??? Did you read the article?
Absolutely. I don't comment on things without reading them (unlike some
people on this list). Not only that, I also read the paper that someone was
nice enough to send the link for.
Now his 'new' theory may be old hat to you personally, but apparently
not to the majority of AI researchers, (according to the article).
The phrase "according to the article" is what is telling. It is an improper
(and incorrect) portrayal of "the majority of AI researchers".
He must be saying something a bit unusual to have been fighting for ten
years to get it published and accepted enough for him to now have been
invited to do a workshop on his theory.
Something a bit unusual like Mike Tintner fighting us on this list for ten
years and then finding someone to accept his theories and run a workshop?
Note who is running the workshop . . . . not the normal BICA community for
sure . . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: "BillK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:37 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Professor Asim Roy Finally Publishes
Controversial Brain Theory
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah. Great headline -- "Man beats dead horse beyond death!"
I'm sure that there will be more details at 11.
Though I am curious . . . . BillK, why did you think that this was worth
posting?
??? Did you read the article?
-----------------------
Quote:
In the late '90s, Asim Roy, a professor of information systems at
Arizona State University, began to write a paper on a new brain
theory. Now, 10 years later and after several rejections and
resubmissions, the paper "Connectionism, Controllers, and a Brain
Theory" has finally been published in the November issue of IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and
Humans.
Roy's theory undermines the roots of connectionism, and that's why his
ideas have experienced a tremendous amount of resistance from the
cognitive science community. For the past 15 years, Roy has engaged
researchers in public debates, in which it's usually him arguing
against a dozen or so connectionist researchers. Roy says he wasn't
surprised at the resistance, though.
"I was attempting to take down their whole body of science," he
explained. "So I would probably have behaved the same way if I were in
their shoes."
No matter exactly where or what the brain controllers are, Roy hopes
that his theory will enable research on new kinds of learning
algorithms. Currently, restrictions such as local and memoryless
learning have limited AI designers, but these concepts are derived
directly from that idea that control is local, not high-level.
Possibly, a controller-based theory could lead to the development of
truly autonomous learning systems, and a next generation of
intelligent robots.
The sentiment that the "science is stuck" is becoming common to AI
researchers. In July 2007, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
hosted a workshop on the "Future Challenges for the Science and
Engineering of Learning." The NSF's summary of the "Open Questions in
Both Biological and Machine Learning" [see below] from the workshop
emphasizes the limitations in current approaches to machine learning,
especially when compared with biological learners' ability to learn
autonomously under their own self-supervision:
"Virtually all current approaches to machine learning typically
require a human supervisor to design the learning architecture, select
the training examples, design the form of the representation of the
training examples, choose the learning algorithm, set the learning
parameters, decide when to stop learning, and choose the way in which
the performance of the learning algorithm is evaluated. This strong
dependence on human supervision is greatly retarding the development
and ubiquitous deployment of autonomous artificial learning systems.
Although we are beginning to understand some of the learning systems
used by brains, many aspects of autonomous learning have not yet been
identified."
Roy sees the NSF's call for a new science as an open door for a new
theory, and he plans to work hard to ensure that his colleagues
realize the potential of the controller model. Next April, he will
present a four-hour workshop on autonomous machine learning, having
been invited by the Program Committee of the International Joint
Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).
-----------------
Now his 'new' theory may be old hat to you personally, but apparently
not to the majority of AI researchers, (according to the article). He
must be saying something a bit unusual to have been fighting for ten
years to get it published and accepted enough for him to now have been
invited to do a workshop on his theory.
BillK
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
