Some have been calling it the Binding Problem for several decades now (in its neural form; longer otherwise) https://t.co/3fjcEQ7xK2 Still, interesting finding about contrastive loss vs other losses
@DarshanGurgaon What neuroscience would that be? And have you read this neuroscience: https://t.co/IAZiIHu9JW "Enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjectiv
@BishopJaxi Looked at "Jerome Feldman - The neural binding problem(s) https://t.co/vEDahoBzsv" which explains that a very specific question on how the brain works, is actually 4, and talks about the progress made on them. It doesn't say that there would be
RT @leafs_s: Cognitive Neurodynamics(2012) The neural binding problem(s) https://t.co/omZjuqdKm8
Cognitive Neurodynamics(2012) The neural binding problem(s) https://t.co/omZjuqdKm8
@PessoaBrain And this tries to define the problem(s) a bit better https://t.co/lGQNA9HdxF
@CKakadan @MrMosis You solved the binding problem!?!? https://t.co/a0qQNiFvhx https://t.co/KHTNYjkJBh
@butlerofdogs @DanielErdle @Tootrue29894170 What's the argument? How does it get around the neural binding problems? https://t.co/KKRpWimI35
@erikengheim @SamSmichh @rasmansa @TastelessAlex This is outright false and neurons lighting up doesn't shows your claim is true. https://t.co/KKRpWimI35
@PrinceOfAtheism @LFaraday @MoldyWarp @ForumAtheist Read it again https://t.co/mGCZjCnLA5
Access to this? http://t.co/5ot3Dgn4 The neural binding problem(s)