@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Jan 31, 2024

Our #OpenScope collaboration with the Allen Institute is now up in J Neurosci!

tl;dr - the responses to violations of a pattern in sequences of images evolve differently in apical dendrites versus somata of V1 pyramidal neurons:

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/5/e1009232023

PS - Both the paper and the data are fully open!

fediscience.org

FediScience.org

7

0

9

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 19, 2023

Replying to @yoginho@spore.social

@yoginho@spore.social My position on this topic is well-summarised in this paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2022.810358/full And no, it's not really worth my time to see whether engaging with someone who is using insults and complaints to try and goad me into have a debate with them online would lead to better results. Note that I have been happily engaging with others on this thread.

1

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 19, 2023

Replying to @yoginho@spore.social

@yoginho@spore.social I'm reluctant to engage with you, @yoginho@spore.social, because you're being aggressive and unpleasant. Also, I've already said in writing what I mean by "computation" and why I think that equates to physics. If you don't like my answers, fine, but don't pretend they aren't there for you to see.

0

13

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 19, 2023

Replying to @kendmiller@qoto.org

@kendmiller@qoto.org @beneuroscience@neuromatch.social @debivort@drosophila.social @yoginho@spore.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social I personally think it is just a semantic disagreement.

0

15

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 14, 2023

Replying to @yoginho@spore.social

@yoginho@spore.social I don't really want to engage in an extended debate here, but I will just note this: Turing and others very much so connected humans being able to do some calculation by rote to the ability to create a mechanical device to do that function. So, there was always a direct connection to physics/mechanics, because the implication was always that if an effective method existed, then a physical/mechanical system could in principle implement the function for us.

2

1

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 13, 2023

Replying to @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org

@yoginho@spore.social Remember, as the very article from the Philosophy Encyclopedia describes, the original goal of both Turing and Church was simply to formalise the idea of an "effective method", i.e. a mechanical way of solving a problem. If the Church-Turing thesis holds, then any problem that a mechanical (i.e. purely physical) system can solve represents a computable function, and the object implementing it is engaged in a computation.

1

2

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 13, 2023

Replying to @yoginho@spore.social

@yoginho@spore.social Respectfully, I disagree. I don't think you're accurately summarising computability theory, nor the implications for neuroscience. As Yoshua Bengio once said to someone at a workshop I was at (paraphrasing): "Computation just means physics. Saying the brain is a computer is just a way of saying that it is a physical device. I don't even know what a non-computational theory of the brain means, unless you're talking about magic."

4

59

1

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 13, 2023

Replying to @WorldImagining@mastodon.social

@WorldImagining@mastodon.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @knutson_brain@sfba.social @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online Strict identity - if we're using the broad definitions of computing and info processing from computer science, anything else implies magic/spirit.

2

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 13, 2023

Replying to @pinecone@mastodon.social

@pinecone@mastodon.social @knutson_brain@sfba.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online @axoaxonic@synapse.cafe These are all interesting ideas, but I don't think they are required for simply applying info theory to neuroscience.

1

2

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 13, 2023

Replying to @knutson_brain@sfba.social

@knutson_brain@sfba.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @pinecone@mastodon.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online Any value: x

1

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 12, 2023

Replying to @awaisaftab@mastodon.social

@awaisaftab@mastodon.social @knutson_brain@sfba.social @pinecone@mastodon.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online I personally am happy to apply the concept of information from information theory directly in neuroscience! In which case, it simply means anything that reduces uncertainty about some value.

2

8

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 12, 2023

Replying to @madhadron@social.coop

@madhadron@social.coop @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social That's an incorrect (though very common!) interpretation of the ideas from computer science. The definition of a computable function is merely a function that a Turing machine will halt on with the correct answer. But, if you want, you could run such a function online with some system. For example, I could have a system constantly in real time multiplying the current temperature outside by 4. That doesn't make multiplying by 4 a non-computable function.

1

2

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 12, 2023

Replying to @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org

@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @knutson_brain@sfba.social @neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online Also, I really like your point that it helps people to get people out of thinking that things like "attention" and "decision making" are discrete pieces of a program in our heads. 🙂

5

1

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 12, 2023

Replying to @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social

@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @knutson_brain@sfba.social @neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online Thanks for the clarification! To clarify a bit on my own, my reply was more of a call-back joke to the OG days on Twitter (per @neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social ). But, I take your point well, and agree, it is important for people to realise that brains don't do sequential, discrete, passive processing of a stream of inputs using a step-by-step program. And so, in that sense, it's a metaphor (and a poor one).

3

2

1

0

Blake Richards @tyrell_turing@fediscience.org · Sep 11, 2023

Replying to @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social

@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @knutson_brain@sfba.social @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online Fascinating discussion! Thanks for sharing this. But, I can't help myself, I have to engage in my usual refrain here (sorry, lol), since it comes up in the second paragraph: Brains are *literally* computers and information processing devices, it's not a metaphor!!! 🙂

7

58

0

Blake Richards

Posts

FediScience.org

Remote instance