Talk:Neural coding

figure on the right?
the section on "temporal coding" refers to a figure. where is it?

watson (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article history shows that a bot removed two images that lacked copyright information back in December. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Should temporal correlation code, in which the spike timing and the interspike timing is measured, be included? (rather than just spike timing, where the precise timing of each spike (for each neuron) is determined for each (typically 50,100,300 ms) period) seunghwane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

The word 'moment' should have a link or it should be precisely defined. seunghwane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

The section on the temporal code does not refer to the origins of the temporal code, but to a text book - can anybody correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.230.7 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Another editor, not me, is proposing to merge Neural coding with Neural ensemble. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merger. I can see some opportunities to fix redundancies, but these seem to me to be sufficiently distinct topics to justify separate pages. Although I agree that most coding studies focus on ensembles, not all do, so there is some material on coding that exists outside of ensembles, and, ensembles have structural or anatomical features that are independent of coding. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has spoken in favor of the merger, I'm going to remove the templates. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger possibilities
In the "see also" section of this page, there are seven other pages, each dealing with a specific theory of neural coding. Is it a good idea to have all these separate pages, or should we consider merging all of those other pages into this one (essentially making each one a section of this page, when that section does not already exist)? I'm not yet making a formal merger proposal, but just gaging what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked and none of these seven other pages are longer than an (elaborate) section. I would support a merger proposal.  Lova Falk     talk   11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about that, and I now Support such a merger. I would consider it necessary to actually incorporate material from these other pages into this page, thereby expanding this page, for the merge to be appropriate. I'm going to formally template the pages, to discuss this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support it's all neural coding, this is like having my grocery list on five different pieces of paper. ADDENDUM: to expand a bit, I think these are sufficiently notable topics to deserve their own page, but none of these pages are developed enough to merit that, they're basically all summaries like in the main neural coding page. But I agree with trypto that we should actually merge, not delete the others if the claims are cited or obviously true Xurtio (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

I think sparse coding can be merged into the neural codin as sparse coding is a type of neural coding and neurons are exclusively involved in the neural coding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.134.218 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 December 2010

It's clear that the consensus supports this merge, and I apologize for being such a slowpoke, but I'll get around to it soon. Per the discussion below, I've added NeuroElectroDynamics to the proposed merger, but it should end up being no more than about one sentence here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument against a merger with Sparse coding: sparse coding and its derivatives (unsupervised learning of sparse representations) have become important in machine learning, outside of the context of neural coding and the associated biological analogies. Examples of papers in that area include (Teh, Welling, Hinton & Osindero 2003, JMLR), (Lee, Battle, Raina & Ng, NIPS'2006), (Ranzato, Poultney & LeCun, NIPS'2006), (Elard & Aharon 2006, IEEE Trans. Image Proc.), (Ranzato, Boureau & LeCun, NIPS'2007), (Grosse, Raina, Kwong & Ng, UAI 2007), (Kavukcuoglu, Ranzato & LeCun 2008, tech. rep.), (Lee, Ekanadham & Ng, NIPS 2007), (Bradley & Bagnell, NIPS'2008), David Bradley's PhD thesis (2009). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshua.Bengio (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 March 2011
 * Hmmm... In its present form, sparse coding says nothing about that. Perhaps a spinout article dealing with the machine aspects would be the way to go? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've got to agree with Tryptofish on this one, perhaps there can be a disambiguation page for the various "codings", since this problem will come up beyond the sparse coding issue.--Thomea neuro (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also against a merger (also against a pure-ML spinoff). Indeed the Sparse Coding and Temporal Coding articles could do with being vastly extended in my opinion. I just saw that they are only about a screen or two each in length. Compare Scholarpedia for example. While Sparse Coding does play an increasing role in the ML community, its role in computational neuroscience is also still quickly increasing and is definitely underrepresented here on Wikipedia. Instead of merging, I suggest that we should expand the Sparse and Temporal Coding articles and treat them as extended subjects articles. Compare e.g. any article on "Country X" linking to the "History of Country X". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.204.143 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, my apologies for never having followed through on the merge. I think we all agree that this won't be a matter of spinning everything into machine learning. However, absent any scientific evidence that any one of these coding patterns, or any combination of them, is actually how the human brain codes anything, it would be difficult to make a case (and certainly not a case based on what another Wiki does) that some of these should be standalone pages while others should not. I agree that some topics should be given plenty of space and detail, but that doesn't mean that the space has to be with each on its own page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Rate coding has been merged. I will start merging the articles together one at a time. Should I not merge Sparse coding and Temporal coding? If I don't get a response, I will merge them last and anyone can feel free to undo it. --Iamozy (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Population coding has been merged --Iamozy (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Correlation coding and Independent-spike coding have been merged under the Population coding subsection. --Iamozy (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Phase-of-firing code has been merged under the Temporal coding subsection. --Iamozy (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

