Peter Gärdenfors | Conceptual Spaces and the Geometry of Word Meanings 

That sounds like super interesting research! Why don't you share some links and info with our community. You can join the SEMF online community at no cost other than filling a quick form here: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

Thank you for your kind words, we are glad you liked our content!

Yes, there are nice resonances with those sorts of ideas.

We are glad you enjoyed our talk. Those are really interesting thoughts; I am sure others in the community will have something to say! You can join our community platform for free and discuss with other SEMF followers: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

You dont have children, I guess?

What part of the talk are you referring to specifically?

What we got from Peter is that there are ways to systematically assign topology and geometry to perceptual spaces rather than simple assign numerical quantities. This may sound vague to a general audience but it can be made operational with the proper treatment of the mathematical formalism and the experimental design.

@@SEMF Youre not too sure either then :) Thanks for the reply!

There is no proofs that prove the brain encodes information in specific structures. What we do know is that logic functions are encoded by the neurons and the collective is effectively EQ to a large NN. The math essentially works out to all be the same(it is general enough to do whatever). Now neurons process electrical signals and neurons also divide and grow. This alone gives some type of topological structure out of necessity(essentially a metric space must exist although it doesn't necessarily have a direct relationship to how information is encoded). Others have conjectured that memories are actually electrical signals that persist in the brain in loops(there is some experiments for this). It is very likely the brain is just a large efficient and plastic NN. It is likely that as sensory information enters the brain(in the form of electricity) that it modifies the structure simply due to the nature of electricity. The way it does this then structures the brain according to how the sensory information is comes in through the "boundary". Essentially the electrical patterns will modify the topological structure of the brain much like, say, sound waves will modify small light particles(nodes will be attractors) or magnets modify small iron filings. That is, it is really the sensory "forces" that shape the brain(and obviously there is a feedback loop) forcing neurons to develop/grow/whatever according to such information. E.g., we know, I believe, that learning causes "neural growth". What is learning? Just experience. All experiences do this more or less and one can think of the brain as just an extremely complex neural highway or switchboard. Experiences modify the pathways in the brain either solidifying old paths(repetition of experiences) or creating new ones. Of course no experiences are disjoint. Learning to skydive still uses the same senses and will have many similar sensory input((such as smells, feelings, etc). This then alone will dictate a sort of differential structure. One would expect this differential structure to be laid out spatially due to electrical characteristics. Precisely how it works and such may never be known but the abstract structure is relatively simple(well, for someone that learns the bases of science). I think he means by the color analogy is not that it is encoded in the brain but it is a conceptual encoding that we as humans use to understand color(it is a model) and you are taking it too literally. After all, it literally says conceptual space. What it does do though is give a model that would, in some mappable structure, exist in some way in the brain((since we can obviously move through color space(such as using swatches) and our brains can understand the movement. That is, it's not embedded in the brain but there is at least an equivalence in some way. The kind of point, at least from my own experiences(I haven't finished watching the vid) and self-education is this: The brain is clearly a spatial structure. The brain is clearly an electrical structure. The brain is clearly a logical structure. These three things, individually, have implications. As a whole they have more implications(and limits the actual structure of the brain further). That is, since electricity works in certain ways(transmission lines, ohms law, etc) this has an effect on the brain's structure(and body of course). Since the neurons function like switches this has implications on how the signals move through the system. Allt his then allows us to use similar systems to help understand the brain. E.g., you can use human construction/maps as a way to understand spatial activity and topology. You can use computers and NN's to understand the logical side. You can use electronics to understand the electrical(and topological and logical). It's really not something that can easily be taught. One has to experience all those things. E.g., if you've never done much in electricity such as design your own circuits you are unlikely to have much of a clue what it really means. If you've never learned about how computers work it is unlikely you can have a clue and apply it to the brain. In some sense the brain is very simple(assuming neurologists haven't made any fundamental mistakes about it's composition). It's just a mass of neurons. It's the "mass" part that really makes the brain powerful. I also do not think it is coincidence that there are many parallels between the brain and other things such as NN's, human society, etc.

@@kodfkdleepd2876 This is a great comment! I would suggest you share your thoughts in our online community over here: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

@@kodfkdleepd2876 He obviously doesnt mean spatial in that trivial sense, but of the representation. "...I do not think its coincidence that there are parallels between the brain and neural networks..."... jesus christ dude