In a pulse langauge, zero information is encoded
in the symbol selection. That's because there's
only one symbol in the language - the pulse.

All the information is instead, encoded in _when_
it's sent - because that's the only way to encode
information in a such a langauge.

If you take some sequence of multiple inputs to a
neuron, and see that some sequence of 100 inputs,
finally causes the neuron to fire on input pulse
number 100, you can go back in time, and change
just the arrival time of some of those pulses, and
it will change when the neurons fires. It will
either cause the neuron to fire sooner, or cause
it not to fire on pulse 100 - not because you
changed the weights of any inputs, but just
because you adjusted when the pulses arrived.

The brightness of the light is not encoded in some
sequence of 1's and 0's. It's encoded in _when_ you
send the pulse.

Because pulses don't have 2 values, the only way to
send information with them is as a temporal code.

They don't carry any information in the spatial domain.

Do you want me to make up more examples of temporal
codes for you?

On Aug 7, 12:20=A0am, c... at (no spam) kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
If you take some sequence of multiple inputs to a
neuron, and see that some sequence of 100 inputs,
finally causes the neuron to fire on input pulse
number 100, you can go back in time, and change
just the arrival time of some of those pulses, and
it will change when the neurons fires. It will
either cause the neuron to fire sooner, or cause
it not to fire on pulse 100 - not because you
changed the weights of any inputs, but just
because you adjusted when the pulses arrived.

Firing sooner or later is not encoding anything in the
example above except to say _when_ it happens.

If neuron A1 in a moth's ear is firing it tells the
moth that there is a BAT present NOW. There is only
one piece of time information and that is the event
is happening NOW. _What_ is happening now is encoded
in _which_ neuron is firing not _when_ it is firing.

It uses the place coding which you seem to neglect.

The wiki reference you gave that covers different coding
schemes *doesn't talk that way*. It doesn't say anywhere
that "information is coded in the _when_ a pulse occurs".

The brightness of the light is not encoded in some
sequence of 1's and 0's. It's encoded in _when_ you
send the pulse.

That is silly talk. It is encoded in *how many pulses are
generated per second* but _when_ those pulses are generated
codes for nothing.

On Aug 9, 2:18=A0am, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:01=A0pm, c... at (no spam) kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:



But yet, you seem unable to understand that all this
talk about spatial encoding, IS what you want to call
"place coding". =A0Do you understand nothing?

And what dumb arse response it that? What makes you write
that? When have I ever said a spatial code and place code
were not the same thing? You make these crappy statements
all the time pretending I believe or think things that I
have never made reference to. I was responding to this:

ALL the information is instead, encoded in _when_
it's sent - because that's the only way to encode
information in a such a langauge.

You wrote ALL, not some, is coded in "when it is sent" and
did not write that some is coded a spatial (place) code.

As I've said before, your strong suit has never been
abstraction - which is the ability to recognize the
concepts behind the words.

No. Concepts are learned from examples from which concepts
are *abstracted*. You play games, perhaps without realising,
with words. You are not using high level abstractions you
are playing word games.

If I don't use the exact same words that you read about
somewhere else, you don't seem to have the ability to
realize I'm talking about the same effect - the same
abstract concept.

And I would suggest you fool yourself this way by using
words meant for one level of explanation at another level.

... but you can't seem to grasp that it's impossible to
do frequency encoding without at the same time, using
_when_ the pulse is sent to encode information.

Rubbish. When something happens is equivalent to where
it happens *with respect to giving it an origin*.

A spatial or temporal pattern can exist at ANY time.

A burst of pulses of say 50Hz is independent of when they
occur. Of course they occur at some time but that isn't
relevant to the fact they code something in the frequency
of the pulses NOT in when these frequencies occur. If I
say it is a frequency of 50Hz I don't have to say it
occurred at 6:34 pm 10th May 2001 for it to be understood.

If _when_ something is used to code something it is
*different* to coding something as a frequency of pulses.
It is conflating the concepts to think frequency coding
needs a when to make sense.

This stuff just seems to be beyond what you can
understand. You probably shouldn't waste you time
reading my messages - they will only continue to
confuse you.

I think you confuse yourself. I wondered if you really
had something special to say but whenever you explain
yourself I see it as not something special but just an
eccentric way to say something or using a personal
meaning of a word which gives the impression that it is
something new or insightful.

There is nothing for example in the wiki reference you
gave that I found confusing. Nothing in any of the
books I have read on neurons, pulse coding, reinforcement
learning and so I that I have found confusing. Never
have I felt the need to chase up an explanation on any
of those topics. So what does that tell you?

I guess I have been a fool thinking you might have some
view worth understanding when in fact there was nothing
there to understand.

JC

Are yall going for some sort of record here?

When you say 50 Hz signal, into my mind, pops some real
world example of a 50 Hz signal. And these real world
examples always do happen at a precise point in time -
even though you didn't specify the point when you called
it a 50 Hz signal.

... they all occur at precise points in space and time -
even though we choose to only talk about the frequency
attribute of that real thing.