From the "Department of Extreme WP:There is no deadline", (sorry), I've just reverted someone's removal of the remaining merge tags, because I still think that the remaining merges should eventually be performed. Arguments made in the interim notwithstanding, the fact remains that having separate pages ends up being content forks, because there is no definitive science about how coding really takes place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I removed the tags in error, then I apologise. However, reading the above discussion, there was no clear consensus in over 4 years. I think it's time to either boldly do it yourself, or remove the tags. -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 06:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. But, as I said, there is no deadline (and, for better or, mostly, for worse, I've been preoccupied with other things). As you can see just above, another editor has been doing most of the merges, and it just happened that you came along in the middle of that process. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sparse coding has been merged The entire article is written in the context of the human brain and neuron coding, so I think it's relevant to add this here. I will leave the page unchanged for some time, if anyone has issues with this merge. --Iamozy (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No issues from me. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Temporal coding has been merged --Iamozy (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

sparse coding should not be merged into this page. Just Google "Sparse coding", on the first page are all related to machine learning & computer vision field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.169.195.190 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already been merged. If there is encyclopedic content unrelated to the nervous system (ie, machine learning), then that should probably be covered on another page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The remaining pages that have yet to be merged here are Neuroelectrodynamics and Neural ensemble. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neuroelectrodynamics has been merged. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing new NeuroElectroDynamics section
I am for the moment removing a section on NeuroElectroDynamics that has been added. The contents I am removing are:


 * NeuroElectroDynamics (NED) is a model that describes brain computations in terms of universal physical principles. Memory processes, information storage are related to physical machinery that keeps information unaltered for longer time periods in the brain embedded in neurons within distributions of electric charges at macromolecular level (e.g. proteins) . Reading (decoding) and writing information (coding) can be simultaneously performed by electric interactions mediated by neurotransmitter release. The coding phase includes changes in spatial rearrangement of electrical charges in macromolecular formations, determined by selective gene expression, conformational changes in proteins, polarizations, while the decoding phase can be related to alterations in transient charge density dynamics. NED highlights a general physical model of computation by interaction which is a non-Turing computational model and represents an alternative to current temporal coding models.

In order for this article to include this material, there should be evidence that it has drawn attention from other workers in the field. The book is not sufficient -- there should be either reviews or publication of articles on the underlying concepts in peer-reviewed journals. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The content has been re-inserted. I have restored to status quo ante. Looie496 is right. This is not a comment on the merit of the theory. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, particularly when applied to biomedical articles (see this guideline), insists that new thought may be included only when it has been evaluated by uninvolved experts in peer-reviewed journals or university-level textbooks, and when its inclusion will not give it undue weight (see this fundamental policy).


