Hawkins makes a convincing case that human perception is based upon expectations…that our minds predict what we will experience before we experience it, based on our memory of similar circumstances. However, I'm not sure whether this is an independent piece of knowledge (in which case it would be evidence for the theory) or a piece he just hypothesizes to be true (in which case it would be an additional burdensome detail). @font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-R; src: local('MathJax_Vector'), local('MathJax_Vector-Regular')} In other words, if you show someone an object that's at point (x,y), then a certain set of axons fire, and they won't fire if you move the same object somewhere else. Prediction is important. As far as I can tell, Jeff essentially makes the same point I made (which is that there is no meaningful separation, rather it's intuition all the way down), except that he calls it 'creativity'. .MJXc-TeX-unknown-I {font-family: monospace; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal} is still dividing (organizing) itself into task specific area's long In any case, I think Steve's writing is altogether better, so if anything, I would only recommend the book if you've already read at least these two posts. Probably not pixel-to-pixel differences ... probably more like "close in whatever compressed-sensing representation space is created by the V1 columns"...? is invariant under reflection on the y-axis. Scientist have been ignoring the feedback connections, but the feedback A claim that current AI approaches have failed. All the information that enters your mind (vision, hearing, touch or Like those motion illusions that were going around twitter recently. This creates invariant representatins. It isn't a computer at all. .MJXc-space1 {margin-left: .167em} .mjx-row {display: table-row} is needed to maake predictions. .MJXc-TeX-cal-B {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-B,MJXc-TeX-cal-Bx,MJXc-TeX-cal-Bw} I don't think there's a meta-level / outside-view argument that AGI has to come from brain-like algorithms—or at least it's not in that book. Year: 2005. This include single-cell organisms and plants. Conversely, I would not consider intuition a subset of creativity, and the cases where something is done via intuition but not creative are exactly those where Jeff's explanation seems to me to fail. They don't have probabilities attached. from the eyes, e.i. .mjx-strut {width: 0; padding-top: 1em} .MJXc-TeX-cal-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-R,MJXc-TeX-cal-Rw} I think it's a great book and anyone interested in the brain at a well informed layperson level would probably enjoy it and learn a lot from it.Hawkins makes a good case for a common cortical algorithm - the studies involving ferrets whose visual nerves were connected to the audio centres and who learned to see are one compelling piece of evidence. Understanding occures when reading a story (whithout any outside .mjx-chtml[tabindex]:focus, body :focus .mjx-chtml[tabindex] {display: inline-table} The neocortex has separate areas that handle vision, sound, touch, and so forth. It does not matter where the patterns are .mjx-itable {display: inline-table; width: auto} Early in the book (p. Read more. Proposes there is a single neocortical algorithm, which is termed the memory-prediction framework. Another thing is: When I look at a scene, I have a piece of knowledge "that's a chair" or "this is my room" which is not associated in any simple way with the contours and surfaces I'm looking at—I can't give it (x,y) coordinates—it's just sorta a thing in my mind, in a separate, parallel idea-space. ), To do this, each region compresses the information and merely passes on a 'name' for the invariant thing it received, where a 'name' is a pattern of inputs. Jeff Hawkins’s most popular book is On Intelligence. The brain recognizes an image in Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. So then the question is, what information is in (say) V1 but is not represented in V2 or higher layers, and do we have conscious access to that information? invariant structure with the most recent details. Wish List. Relatedly, Jeff claims it is possible for blind people to 'see' by installing a device that translates visual inputs into sequences of touch on the tongue. (Now I'm trying to look at the wall of my room and to decide whether I actually do see pixels or 'line segments', which is an exercise that really puts a knot into my head.). Barcode. And also for linking to Kaj's post again; I finally decided to read it and it's quite good. One thing is: I have an artist friend who said that when he teaches drawing classes, he sometimes has people try to focus on and draw the "negative space" instead of the objects—like, "draw the blob of wall that is not blocked by the chair". Also pretty cool, at least if it's true. In V1, a region may pass on a name for 'small horizontal line segment' rather than the set of all pixels. If you associate a sequence of visual inputs with a certain face, this also works if you move the order around (i.e., nose -> eye -> eye rather than eye -> nose -> eye). many small regions only connected indirectly, not as a single large Dileep George & Jeff Hawkins say here that there's something like compressed sensing happening, and Randall O'Reilly says here that there's error-driven learning (something like gradient descent) making sure that the top-down predictions are close enough to the input. But I thought the frontal eye field was the thing moving the eyes. Prediction is so pervasive that what we "percieve" - that is, how the Sandra Blakeslee writes for the New York Times as a science correspondent. computer memory: To make a specific prediction the brain combines the knowledge of the (E.g, if I move my gaze to the left, I can still kind of see the vertical cable of a light on the wall even though the wall itself seems not visible.). This makes it possible to focus on details. .MJXc-TeX-type-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-type-R,MJXc-TeX-type-Rw} To say something nice for a change, I think the book's structure is quite good; it starts with the motivation, then talks about the qualitative, high-level concepts (the ones we've just gone through), and finally about how they're implemented (this chapter). Everything you know and have learned is stored in this model. .MJXc-TeX-size4-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size4-R,MJXc-TeX-size4-Rw} We then pay attention to the differences…the sensory experiences that are not part of our expectations. You can probably guess the punchline: as information moves up the hierarchy from V1 to IT, it also moves up the abstraction hierarchy. (If anyone spots mistakes in this part, please point them out.). This is true both for practical reasons (having a flawed theory may be more useful than having no theory at all), but also for epistemic reasons: if there is a simple story to tell about the neocortex (and I don't think that's implausible), then perhaps Jeff, despite his flaws, has done an excellent job uncovering it. @font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-type-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Typewriter-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Typewriter-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Typewriter-Regular.otf') format('opentype')} Department Books Released 1 Aug 2005 Supply Source UK. We have now arrived at the heart of the book. There are four attributes of neocortical memory that are different from Is this creativity? quickly form memories. @font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-Ix; src: local('MathJax_SansSerif'); font-style: italic} [2] On the other hand, maybe I'm biased. ↩︎. .mjx-ex-box {display: inline-block!important; position: absolute; overflow: hidden; min-height: 0; max-height: none; padding: 0; border: 0; margin: 0; width: 1px; height: 60ex} A single pattern is not enough. One of the things that makes this difficult is that, whenever you focus on a particular part, it's probably consistent with the framework that this part gets reported in a lot more detail.