Richard, On 6/8/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I basically > said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive science does not > exist.
Quite the contrary. My point is that not only does cognitive science fail to provide adequate guidance to develop anything like an AGI, but further, paradigm shifting obfuscates things to the point that this vast wealth of knowledge is unusable for *DEVELOPMENT*. BTW, your comments here suggested that I may not have made my point about "paradigm shifting" where the external observed functionality may be translated to/from a very different internal representation/functionality. This of course leads observations of cognition efforts astray, by derailing consideration of what might actually be happening. However, TESTING is quite another matter, as cognitive science provides many "touch points" for capability to show whether an AGI is working anything at all like us. So yes, cognitive science is alive and well, but probably unusable to provide a basis for AGI development. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