 * If you make a change to an article, and it is reverted, polite practice here (per this essay) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Please feel free to discuss this matter here, but the discussion will revolve around those policies I've linked to, not the merits or nature of the theory. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the good faith efforts of the new editor who added the material, but I have to agree with Looie and Anthony. I also think that these concerns apply to the linked page, which is referenced entirely to the research of a single laboratory group. In the talk section above, I raised the idea of merging numerous pages, and I have to admit that I am hugely slow in getting around to acting upon it, but I think that NeuroElectroDynamics should be included in the merge as well, albeit only as a brief mention here, and mainly to make the other page a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that authors of NeuroElectroDynamics are right. How is temporal information stored in the brain? In order to replicate their measurements one has to perform invivo experiments and to insert four electrodes close to the cell. Many recordings use single electrodes. The mathematical model is one thing, their experiment shows patterns in spikes. I agree that the entire paragraph can be altered; however it should not be entirely deleted  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillein (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there are many 'pieces of work' that can be referenced, their published papers in peer reviewed journals and the IOS book as required (see this fundamental policy).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillein (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning peer-reviewed publications, I find only a few papers in minor journals such as Neural Processing Letters and BMC Neuroscience, and even those have not been cited by anybody except Aur and Jog. I have some respect for Mandar Jog due to the very interesting work he did when he was in Ann Graybiel's lab, but I see no evidence that this particular work has garnered any attention except from the people who are doing it. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your discussion regarding authors  is not relevant. Have you read their book before deleting what I inserted? Concerning peer-reviewed publications and high ISI ranking journals in biomedical field you should read http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v8/n2/full/nmeth0211-104.html. I feel that would be fair to reference in neural coding all current trends in the field (Correlation coding, Independent-spike coding, Phase-of-firing code, Population coding, Rate coding, Sparse coding, Temporal coding and NeuroElectroDynamics)and see what the future holds for any of them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillein (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodwillein, I actually agree with you that all of these models should be included in this page, including (briefly) NED. The discussion here is more a matter of how much space within the page any given model should receive. Part of this is addressed in WP:UNDUE, which you linked above, and I think that the take-home message about how both Anthony and you referred to it is that there is nothing wrong (at least in my opinion) with including it, but that it is not helpful to a general public audience to devote an entire section to it, because doing so makes it seem more agreed-upon, by all of the researchers in the field, than it really is. Please also take a look at WP:N and WP:PSTS. You will see there that the way Wikipedia looks at material is somewhat different than how scientific journals do. At Wikipedia, we have to rely upon secondary sources (defined at PSTS) to indicate whether an idea from one research group has become sufficiently widely accepted that it has been taken up by other scholars, independent of those who first proposed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, I also agree with you, please select what you would like to see from what I inserted that can be (briefly) added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillein (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Per just above, I'll give that a try, but when I get around to it, so not today. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I think that a better solution would be to add here what is specific in each case for neural coding and let their pages unchanged since all  seem to add different relevant details that cannot be included here. In case of NeuroElectroDynamics specific for coding and decoding information would be: "The coding phase includes changes in spatial rearrangement of electrical charges in macromolecular complexes of neurons, determined by selective gene expression, conformational changes in proteins, polarizations. The decoding phase can be related to alterations in transient charge density dynamics" If you agree I can add. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillein (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning Looie496 position regarding neuroscience labs ( including Graybiel's lab) we should see the difference between experimental data processing and computational theoretical models. Few neuroscience labs have generated new computational theories! Importantly, good statistics on a wrong model (temporal coding model) does not make the science better doesn’t matter where is published. Experimentally, we are at the beginning of understanding the effect of electric field (endogenous field, ephaptic coupling) in computation. Regarding the second subject  neural coding  and  NED are not equivalent, temporal coding models can be derived as particular examples  of NED with no real  predictive power, semantics or significance.Giovannistefano35 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Giovannistefano I completely agree. I just added that link to show that bad statistics is published in high-impact journals, however indeed, statistical significance doesn't matter if the basic model of temporal coding is an epiphenomenon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillein (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made it a single sentence, which I think is the appropriate due weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Neuronal code"?
Is "Neuronal code" yet another term that belongs here? Any difference with "neural code"? Cf. Synapses, Neurons and Brains | Coursera ★NealMcB★ (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No difference. The term "neuronal code" is not used very often, though. Looie496 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know. And I created redirects from neuronal code and neuronal coding to this article.  Lova Falk     talk   18:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's all hypothetical
So far, so one has shown how a particular percept, memory, or thought has been "encoded" in a network of neurons. It's all just speculation. I hate to see a major section of the article headed "coding schemes", as if scientists actually know what the codes are. Maybe someday, we'll know and can even read or alter the program as in the sci-fi thriller Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But let's not give the reader the impression that we know this, but they just don't understand. --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and I agree with you. Some time back, we actually had standalone pages for each of these hypotheses, so it's better to have them all on one page, and your re-labeling them as hypothetical is a good improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Population coding
Is population coding and distributed coding the same definition? According to Cognitive Psychology by E. Bruce Goldstein the definition of distributed coding matches population coding. Could we perhaps add that to the text? Or is it something entirely different/obsolete. Kind regards. --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up. I have to admit that distributed coding (in the context of neural coding) is a new term to me. But doing a quick search, it does seem to be widely used. On a quick read, it sounds to me more like there is a spectrum with distributed coding at one end and sparse coding at the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the basic difference is that "population coding" is a term used by experimentalists who study neural activity in animals by recording from groups of neurons, whereas "distributed coding" is a term used by theoreticians. At least, that's my impression. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had the impression from what I saw that distributed was more often mentioned in the context of psychology rather than neuroscience. I'm not sure what, if anything, we should do with the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neural coding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215151304/http://pop.cerco.ups-tlse.fr/fr_vers/documents/thorpe_sj_90_91.pdf to http://pop.cerco.ups-tlse.fr/fr_vers/documents/thorpe_sj_90_91.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Brain code
It appears to me that the article brain code should be merged into neural coding; from what I can tell, they appear to be different terms for the same thing. I am certainly not an expert in the field, so please let me know if this is not the case. If so, perhaps brain code could be expanded to specify the difference? Jmertel23 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support for merge. I hadn't realized that the brain code page exists. It's nothing more than a somewhat stilted alternative name for neural coding. Maybe a little of it could be merged to make a History section of this page, but otherwise it's pretty much a candidate for a redirect to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple issues: POV and original research
Recent edits have overhauled much of the article which appears to now present a biased point of view discrediting other approaches and supporting the 'Symphonic Neural Code' hypothesis of Stanislav Tregub. Identified issues are listed below which would need to be approached by someone with more knowledge on the subject area.

