(May 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm)Emjay Wrote: Okay Drich, here's your citation, which I managed to find from an online preview of a chapter in the book, on Google books. There is not a full e-version of this book anywhere that I can find so I was lucky to find that. I'm having to type this thing out because the preview is in PDF form. The bolding and italics is theirs, but I'm adding underlining to point out what I've been talking about.
Quote:Bidirectional (a.k.a. recurrent or interactive) connectivity is predominant in the cortex, and has several important functional properties not found in simple unidirectional connectivity. We emphasise the symmetric case (i.e. where both directions have the same weight value), which is relatively simple to understand compared to the asymmetric case. First, it is capable of performing unidirectional-like transformations, but in both directions, which enables top-down processing similar to mental imagery. It can also propagate information laterally among units within a layer, which leads to pattern completion when a partial input pattern is presented to the network and the excitatory connections activate the missing pieces of the pattern. Bidirectional activation propagation typically leads to the amplification of activity patterns over time due to mutual excitation between neurons. There are several other important subtypes of amplifying effects due to to bidirectional excitatory connections, including: mutual support, top-down support or biasing, and bootstrapping. Many of these phenomena are described under the general term of attractor dynamics, because the network appears to be attracted to a particular activation state.
And this comes from "Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain (Bradford Books)", by Randall C. O'Reilly and Yuko Munakata, 2000, page 113.
You can read the chapter it comes from, and maybe others, same place I've quoted it from... (unless you also want to claim that this link doesn't work):
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BLf3...&q&f=false
"you have reached a page unavailable for viewing."
Google book allows for a random selection of pages. Go to another computer and click on your link. chances are you will not be able to access it either.
Even so I will work with your definition.
That said "bi-directional" phenomena described here does support portions of your argument but it does not seem to coinside with your initial statement nor it's first evolution/moving of the goal posts.
First assessment, was A/S/K was a confirmation bias:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-42987-page-21.html post 202
Your second assessment had you Moving the goal posts because I asked what if God placed someone infront of you to change what you believe. you did not address that question, but rather created a strawman that stated "if you searched for 40 years with no results, any result would be bias" which completely ignored the specifics of my account.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-42987-page-27.html post 266.
Then railed on about bias.
Which has morphed again to this 'bi directional' phenomena. all under the story that your 'superior' understanding of neuro science provided you with a neuro science specific definition of the commonly misunderstood word "Confirmation bias or 'bias.' (Remember all the High horse B/S you were spewing about how it was your fault that you were using a word (common dumb folk) often did not properly understand and you failed to provide a proper definition (that I could understand)
Now that you have we can clearly see, You have substituted the "bi-directional" phenoma with the defination of the word bias. In the defination provided by YOU, It clearly states that 'bias' is a sub phenoma OF the Bi-directional pheonma.
Quote:There are several other important subtypes of amplifying effects due to to bidirectional excitatory connections, including: mutual support, top-down support or biasing,
Meaning Biasing can NOT be a sub-type of Bidirectional phenomena if Bias is apart of the general meaning. Rather from what I read here it is entirely possible to experience this bi directional phenomena and not be biased, but all bias does indeed come from this phenomena.
....AND That is Why I asked for a citation. Because YOUR BIAS has corrupted your own ability to to analyze and address data not consistent with your beliefs. This was made very apparent when you blew past the specifics I gave you n favor of your "40 year argument." I knew then that even if you knew the correct definition of the word, you were not immune to it's effects on your thinking. Which is why I pressed for the definition/citation.
