Vladimir Nesov
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:48:11 -0800
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Richard Loosemore <r...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > The whole point about the paper referenced above is that they are collecting > (in a large number of cases) data that is just random noise. >
So what? The paper points out a methodological problem that in itself has little to do with neuroscience. The field as a whole is hardly mortally afflicted with that problem (whether it's even real or not). If you look at any field large enough, there will be bad science. How is it relevant to study of AGI? -- Vladimir Nesov robot...@gmail.com http://causalityrelay.wordpress.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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com