like this:
 |
What is the minimum capacity of working memory for the "perception" of "all paths" that you are talking about? |
6 bits in and 6 bits out, per grid location.
The violet and brown vectors, in the picture. |
You do realize that "working memory" has a specific meaning in cognition, right? |
Wiki - Working memory
Still 6 bits in (add 2 more where including Attract and Repel control bits) and 6 bits out, per grid location, for the "perception" of "all paths" that I was talking about.
I cannot tell you why we are consciously perceive these changing flow vectors, but we still follow them. They are not "seen" it's more like invisible trails that only have direction around corners then down stars. For at least myself it's noticeable while trying to visualize radio wave propagation.
What you are seeing in the picture is what the computer model perceives flowing to where it's going, shown using vectors shown color coded same as Ultra Violet (Light My Way). |
Given that working memory in humans is limited to about 7 values (plus or minus 2), how do you square that with huge number of combinations of bits needed to represent "all paths" in your diagram? |
All paths are already there. There are no lines needed, just direction vectors. |
Your claim stated that biological organisms "perceived all paths". This statement implies the use of working memory, and all available data indicates that working memory is quite limited in capacity (7 +/- 2 values in humans, for instance). Either you are using a non-standard definition of "perceived" or you are stating that biological organisms have far more working memory than cognitive science has ever postulated. I'm trying to find out which alternative you prefer. |
Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.
It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors. |
Gary, I asked questions to let you clarify what you were trying to say. I pointed out issues along the way. |
Your inability to attempt to understand what I as clearly as possible explained is an issue with you, not the model or my terminology. You should have first tried testing what I said, by perhaps going to each of the propagated locations to see whether the violet vectors lead to the attractor location along all possible paths an animal may go that eventually gets it there (and not stuck somewhere in between forever going in circles). If you want to total up all the paths that are possible then be my guest.
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2014,11:01) | | As to your last claim, please produce a citation of any published work of mine that relies on "lines between points" regarding organism motility and a quote from withn it that demonstrates that your claim is applicable. If you can't do that, then what does that say about your claim? |
It says that you are again trying to find issues where none exists for reasons that are not as easy to forgive.
I don't mind answering good questions, but you only threw another one that was loaded with insult. |
Memory storage and representation are not the same as perception. You made a claim about perception, and are trying to pass off memory storage and representation as addressing that. They don't.
So, asking a question that makes it obvious that your original insulting claim is unsubstantiated and baseless is itself insulting? |
What I am explaining is called "Knowing what we know".
Unless you can reliably scientifically explain where that perceptual property of a memory system comes from (and I know you can't because it's still a scientific mystery) your arguments are irrelevant. |
If you know all that is known about perception, why did you claim something about perception that is not consistent with that body of knowledge? How is it irrelevant to discuss a claim that you yourself made? |
What the hell are you talking about? I have been proving that there is nothing at all wrong with my terminology or "consistent with that body of knowledge".
You're now obliged to explain why the ability to "Know what we know" is not "perception":
| Quote |
http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction....ception
Full Definition of PERCEPTION
1
a : a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
b : a mental image : concept
2
obsolete : consciousness
3
a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4
a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation
b : a capacity for comprehension
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 24 2014,18:53) |
I notice that you have failed to produce any evidence that would underpin your other claim about my work. Is that also a mystery? |
My mentioning that thinking in terms of paths being stored as lines between points not working for conceptualizing how the Grid Cell Network model works was in case you were!
You have no idea how hard you are to communicate with. In my opinion it's from your being obliged to make me appear to be a crackpot, because that's what this forum is for doing to someone seriously developing a Theory of Intelligent Design. You sure never said anything nice about it, or my other work. |
The ability to "know what we know" is the topic of a branch of philosophy called "epistemology".
"Perception" is within cognitive science.
That wasn't hard, was it? |
Labeling one of the greatest mysteries of science as philosophy is at least an easy to understand excuse for not ever having to account for our cognitive ability to "Know what we know". Arguing as though it's not even a scientific question, only sounds like an unscientific brush-off, of something important your models should also be attempting to explain.
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2014,09:12) | | Perhaps if you had some familiarity with these things before entering into discussion and weren't forever looking it up in dictionaries and Wikipedia as the terms come into discussion this wouldn't be so confusing for you. |
And there you go again, using another lame semantics type argument to find a problem where none exists, so you can throw more insults.
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2014,09:12) | You claimed that I eliminated something from my work.
| Quote |
It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors.
|
That goes beyond a statement about what I might or might not know; it is a claim about the content of work I've already published, and can only be substantiated by citation of such work along with sufficient quotation of the relevant section to demonstrate your claim that I "eliminated" something and that your characterization of my work is accurate. You have failed utterly to do any such thing. Attempting to retroactively modify your claim isn't going to work. I'm insisting that you either pony up documentation that it is true or else admit you were wrong in making that claim. That's not so difficult. Either you are right and can document it, or you can do what anybody (and everybody) else does when they've exaggerated or overstated something and get called on it: admit they were wrong. |
Get over yourself!
Your models do NOT include grid, border and place cell networks. And in science finding better models is a good thing, even though you appear to have reasons for finding that a bad thing.
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2014,09:12) | | It's interesting that of all the people I've known, you are the only one who has ever claimed that I am "hard to communicate with". I have disagreed with other people before, but that complaint is a novelty. I have to object to the characterization that I am making you appear to be anything; anyone can read this thread and come to their own conclusion regarding your participation. |
I would expect that the average reader is also interested in knowing how we consciously know what we know, how that works, and likewise don't need your labeling this scientific mystery as part of philosophy so you can use that to insult anyone expecting a scientific answer from you.
I'm coding easy to understand models that help simplify the understanding of seemingly complex cognitive processes, while you just complain.
And that reminds me to others mention: I have a new Grid Cell Network model with a command button for a one timestep pulse, array structure that uses less code/arrays, and environment X,Y coordinates (in addition to network X,Y hexagonal coordinates) needed for how the IDLab4 model works. It's a much smoother more precise movement control method that does not add much code. I'll upload it to Planet Source Code after optimizing and perfecting. It will then be a matter of using that in the IDLab4 to replace experimental code that needed refining, which is easier to work on in the Grid Cell Network model.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
