http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/26/077685.abstract?%3Fcollection=
[From Rupert Young (2016.09.28 10.45)]
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/26/077685.abstract?%3Fcollection=
When I get an email that only has a link in it I tend to think it is
spam and delete it. If it is not then it would be useful to indicate
that. Also to avoid us having to go the website and have to read
something that may not be of interest it would be useful to give a
little bit of context to explain why it is relevant to PCT and what
is interesting about it.
Regards,
Rupert
···
On 28/09/2016 08:14, Alex Gomez-Marin wrote:
I was expecting you guys to tell me whether it is relevant to PCT. There is so much spam nowadays. I would dare to claim that EVERYTHING we send by email is some sort of Spam…
···
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:
[From Rupert Young (2016.09.28 10.45)]
On 28/09/2016 08:14, Alex Gomez-Marin wrote:
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/26/077685.abstract?%3Fcollection=
When I get an email that only has a link in it I tend to think it isspam and delete it. If it is not then it would be useful to indicate
that. Also to avoid us having to go the website and have to read
something that may not be of interest it would be useful to give a
little bit of context to explain why it is relevant to PCT and what
is interesting about it.Regards, Rupert
[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.28.0712 ET)]
I took a quick look. It appears to be a stimulus-in > compute output (i.e., the brain is a computer that transforms sensory input into computed outputs or responses). I don’t see it as relevant to PCT but someone much more qualified than I will have to make that call.
Fred Nickols
P.S. Alex, despite a couple of gentle reminders you seem to have no interest in putting a date-time heading on your posts. I’m curious. Why is it you refuse to do that? Is there some standard or reference signal of yours would be jeopardized by doing so? What is it that leads you to ignore one of this discussion group’s norms?
···
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control without controllers: Towards a distributed neuroscience of executive control | bioRxiv
I was expecting you guys to tell me whether it is relevant to PCT. There is so much spam nowadays. I would dare to claim that EVERYTHING we send by email is some sort of Spam…
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:
[From Rupert Young (2016.09.28 10.45)]
On 28/09/2016 08:14, Alex Gomez-Marin wrote:
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/26/077685.abstract?%3Fcollection=
When I get an email that only has a link in it I tend to think it is spam and delete it. If it is not then it would be useful to indicate that. Also to avoid us having to go the website and have to read something that may not be of interest it would be useful to give a little bit of context to explain why it is relevant to PCT and what is interesting about it.
Regards,
Rupert
because most of the time I answer from my cell phone with one thumb while sneaking in some time in the supermarket queue or holding my baby born with the other hand. the worst thing that can happen is that some of my messages cannot be traced back 10 years from now, which is not a big deal. sorry about that.
with respect to the paper, note again the default position “it is about input->output, thus non-PCT, thus discarded”… too bad.
···
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.28.0712 ET)]
I took a quick look. It appears to be a stimulus-in > compute output (i.e., the brain is a computer that transforms sensory input into computed outputs or responses). I don’t see it as relevant to PCT but someone much more qualified than I will have to make that call.
Fred Nickols
P.S. Alex, despite a couple of gentle reminders you seem to have no interest in putting a date-time heading on your posts. I’m curious. Why is it you refuse to do that? Is there some standard or reference signal of yours would be jeopardized by doing so? What is it that leads you to ignore one of this discussion group’s norms?
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control without controllers: Towards a distributed neuroscience of executive control | bioRxiv
I was expecting you guys to tell me whether it is relevant to PCT. There is so much spam nowadays. I would dare to claim that EVERYTHING we send by email is some sort of Spam…
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:
[From Rupert Young (2016.09.28 10.45)]
On 28/09/2016 08:14, Alex Gomez-Marin wrote:
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/26/077685.abstract?%3Fcollection=
When I get an email that only has a link in it I tend to think it is spam and delete it. If it is not then it would be useful to indicate that. Also to avoid us having to go the website and have to read something that may not be of interest it would be useful to give a little bit of context to explain why it is relevant to PCT and what is interesting about it.
Regards,
Rupert
[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.28.1220 ET)]
Thanks, Alex. Understood.
Fred Nickols
···
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:46 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control without controllers: Towards a distributed neuroscience of executive control | bioRxiv
because most of the time I answer from my cell phone with one thumb while sneaking in some time in the supermarket queue or holding my baby born with the other hand. the worst thing that can happen is that some of my messages cannot be traced back 10 years from now, which is not a big deal. sorry about that.
with respect to the paper, note again the default position “it is about input->output, thus non-PCT, thus discarded”… too bad.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.28.0712 ET)]
I took a quick look. It appears to be a stimulus-in > compute output (i.e., the brain is a computer that transforms sensory input into computed outputs or responses). I don’t see it as relevant to PCT but someone much more qualified than I will have to make that call.
Fred Nickols
P.S. Alex, despite a couple of gentle reminders you seem to have no interest in putting a date-time heading on your posts. I’m curious. Why is it you refuse to do that? Is there some standard or reference signal of yours would be jeopardized by doing so? What is it that leads you to ignore one of this discussion group’s norms?
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control without controllers: Towards a distributed neuroscience of executive control | bioRxiv
I was expecting you guys to tell me whether it is relevant to PCT. There is so much spam nowadays. I would dare to claim that EVERYTHING we send by email is some sort of Spam…
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:
[From Rupert Young (2016.09.28 10.45)]
On 28/09/2016 08:14, Alex Gomez-Marin wrote:
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/26/077685.abstract?%3Fcollection=
When I get an email that only has a link in it I tend to think it is spam and delete it. If it is not then it would be useful to indicate that. Also to avoid us having to go the website and have to read something that may not be of interest it would be useful to give a little bit of context to explain why it is relevant to PCT and what is interesting about it.
Regards,
Rupert