Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Derek -- As examples I'd vote for -- Bernard Baars' "global workspace" model of consciousness -- Edelmans "neural darwinism" approach to learning These are fascinating, useful, and substantially correct (IMO) cognitive theories that benefit from integration. However, even when you glue together all such useful theories, IMO, you don't get far enough to tell you how to build a thinking machine!!
Actually, these are atrociously poorly-defined models, too vague for anyone to conclude whether they are substantially correct.
Baars' theory (mostly) tries to explain the nebulous idea of consciousness, which is not really relevant to the functioning of cognitive systems, and Edelmans theory is just a high level attitude to the structure of cognition.
You couldn't glue these together if you compressed 'em inside a black hole. So, yeah, I agree, you could never use these to build a system.
Certainly this is not the kind of stuff I was talking about. Richard Loosemore ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
