Tangential, but it really annoys me how people use computational jargon to represent internal mental processes. These are absolutely terrible metaphors outside of computing and I have no clue what you're referring to. What the hell does "building an embedding" even mean with respect to humans? Yea, I'm sure I encode some embedding inside my brain. I'm also certain this is just a tiny part of the mental processes I rely on.
To build an embedding for a human means to build an approximate map of entities within a metric space. We do this all the time, for example unsupervised clustering of related entities (for example species classification based on visible character states).
From what I can tell, the human brain basically has a number of approximate computing systems- we have associative memory (hash tables/dictionary lookups), trajectory interpolation/extrapolation (catching a ball with only a few glances), logical reasoning from a premise (theoretical math), monte carlo tree search (formulating a complex plan wiht multiple steps and some unknowns), etc, etc. I certainly don't propose that my terminology is specifically scientifically correct, it's just heuristics I apply to my own thought patterns.
I thought you said "for a human". These are all computational concepts that are unrelated to human cognition (at least in terms of evidence). Why are we talking about human cognition in terms of "metric space" when metric space applied to human cognition is nonsensical?
> From what I can tell, the human brain basically has a number of approximate computing systems- we have associative memory (hash tables/dictionary lookups), trajectory interpolation/extrapolation (catching a ball with only a few glances), logical reasoning from a premise (theoretical math), monte carlo tree search (formulating a complex plan wiht multiple steps and some unknowns), etc, etc. I certainly don't propose that my terminology is specifically scientifically correct, it's just heuristics I apply to my own thought patterns.
Police? This comment right here: they failed to read my comment.
I of course certainly strongly support you describing your mental cognition the way you want to! It's just not evidence that other people can be modeled with the same computational mechanics, nor that these mechanisms are sufficient. We should use meaningful terms that people can actually recognize rather than trying to forcing mental cognition to fit models that are curently in vogue.
Bio papers (of this type) follow a fairly straightforward pattern:
<entity> <affects in some way> <some important system> <under these conditions>
in this case norepinephrine is the entity- it's a small molecule the brain uses to transmit information around. It literally floats from one cell to another, and the recipient acts upon it.
The effect in this case would be "slow vasomotion"- I ahdn't actually heard of this before, but apparently blood vessels oscillate, independently of normal heartbeat.
The important system- again, something I wasn't particularly aware of- is the glymphatic system. Apparently, it's used for garbage cleanup?
And the conditions are "during sleep"
So basically the garbage gets taken out at night by a little guy.