Not Your Father's Neural Network
The short answer to this question is “Yes,” but the problem with this short answer is that the Hierarchical Temporal Memory is quite different than what most people think of as a neural network.
The history of artificial neural networks starts with Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts. In 1943 they were the first to propose creating networks of artificial neurons. They showed that artificial neurons could act like logic gates (AND, OR, etc.) and by connecting them in precise ways we could implement any digital logic. It was ground breaking work but biologically unrealistic.
Neural networks remained a minor research area for many years until they resurfaced in a big way in the 1980s. This was partly due to the rediscovery of back propagation, which is a method of training simple neural networks, and it was partly due to a two volume book called Parallel Distributed Processing. The PDP books ignited interest in the field. At this time I was already convinced that the path to machine intelligence required understanding how the brain works so I welcomed the new interest in neural networks. Up to that point in time, symbolic and engineered approaches to A.I. were the dominant approaches to machine intelligence.
However, I quickly became disillusioned with the new neural networks. The biggest problem was they ignored time. Brains process flowing streams of sensory data. All inference, prediction, and motor behavior in a brain is built upon memory of sequences of patterns. The vast majority of artificial neural networks completely ignored time and hence were unable to process changing inputs or generate behavior. Without embracing temporal patterns I felt we would not get close to capturing intelligence.
There were other problems with the simplistic neural networks of the 1980s. Biological neurons have thousands or tens of thousands of synapses arranged on dendrites which have non-linear properties; artificial neurons typically had just a few synapses on a cell body and ignored dendrite properties. Biological neural networks have detailed prototypical architectures; artificial neural networks ignored these architectures. Neuroscience was starting to develop overall theories of brain function but artificial neural networks were simple HTMssifiers that didn’t fit within an overall theory. Basically, for many years most artificial neural network research ignored neurobiology and their applications remained limited to simple HTMssification. When most people think of artificial neural networks they think about the type of neural networks explored in the 1980s.
Today the term “artificial neural network” can refer to many different types of networks. Some strive for biological realism and some don’t. So when I am asked if Numenta’s Hierarchical Temporal Memory is a neural network, I reply "Yes, but there many types of neural networks. If you want to compare the HTM to other neural networks, ask do those other networks learn sequences, do they learn in an on-line fashion, do they incorporate neurons that have non-linear dendrites, do they form thousands of connections, does the architecture of the network reflect the known architecture of any part of the brain, and does the network fit within a larger theory of brain function?" The number of artificial neural networks that fit these criteria is small. The HTM is one of them.
BTW, there is one type of early artificial neural network that was applied to sequences. These are called auto-associative memories. In another blog post I will describe how the HTM and auto-associative memories are related.