I’m curious about specific internal dynamics at Numenta with regards to promotion of observations/ideas or theory into concrete implementations such as source code. Could someone please describe them roughly by perhaps answering the specific questions below?
- Do concrete implementations strictly come from Neuroscience theories?
- What is the dynamics of the promotion of a Neuroscience theory to a concrete implementation? For example, how did the SP got implemented, did it undergo into any team deliberation before it was implemented?
- From number 2, if it had undergone any deliberation, is this deliberation a part of some process at Numenta?
- Is there an instance where an idea came from a computational perspective got implemented because it was biologically plausible? Or is it always the other way around?
The main purpose of my questions (sorry too many) is that to understand from a high-level perspective as to how Numenta promotes Neuroscience ideas/theories to source code (nupic or internal). Having this knowledge would help me or other people to know our strengths/weaknesses in regards to contributing to Numenta. For example, I’m genuinely interested with brain theory or Neuroscience, however, I’m definitely not an expert of it. So even though I have those years of computer science background, my impression as of today is to always wait for Numenta to discover, deliberate, implement, and disclose some Neuroscience theory. Which I feel it is ok, however at the same time a bit of a bottleneck. I can see though that many enthusiasts in this forum are highly knowledgeable about Neuroscience, and that is great however they are only a very tiny population of the people interested in the HTM and I’m not really sure if their ideas get implemented, not a problem, but I’m just curious as to how these kinds of efforts external or internal get promoted to something concrete.