On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: >> I should get a neuroscience feed with a bit more >> rigor. > > If your neuroscience feed could change the world it would be illegal. > As someone who's spent a few years in close proximity to > neuroscientists I'd wager all 10 euro in my bank account that you > could skip the next 20 years of research and miss nothing, AGI-wise. > You'd be better off following and/or participating in AGI projects or > starting your own. As mentioned before for a mere 10 million dollars > you could even sponsor your very own "Archie AGI" project :) >
I like this kind of strong opinion but I'm just trying to stay abreast of what is going on in neuroscience. The more certain sort of articles it seems are the rough ~ equivalent to "narrow neuroscience" but the system-wide neuroscience articles get somewhat more sketchy. So in a way it is like AI research. The more focused and constrained the more respectable. Mike A > AT > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