POV
1. The article has been converted into a systemic attack on other approaches.

2. It is lacking in other references supporting 'Symphonic Neural Code' (hereafter SNC).

3. It does not include any critique of SNC.

4. It does not adequately present which hypotheses have mainstream support and which are not currently generally accepted, or beginning to gain acceptance.

Original research
5. Parts of the article appear to be lightly modified from a non-peer reviewed preprint article by Stanislav Tregub, which can be found here, which implies SNC is original research. I haven't checked the book by the same author, but although it is referenced towards the end of the article, it likely also would fall into the category of original research and as such the article lacks any peer reviewed citations on the SNC hypothesis. Terovian (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I haven't looked through the whole article but the "Perspectives" section is horrible. I added a template to the section to flag that. Thanks for noting all this. The book is self-published and part of a series of eight self-published books. Tregub describes himself as an independent researcher. The Wikipedia editor who made the large recent changes hasn't edited any other pages at all, so potentially could be Tregub. In that case I agree this would effectively be WP:OR, and if not it at least goes against WP:SPS and WP:NPOV. Maybe somebody with rollback priviliges could revert to an earlier version? Gazelle55 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the article per your suggestions. Can't believe it took so long for someone to fix this. Raelyks (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Non-credible Information- Potential complete rollback?
After examining this page carefully, I believe there is good reason to rollback this entire page to its state prior to the first edit of User:Stastr1. This user appears to have vandalized this page with information from blatantly non-credible sources, which are quite possibly their own OR.

Based on concerns other users have voiced previously, I have removed the "Symphonic Neural Code" section from this article entirely. The term "symphonic neural code" does not seem to appear anywhere other than in the works of an individual named "Stanislav Tregub".

As others have pointed out, material in this article appears to be copied with minor modification from this article on researchgate written by Tregub. The site explicitly warns that the article is almost certainly not peer reviewed, and Tregub's profile page describes him as an "independent researcher", mentioning no credentials or affiliation with any educational/research institution whatsoever, much less an entity which specializes in neuroscience.

