4 ms·
I like the beginning of the article quite a lot for giving an overview of the cerebellum, teaching that it is the home of unconscious learning, but to me it goe
by mihaaly 3y ago
I like the beginning of the article quite a lot for giving an overview of the cerebellum, teaching that it is the home of unconscious learning, but to me it goes into weak speculations quite quickly, first with the 'Purkinje cells learn individually but not other found do that' leads to 'neuron connectivity is not enough to simulate' brain activity while knowing that higher level mental activity exists without cerebellum. Also that cerebellum might be the home of measurement just beacuse Purkinje cell can time a reaction, then based on the headlines (lost interest to attentive reading) speculating that it is the place for anticipation and sensing. Having a feeling that wants to expand cerebellum onto as much as fantasy stretches. The whole cerebellum topic sounds fascinating without 'rethinking intelligence' completely.
- stcredzero 3y agoI find this particularly interesting: The brain is not like a neural network where the only thing that is “learned” or “updated” is the weights between neurons. At least some learning evidently happens within individual neurons. That’s bad news for anyone hoping to simulate a brain digitally. It means there’s a lot more relevant stuff to simulate (like the learning that goes on within cells) than the connectionist paradigm of treating each biological neuron like a neural-net “neuron” would imply, and thus the computational requirements of simulating a brain are higher — maybe vastly higher — than connectionists hope. I had heard this as well close to ten years ago on some NPR radio show: That researchers had reasons to suspect that a whole lot more processing happens within the synapses themselves.
- bgnn 3y agoThis makes so much computing sense.