|
|
|
|
|
|
|
illustration, and it might be possible to use the framework more precisely in this context (especially for animals in the wild state). Some suggestions for bringing cell assembly theory within the range of the  framework are made in section 8.4. There is much to be done before we can hope for definite, general results from theory. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Summarizing: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 , repertory of possible cell assemblies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W,possible association rules (Hebb's rule for synapse change, short-term memory rules, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 , possible (or hypothetical) organizations of the CNS in terms of conditions under which the rules of W are to operate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e, the range of environments in which the CNS being studied is expected to operate (relevant features, cues, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 , the ranking of organizations in according to performance over e, for example, according to ability to keep average needs low under any situation in e (cf. optimal control illustration). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These illustrations are intended to demonstrate the broad applicability of the framework. They can also serve to demonstrate something else. The obstacles described informally at the end of section 1.2 do indeed appear as central problems in each of the fields examined. This is an additional augury for making a unified approach to adaptationcommon problems should have common solutions. Much of the work that follows is directed to the resolution of these general problems. In section 9.1 the problems are listed again, more formally, and the relevance of this work to their resolution is recapitulated. |
|
|
|
|
|