Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
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 ...
Low-level mnodels of specific cognitive phenomena are *precisely* what
we need, not high-level speculative theories such as those of Baars and
Edelman.
Glueing them (the low-level models) together is not the issue:
integrating them is what has to be done. They cannot be glued, because
they all have flaws and incompatibilities.
What makes you say that "you will not find many real answers about the
dynamics of cognition"? You have tried?
I am the one who is actually getting on with the job and doing it, and I
say that not only is it doable, but as far as I can see it is converging
on an extremely powerful, consistent and usable model of an AGI system.
Really, what you just said was pure pessimism, methinks. I am happy to
accept that you cannot see how it mihgt be done, but your focus is not
on trying (hard) to actually do the integration. Mine is.
Richard Loosemore.
On 4/25/07, *Richard Loosemore* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[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/?&; <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/?&;
<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
