Andrew, Vladamir, Mark, et al,
This discussion is parallel to an ongoing discussion I had with several
neuroscientists back in the 1970s-1980s. My assertion was that once you
figure out just what it is that the neurons are doing, that the difference
between neural operation and optimal operation
On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote:
My assertion was that once you figure out just what it is that the
neurons are doing, that the difference between neural operation and
optimal operation will be negligible. This because of the 200
million years they have had to refine
On Jun 3, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Thanks. I must confess to my usual confusion/ignorance here - but
perhaps I should really have talked of solid rather than 3-D
mapping.
When you sit in a familiar chair, you have, I presume, a solid
mapping (or perhaps the word should be
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having that model and computing interactions with that model are two
different things. Humans do not actually compute their relation to other
objects with high precision, they approximate and iteratively make
On Jun 11, 2008, at 12:05 AM, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
And it extends to much more than 3D physical models -- humans are able
to adjust dynamic representations on the fly, given additional
information about any level of description, propagating consequences
to other levels of description and
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is an open question as to whether or not mathematics will arrive at an
elegant solution that out-performs the sub-optimal wetware algorithm.
What is the basis for your using the term sub-optimal when the question is
On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
It is an open question as to whether or not mathematics will arrive
at an elegant solution that out-performs the sub-optimal wetware
algorithm.
What is the basis for your using the term sub-optimal when the
question is still open? If
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can tell what parts of the brain tend to be involved in what sorts
of activities, from fMRI. Not much else.
Puzzling out complex neural functions often involves combining fMRI
data from humans with data from
Thanks. I must confess to my usual confusion/ignorance here - but perhaps I
should really have talked of solid rather than 3-D mapping.
When you sit in a familiar chair, you have, I presume, a solid mapping (or
perhaps the word should be moulding) - distributed over your body, of how
it can
Hey kids:
A COMPUTER THAT CAN 'READ' YOUR MIND
http://www.physorg.com/news131623779.html
Cheers,
Brad
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
This is what we've just been discussing and Richard was criticising as
highly fallible. Your article adds pictures of the predictions, which is
helpful.
But all this raises the question presumably of just how much can be told
from fmri images generally. Does anyone have views about this - or
11 matches
Mail list logo
