On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote:
> In the hopes of getting a reply to improve my "position" here, I think > that the best action for present AGIers would be to distill a "short list" > of what is needed to "blow the lid off" of neuroscience research to answer > the questions *that AGIers have,* and repeat that list (with various > author's comments) as an appendix to EVERY book, EVERY conference, EVERY > proposal, etc. Then, if anyone with money (U.S. DOD?, IBM?, Kurzweil?) EVER > looks over anything in this field, they will see that to achieve whatever > they are seeking, that they should throw some money into its underpinnings. > That's a reasonable suggestion. Not repeating the entire list as an appendix to everything of course, but for people who reckon AGI should in some way copy the human brain, to put together a wish list of what they would like neuroscience to be able to tell them, and publish that list in some central location where it would be visible and easily referenced. > Bullscheist. They have only emulated that miniscule part that is presently >> known. >> > This is precisely the thing, the interesting part of their claim to my way of thinking (though it got less press coverage than their large-scale computational runs) is they say they did _not_ confine themselves to the miniscule part that was hitherto known, they set up their own neuroscience wet lab with highly automated equipment running heavily in parallel, such that they could reproduce years of previous experiments in days and keep going from there, precisely to get past such limits. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
