These are high-level models ... the example you gave are low-level models of specific cognitive phenomena...
but I think if you glue together all the high and low level models yet produced by the psychology field, you will not find many real answers about the dynamics of cognition .. and will not find the clues you need to design an AGI ... ben On 4/25/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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/?&;
----- 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
