Timeline for What does "non-linear processing" mean, exactly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 21:41 | comment | added | J.Todd | @Seanny123 By his lack of elaboration by now I think he's made it pretty clear that he doesn't intend to improve his answer. | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 17:20 | comment | added | Seanny123 | @StrongBad do you want to add my comment to your answer so we can delete all this discussion? It personally feels kind of messy to me. | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 22:21 | comment | added | J.Todd | I did read up on the difference between linear functions and non-linear, but I was still confused about how that related to the neural patterns in this context. Seanny123's comment really answered my question: "It's not really the neural patterns that are non-linear, as much as the function being computed by the neurons that are non-linear. Basically, there's a non-linear mapping between the input (visual stimuli) and the output (object). It's really just a way of saying "complicated" in this context." | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 21:42 | comment | added | AliceD♦ | +1 for your answer, but, perhaps, could you add a source to the answer to allow users to background read on this? Linear systems theory is quite an essential topic for many disciplines and a good web source or reference as a background would really help I guess, given OP's comments. | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 20:29 | comment | added | J.Todd | Ok. So you're saying it would take a text-book chapter, not an SE answer, to explain it in that manner? I'm not arguing, just asking for clarification. | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 20:28 | comment | added | StrongBad | @Viziionary I could, but there are tons of books that will do a better job of it. The thing I found important in your question was the fact that you wanted to know about linear/non-linear systems in the context of neuroscience, for which the answer is that it is the same as in all science and any textbook you like will work. | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 20:26 | comment | added | J.Todd | Could you explain it in a physical manner? Unlike many (who prefer it explained this way), I think of science purely in the physical sense, for example: when I think about a chemical reaction, I think about how the molecules are interacting, not about a formula representing it. Same with neuroscience. The math is fine, most scientists prefer to speak in terms of math, but I've never cared to use it, instead focusing on the actual physical states and interactions. | |
| Oct 22, 2017 at 20:12 | history | answered | StrongBad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |