On 10/22/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think we've beaten this horse to death . . . . :-) > > >> However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between > cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of > this nature are IMO "cog sci" rather than just "neurosci." At least, that > is consistent with how the term "cog sci" was used when I was a cog sci > professor, back in the day... > > I think that most neurosci practitioners would argue with you. >
Cognitive science does not equal cognitive psychology. It's supposed to be an integrative discipline. When I co-founded the cog sci degree programme at the University of Western Australia in the 90's, we included faculty from biology, psychology, computer science, philosophy, electrical engineering, linguistics and mathematics. > So what I'm getting is that you're finding his summary of the neurosci > papers (the "other, more fine-grained papers") as what is useful. > I didn't read all the references, so I don't honestly know where his summarizing of others' ideas leaves off and his own original ideas begin.... If this were my main area of research I would dig in to that level of depth, but I've got an AGI to build ;-) ben ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56348307-a7af54
