![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot ( talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a collaberative work that was generated as a group class assignment in "Theories of Motor Control" at the University of Maryland, College Park taught by J. Jeka, PhD. A future post will include a list of all contributors. Easportz ( talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Listed below are the contributors to the work that I have posted:
J. Jeka, PhD; T. Kiemel, PhD; M. Costanzo; M. Stolen; M. Scherer, PT; G. Dickey; E. Anson, PT; B. Baum; K. Amenabar; D. Logan; A. Linberg, PT; J. Hsu; Easportz ( talk) 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Figures are in the process of being uploaded and will be added shortly. Easportz ( talk) 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The recent additions make this a vastly better article, on a rather important topic. Can I suggest adding a bit of discussion of efference copy in a non-motor framework? For example, the fact that it is impossible to tickle yourself because the tickle-detectors receive an efference copy of the motor commands that act to suppress their responses. Looie496 ( talk) 17:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest splitting the "Modern View" section into a new article
// I am under the impression that at least some clarification is indicated.
Following ad hoc-definitions from standard sources, an efference copy is "information from ongoing motor neuron activity sent to other regions of the nervous system" (Bingman, Verner P.: Navigation and Homing, Neural Basis of, In: Lynn Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, p. 1) or "a copy of the motor command responsible for the electric discharge (“efferent copy” or “corollary discharge”)" (Jeannerod, Marc (2003): Action Monitoring and Forward Control of Movements. In: Michael Arbib (Ed.), The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Second Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 83–85, here: p. 83).
This copy should then serve as input to a forward model (for purpose of prediction, error correction etc.) — thus, the efferent copy/corollary discharge should not be identified with predicted movements, resulting sensations, predicted sensory feedback, afference copies etc.
What do you think? Best,
Morton Shumway—
talk 19:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC).
""With the rediscovery of Aristotle's observation of eye-movement-related afterimage movement, however, interaction theory reappeared towards the beginning of the 19th century, and sensory physiologists were asking why the world is perceived as stable despite the fact that its image shifts continuously across the retina (Erasmus Darwin, Stembuch, Purkyneě, Bell). The idea of ‘cancellation’ between afferent visual movement signals and corollary signals evoked by the motor compounds of gaze movement (now called efference copy signals) was first proposed by Purkyně. It was further developed during the 19th century by leading sensory physiologists such as Hering, Helmholtz, Mach and their pupils. The first block diagrams of this idea were presented by Mach (1906) and Von Uexküll (1920/1928). These concepts led to the ‘reafference principles’ of Von Holst and Mittelstaedt (1950) and Sperry (1950)."" More info here, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691886900399 Can we develop a small paragraph if consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhee26 ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing some research for my undergrad. I was looking for information on the Corollary Discharge theory. Obviously the efferent copy is an important part of the corollary discharge theory, however, to my understanding it does not cover it completely. Does anyone know of a related page for Corollary Discharge Theory or should I begin creating a new article? Zyskes ( talk) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Mimicking all the Brodmann regions (not exactly but their function, connections, combined functions, directivity of connections) is very important on creating a Fully Personhooded Digital Person (it should also have drives, feel pleasure/desire etc.).
A Fully Personhooded Digital Person would be biased due to true emotions, thus we necessarily must have "philosophical zombie chatbots" and "digipersons". They shouldn't be confused because for example we need unbiased science lessons, and we need true love and emotions experienced by the other (if that's what we want). Dishonesty can be proven if functional mechanisms are present when they're not supposed to or missing.
A very huge program doesn't guarantee personhood without the necessary personhood-yielding architecture. It's like claiming that mass alone guarantees mechanisms not existent in that mass.
The digiperson should walk, receive parenting, have a good education, work, have hobbies (even as simulations), otherwise it might be problematic (because personhood is gradient; it might not develop a functional personality within society to have full and healthy selfhood (psychology)).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot ( talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a collaberative work that was generated as a group class assignment in "Theories of Motor Control" at the University of Maryland, College Park taught by J. Jeka, PhD. A future post will include a list of all contributors. Easportz ( talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Listed below are the contributors to the work that I have posted:
J. Jeka, PhD; T. Kiemel, PhD; M. Costanzo; M. Stolen; M. Scherer, PT; G. Dickey; E. Anson, PT; B. Baum; K. Amenabar; D. Logan; A. Linberg, PT; J. Hsu; Easportz ( talk) 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Figures are in the process of being uploaded and will be added shortly. Easportz ( talk) 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The recent additions make this a vastly better article, on a rather important topic. Can I suggest adding a bit of discussion of efference copy in a non-motor framework? For example, the fact that it is impossible to tickle yourself because the tickle-detectors receive an efference copy of the motor commands that act to suppress their responses. Looie496 ( talk) 17:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest splitting the "Modern View" section into a new article
// I am under the impression that at least some clarification is indicated.
Following ad hoc-definitions from standard sources, an efference copy is "information from ongoing motor neuron activity sent to other regions of the nervous system" (Bingman, Verner P.: Navigation and Homing, Neural Basis of, In: Lynn Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, p. 1) or "a copy of the motor command responsible for the electric discharge (“efferent copy” or “corollary discharge”)" (Jeannerod, Marc (2003): Action Monitoring and Forward Control of Movements. In: Michael Arbib (Ed.), The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Second Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 83–85, here: p. 83).
This copy should then serve as input to a forward model (for purpose of prediction, error correction etc.) — thus, the efferent copy/corollary discharge should not be identified with predicted movements, resulting sensations, predicted sensory feedback, afference copies etc.
What do you think? Best,
Morton Shumway—
talk 19:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC).
""With the rediscovery of Aristotle's observation of eye-movement-related afterimage movement, however, interaction theory reappeared towards the beginning of the 19th century, and sensory physiologists were asking why the world is perceived as stable despite the fact that its image shifts continuously across the retina (Erasmus Darwin, Stembuch, Purkyneě, Bell). The idea of ‘cancellation’ between afferent visual movement signals and corollary signals evoked by the motor compounds of gaze movement (now called efference copy signals) was first proposed by Purkyně. It was further developed during the 19th century by leading sensory physiologists such as Hering, Helmholtz, Mach and their pupils. The first block diagrams of this idea were presented by Mach (1906) and Von Uexküll (1920/1928). These concepts led to the ‘reafference principles’ of Von Holst and Mittelstaedt (1950) and Sperry (1950)."" More info here, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691886900399 Can we develop a small paragraph if consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhee26 ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing some research for my undergrad. I was looking for information on the Corollary Discharge theory. Obviously the efferent copy is an important part of the corollary discharge theory, however, to my understanding it does not cover it completely. Does anyone know of a related page for Corollary Discharge Theory or should I begin creating a new article? Zyskes ( talk) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Mimicking all the Brodmann regions (not exactly but their function, connections, combined functions, directivity of connections) is very important on creating a Fully Personhooded Digital Person (it should also have drives, feel pleasure/desire etc.).
A Fully Personhooded Digital Person would be biased due to true emotions, thus we necessarily must have "philosophical zombie chatbots" and "digipersons". They shouldn't be confused because for example we need unbiased science lessons, and we need true love and emotions experienced by the other (if that's what we want). Dishonesty can be proven if functional mechanisms are present when they're not supposed to or missing.
A very huge program doesn't guarantee personhood without the necessary personhood-yielding architecture. It's like claiming that mass alone guarantees mechanisms not existent in that mass.
The digiperson should walk, receive parenting, have a good education, work, have hobbies (even as simulations), otherwise it might be problematic (because personhood is gradient; it might not develop a functional personality within society to have full and healthy selfhood (psychology)).