13.4 Knowledge Representation via Attractor Neural Networks 257
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
13.4 Knowledge Representation via Attractor Neural Networks 257
N
hg = S WikPk
k=1,kAi,j
1
Aw = — (pips — hisps — hyivi)
13.4.2 Knowledge Representation via Cell Assemblies
Hopfield nets and their ilk play a dual role: as computational algorithms, and as conceptual
models of brain function. In CogPrime they are used as inspiration for slightly different, artificial
economics based computational algorithms; but their hypothesized relevance to brain function
is nevertheless of interest in a CogPrime context, as it gives some hints about the potential
connection between low-level neural net mechanics and higher-level cognitive dynamics.
Hopfield nets lead naturally to a hypothesis about neural knowledge representation, which
holds that a distinct mental concept is represented in the brain as either:
1. a set of “cell assemblies”, where each assembly is a network of neurons that are interlinked
in such a way as to fire in a (perhaps nonlinearly) synchronized manner
2. adistinct temporal activation pattern, which may occur in any one (or more) of a particular
set of cell assemblies
For instance, this hypothesis is perfectly coherent if one interprets a “mental concept” as a
SMEPH (defined in Chapter 14) ConceptNode, i.e. a fuzzy set of perceptual stimuli to which
the organism systematically reacts in different ways. Also, although we will focus mainly on
declarative knowledge here, we note that the same basic representational ideas can be applied
to procedural and episodic knowledge: these may be hypothesized to correspond to temporal
activation patterns as characterized above.
In the biology literature, perhaps the best-articulated modern theories championing the cell
assembly view are those of Gunther Palm [Pal&82, HAGO7] and Susan Greenfield [SF05, CSGO7].
Palm focuses on the dynamics of the formation and interaction assemblies of cortical columns.
Greenfield argues that each concept has a core cell assembly, and that when the concept rises
to the focus of attention, it recruits a number of other neurons beyond its core characteristic
assembly into a “transient ensemble.”!
It’s worth noting that there may be multiple redundant assemblies representing the same
concept — and potentially recruiting similar transient assemblies when highly activated. The
importance of repeated, slightly varied copies of the same subnetwork has been emphasized by
Edelman [Ede93] among other neural theorists.
1 The larger an ensemble is, she suggests, the more vivid it is as a conscious experience; an hypothesis that
accords well with the hypothesis made in [Goe06b] that a more informationally intense pattern corresponds to
a more intensely conscious quale — but we don’t need to digress extensively onto matters of consciousness for
the present purposes.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013173
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents