PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:48 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
I am aware of the type-token distinction, and I think the distinction
between the class of Diet Coke cans
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
Let's just bury the hatchet. I am too busy right now to spend any more
time on this.
No hatchets need to be buried. This is not a contest.
It is a shame that you leave the discussion without making any response
to my detailed effort to clear up the
.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number
of synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
I will only respond to the below copied one of the questions in your
last message because of lack of time. I pick this example because it
was so “DEEP
As I said above, it leaves many things unsaid and unclear. For example,
does it activate all or multiple nodes in a cluster together or not? Does
it always activate the most general cluster covering a given pattern, or
does it use some measure of how well a cluster fits input to select
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Dear Readers of the RE: Bogus Neuroscience Thread,
Because I am the one responsible for bringing to the attention of this
list the Granger article (“Engines of the brain: The computational
instruction set of human cognition”, by Richard Granger) that has caused
the
, October 22, 2007 2:55 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Dear Readers of the RE: Bogus Neuroscience Thread,
Because I am the one responsible for bringing to the attention of this
list
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that speed-reading is
fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a
substantial proportion of the text) is called for to explain the observed
performance.
And I'm
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:01:55 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Did you ever try to parse a sentence with more than one noun in it?
Well, all right: but please be assured that the rest of us do in fact
do that.
Why make insulting personal remarkss instead of explaining your reasoning?
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:48:20 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that speed-reading is
fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a
substantial proportion of the
On Monday 22 October 2007 09:33:24 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
...
Are you capable of understanding how that might be considered insulting?
I think in all seriousness that he literally cannot understand. Richard's
emotional interaction is very similar to that of some autistic people I
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still don't buy it. Saccades are normally well below the conscious level, and
a vast majority of what goes on cognitively is not available to
introspection. Any good reader gets to the point where the sentence meanings,
not the words at
You can DO them consciously but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can
intentionally become conscious of the ones you are doing unconsciously.
Try cutting a hole in a piece of paper and moving it smoothly across another
page that has text on it. When your eye tracks the smoothly moving
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can DO them consciously but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can
intentionally become conscious of the ones you are doing unconsciously.
One every few seconds happens involuntarily, when I try to not let any
through at all; but
Loosemore wrote:
Edward
If I were you, I would not get too excited about this paper, nor others
of this sort (see, e.g. Granger's other general brain-engineering paper
at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rhg/pubs/RHGai50.pdf).
This kind of research comes pretty close to something that deserves
is valuable in it.
If so, you may be denying yourself valuable insights.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:12 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Loosemore wrote:
Edward
If I were you, I would not get too excited about this paper, nor others
of this sort (see, e.g. Granger's other general brain-engineering paper
at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rhg/pubs/RHGai50.pdf).
This kind of research
The questions you ask are not worth asking, because you cannot do
anything with a 'theory' (Granger's) that consists of a bunch of vague
assertions about various outdated, broken cognitive ideas, asserted
without justification.
Richard Loosemore
Richard, you haven't convinced me, but I
.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Loosemore wrote:
Edward
If I were you, I would not get too excited about this paper, nor others
of this sort (see, e.g. Granger's other general brain-engineering paper
at http://www.dartmouth.edu
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [_mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:12 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
[snip]
There is a very interest paper at
_http
Edward W. Porter wrote:
As Ben suggests, clearly Granger’s title claims to much. At best the
article suggests what may be some important aspects of the computational
architecture of the human brain, not anything approaching a complete
instruction set.
But as I implied in my last post to
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
It took me at least five years of struggle to get to the point
where I could start to have the confidence to call a spade a spade
It still looks like a shovel to me.
Cheers,
J. Andrew Rogers
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
21 matches
Mail list logo
