Colin reminds me of Searle. I think the claim that underlies all his arguments is "cognition cannot be achieved by algorithms." Therefore, he regards any algorithmic approach (including algorithms that model neuronal EM fields) as a non-starter. In his mind, experiments that measure the achievements of any algorithmic approach or brain simulation are still not "empirical," because any algorithm (including algorithms that simulate the brain) is a theoretical model of cognition rather than a potential achievement of cognition. An analogy that I remember from either him or Searle or both is, "a simulation of a rainstorm will not get your computer wet."
I don't agree with him, but watching all of you talk past each other is frustrating me. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf319c0e4c79c9397-M3e26fc6ca8eaa295fdedfa0d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
