Isn’t that more or less what Jeff Hawkins has been spending decates on? Except that you’re saying with “just one principle”, while he’s been saying, “let’s find out how many principles we could/shoudl/would copy” (from the real brain).
It would be intellectually significant if one could establish a theory / conjecture about the essential principles absolutely necessary & sufficient, to reproduce a “brain” … in the style of how Euclid came up with the five axioms and defined the axiomatic system of geometry.
It would be fascinating. How far did your thinking go along these directions? It’ll be great if you can share your writings or thoughts.
That paper seems pretty bad to me, doesn’t it?
My read of the evidence is that the genetically-hardcoded snake detector is in the superior colliculus. (But other parts of the brain like amygdala and cerebellum get roped in after within-lifetime learning.) By the way, I think the snake might have to be slithering for superior colliculus to recognize it (and likewise spiders need to be skittering); this is another way that experimental papers in the literature often screw up, I think.
Thank you very much… i never thought someone would say this to me… i will upload my thoughts in this forum… thanks once again for the response…
Slithering and skittering… it seems reasonable to me… do you think we can distill it further?
That would be great… i think too… actually i believe in that ‘one principle’… I believe it would be easier to start with the fundamental & simplest concept to solve a problem…
The pulvinar is part of the thalamus, so it’d probably receive signals from snake detection circuitry elsewhere. The thalamus itself doesn’t have complicated circuitry.