If I see garbage being peddled as if it were science, I will call it
garbage.
Amen. The political correctness of forgiving people for espousing total
BS is the primary cause of many egregious things going on for far, *far* too
long.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
. And I really am not seeing any difference between what I
understand as your opinion and what I understand as his.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Bogus Neuroscience
On 10
And I really am not seeing any difference between what I understand as
your opinion and what I understand as his.
Sorry if I seemed to be hammering on anyone, it wasn't my intention.
(Yesterday was a sort of bad day for me for non-science-related reasons, so
my tone of e-voice was likely
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:47 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wote:
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.
In what looks not
Mark Waser wrote:
True enough, but Granger's work is NOT total BS... just partial BS ;-)
In which case, clearly praise the good stuff but just as clearly (or
even more so) oppose the BS.
You and Richard seem to be in vehement agreement. Granger knows his
neurology and probably his
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Bogus Neuroscience
And I really am not seeing any difference between what I understand as
your opinion and what I understand as his.
Sorry if I seemed to be hammering on anyone, it wasn't my
Arthur,
There was no censorship. We all saw that message go by. We all just
ignored it. Take a hint.
- Original Message -
From: A. T. Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: [agi] Re: Bogus Neuroscience [...]
On Oct
About the Granger paper, I thought last night of a concise summary of
how bad it really is. Imagine that we had not invented computers, but
we were suddenly given a batch of computers by some aliens, and we tried
to put together a science to understand how these machines worked.
Suppose,
On 10/22/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- I think Granger's cog-sci speculations, while oversimplified and
surely wrong in parts, contain important hints at the truth (and in my prior
email I tried to indicate how)
-- Richard OTOH, seems to consider Granger's cog-sci speculations
So, one way to summarize my view of the paper is
-- The neuroscience part of Granger's paper tells how these
library-functions may be implemented in the brain
-- The cog-sci part consists partly of
- a) the hypothesis that these library-functions are available to
cognitive programs
Granger has nothing new in cog sci except some of the particular details
in b) -- which you find uncompelling and oversimplified -- so what is the
cog sci that you find of value?
--
Apparently we are using cog sci in slightly different ways...
I agree that he
I think we've beaten this horse to death . . . . :-)
However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between
cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of
this nature are IMO cog sci rather than just neurosci. At least, that
is consistent with
But each of these things has a huge raft of assumptions built into it:
-- hierarchical clustering ... OF WHAT KIND OF SYMBOLS?
-- hash coding ... OF WHAT KIND OF SYMBOLS?
-- sequence completion ... OF WHAT KIND OF SYMBOLS?
In each case, Granger's answer is that the symbols are
On 10/22/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we've beaten this horse to death . . . . :-)
However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between
cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of
this nature are IMO cog sci rather than
14 matches
Mail list logo
