I took that article to imply that we shouldn't care whether things like that are true or not. Just molecules?
-
-
Replying to @MHendr1cks @KordingLab and
No! With all due respect, if that's what you thought you completely missed the point. Our point was not: ignore cellular stuff. Our point was: don't try to explain computation cell-by-cell, bc computation emerges from evolutionary and learning optimization processes.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @tyrell_turing @MHendr1cks and
The argument is about how to study computation in the brain. It is not claiming that biology doesn't matter, quite the opposite actually.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tyrell_turing @MHendr1cks and
Yea, emphasizing that we should have our eye on learning rules that can actually lead to better performance in a large system doesn't mean having nothing to say about what that looks like on a cellular level. Learning rules are implemented through molecular mechanisms.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @tyrell_turing and
My wild hot take: 1) this perspective may well be right and if so is super important 4 neuro-theory and AI — I’m investing energy on the idea that it may be right, 2) most important advance in neuro in next 5-10 years will be molecularly annotated connectome. No contradiction.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
-
Replying to @tyrell_turing @AdamMarblestone and
What's a molecularly annotated connectome? I'm on the side that a connectome is not going to be that useful but happy to be proved wrong. Certainly the brain has myriad *unseen* mechanisms that contribute to function but not evident in a connectome.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @JasonSynaptic @tyrell_turing and
In C. elegans, it is useful for hypothesis generation and for realizing how ubiquitous signaling relationships that ignore the connectome are. Does very little work constraining circuit models.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @MHendr1cks @JasonSynaptic and
The best sketch I have online is this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5103 Think of it as layering a lot of in-situ spatial transcriptomics & proteomics, on top of connectivity, probably all obtained optically & with the benefit of expansion microscopy... would include modulatory receptors.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @MHendr1cks and
Ideally: highly multiplexed molecular imaging, including receptors, neuropeptides, ion channel distributions, etc, but with synaptic spatial resolution and in the context of at least sparse connectivity (linking synapses to their parent cells via barcodes) of the same cells.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Anyway, take this as one data point on a possible perspective: someone who thinks that's the technology we most need, but that Blake et al's theoretical framework may be in the direction of the theoretical framework we need...
-
-
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @MHendr1cks and
I guess my other skeptical take is that we generated oodle-bytes of data here but how do we make sense of it all? Yes, I assume this is where computational approaches will come into their own...but through DL/AI? I'm not sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JasonSynaptic @MHendr1cks and
Hard to argue with that. But I'd hope this would be even more useful than the C. elegans EM connectome which is already damn useful, albeit only as a kind of helper reference not as a full answer by any means.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.