Steve Richfield wrote:
Richard,
On 6/8/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[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
What is this foolishness?
I am using cognitive science as a basis for AGI development, and finding
it not only appropriate, but IMO the only viable approach.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