The article itself cites only 4 sources, a remarkably low number for a research paper purporting to describe an entirely novel theory of how the brain encodes information. Any peer reviewed paper of comparable scope produced by a reputable entity would typically be expected to have multiple pages of citations, a fact which casts further doubt on the rigorousness and credibility of Tregub's paper. Moreover, one of Tregub's four sources is apparently his own website (source four), a violation of the most basic best practices of citation itself. Additionally, references in the article are made to Tregub's books, which are self published according to the Amazon Page (which is being used as A CITATION IN THE ARTICLE, potentially directing unsuspecting readers to purchase Tregub's work)

For these reasons, it is abundantly clear that these works do not meet the standard of Credibility, and thus overt mention of their content has been removed entirely.

However, other users have pointed out that the entirety of this article has been edited to cast doubt on competing theories, and contains numerous instances of opinionated language and deviations from encyclopedic style. These changes appear to have been added by User:Stastr1 over the course of several days in late December 2021, a fact that can clearly viewed in the revision history. In particular, User:Stastr1 added the entire "Symphonic Neural Code" section unilaterally in this revision. Interestingly, the previously mentioned paper from which much of this article's post-stastr1 content appears to be plagiarized was published in December 2021. Furthermore, a review of User:Stastr1's contribution page reveals that they appear to only have ever edited the Neural Coding page and the Binding Problem page. Examining Tregub's researchgate profile, it is quite easy to discover that he has also uploaded another un-peer reviewed, but admittedly slightly more thoroughly sourced paper on the binding problem. This paper was published in April 2022. In the final days of March 2022,User:Stastr1 added a considerable amount of information to the binding problem article. If one compares the first major chunk of text User:Stastr1 added to the article (beginning with "We perceive the world as a diverse but coherent structure.") to the paper published by Tregub on the subject, it is clear they are identical. In summary, the user that vandalized this article has only ever contributed to two wikipedia articles, and each time they ripped portions from papers by an obscure nobody with no expertise on the subject at hand. These facts establish a reasonable suspicion that User:Stastr1 may be Tregub himself, although this is difficult to conclusively verify. Assuming it was, it is an astonishing instance of original research, and I am quite surprised that it was allowed to remain in the article unchecked for nearly a year.

Regardless of User:Stastr1's identity, however, one thing is absolutely clear: They have committed an extraordinarily egregious act of vandalism on this article. As I have written this justification, I have become more convinced that the article needs to be completely rolled back to the last revision prior to the vandalism, which I will do promptly. I understand that there have been legitimate contributions made since, but these seem to be minor clerical corrections to what is still fundamentally misinformation. Overall, it is clear that nothing has been done to rectify the substance of the vandalism, which is extensive and would be extremely time-consuming to root out manually. As such, Reversion appears to be the best option for quickly returning this article to something at least half-way informative. Raelyks (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Farfetched theories stated as fact
the section "Non-spike ultramicro-coding (for advanced intelligence)" seems to state many things as fact, and makes many startling claims, I think an expert should take a look and possibly remove it 2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27 (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27 one of the sources is even from a journal called "Speculations in Science and Technology," the claims should be toned down at the very least 2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Significantly the Speculations paper (1988) has since been vindicated experimentally: Sun et al (2010), and Zangari et al (2021). Tegiap (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant type of "expert" here would be an up-to-date epistemologist (Knowledge Theorist), such as Paul Thagard or Susan Haack. (Actually the main ideas here are NOT presented as "facts" but as well-supported hypotheses, based on indirect published evidence -- difficult-or-impossible to observe directly. Meanwhile they are part of the only plausible account after >50 years of unsolved mystery regarding advanced cognition). Tegiap (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This entire section instantly smells of subjective original research, and the moment one's flavor of "philosophy of science" is invoked; it becomes hardcore pseudoscience. This section needs to be removed on grounds of OR and speculative crystal-balling on the wiki. A jarring break in tone and content from the rest of the article... and a hotspot for fringe discussion of unscientific ideologies.
 * P.S
 * There is no need for an expert here, as the section does not cite acceptable sources, nor makes any scientifically scrutable claim. And from the perspective of biophysics; this has no grounding whatsoever. 2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The far-fetched theory is crackpot for the simple reason that binary-latent models in artificial intelligence, such as int LLMs, achieve what we would call intelligence as per the Turing test with two and more orders of magnitude fewer connections than the ones observed in the human brain. Therefore, as there is no need to explain a gap in the current model's capacity for intelligent behaviour, this theory has no legs to stand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)