Ben Goertzel wrote:
Again, when you say that these neuroscience theories have "squashed
the computational theories of mind", it is not clear to me what you
mean by "the computational theories of mind." Do you have a more
precise definition of what you mean?
I suppose it's a bit ambiguous. There's computer modelling of mind, and
then there's the implementation of an actual mind using actual
computation, then there's the implementation of a brain using
computation, in which a mind may be said to be operating. All sorts of
misdirection.
I mean it in the sense given in:
Pylyshyn, Z. W., Computation and cognition : toward a foundation for
cognitive science, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1984, pp. xxiii, 292 p.
That is, that a mind is a result of a brain-as-computation. Where
computation is meant in the sense of abstract symbol manipulation
according to rules. 'Rules' means any logic or calculii you'd care to
cite, including any formally specified probablistic/stochastic language.
This is exactly what I mean by COMP.
Another slant on it:
Poznanski, R. R., Biophysical neural networks : foundations of
integrative neuroscience, Mary Ann Liebert, Larchmont, NY, 2001, pp.
viii, 503 p.
"The literature has highlighted the conceptual ineptness of the computer
metaphor of the brain. Computational neuroscience, which serves as a
beacon for for the transfer of concepts regarding brain function to
artificial nets for the design of neural computers, ignores the
developmental theory of neuronal group selection and therefore seriously
overestimates the computational nature of neuroscience. It attempts to
explain brain function in terms of the abstract computational and
information processing functions thought to be carried out in the brain"
{citations omitted}.
I don't know whether this answers your question,....I hope so... it
means that leaping to a 'brain = computation" in the digital computer
sense, is not what is going on. It also means that a computer model of
the full structure is also out. You have to do what the brain does, not
run a model of it. The brain is a electrodynamic entity, so your AGI has
to be an electrodynamic entity manipulating natural electromagnetic
symbols in a similar fashion. The 'symbols' are aggregate in the cohorts
mentioned by Poznanski. The electrodynamics itself IS the 'computation'
which occurs naturally in the trajectory through in the multidimensional
vector space of the matter as a whole. Some symbols are experienced
(qualia) and some are not.
cheers
colin
.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
