Russell Wallace wrote:
On 4/26/07, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Russell Wallace wrote:
> I disagree. The human cognitive system is very closely tied to the
> hardware it runs on. Understanding it in anywhere near the level of
> detail required to duplicate it is going to have to go hand in
hand with
> understanding the brain.
But, Russell, do you say this from the basis of detailed knowledge of
both cognitive science and neuroscience? Because those working in cog
sci, at least, do not agree with your statement. What is your exact
justification for contradicting this general consensus?
I'm under the impression that the consensus among neuroscientists (of
which I am not one, granted) if anything tends to support my view. If
the consensus is as you say - that pretty much all neuroscientists think
you can reverse engineer the human mind in sufficient detail to
duplicate its capabilities, without reference to the hardware - then I
would find that extraordinary, but would also agree it would be rational
for you to go with the experts' view rather than mine. Are there any
neuroscientists here who can comment?
Well, the problem is that to know the arguments fully is to know that
quoting the "neuroscientists" alone is the wrong thing to do.
1) Clarification: I do not ever say that we can do the job "...without
reference to the hardware". It is very important indeed that you don't
get the wrong idea on this point: *some* amount of reference to the
hardware is fine, but I am making a distinction between those who take
modest inspiration from hardware issues, and those who primarily try to
emulate the entire hardware structure of the brain.
2) Neuroscientists, today, are making incredibly, unbelievably naive
statements about the functional level (the cognitive systems level). To
put it in perspective, imagine a group of people who claimed to be
trying to understand computers, who were doing this: dissecting computer
hardware and publishing papers in which they measured patterns of heat
output from the circuit boards, and saying in their papers things like
"We have found the Spellcheck Area!" and "We now understand the place
where is sensitive to spam!" and "Linux and Windows explained in terms
of hardware differences".
Now suppose that you were trying to reconstruct, say, how spellchecking
works. You have done a lot of work (years of decades of work)
dissecting the functional aspects of what a spellchecker does .... and
then one day one of these amateurs comes along and publishes the paper
entitled "We have found the Spellcheck Area!". How do you feel?
So when you tell me that "the consensus among neuroscientists if
anything tends to support" the view that we need to understand the
hardware level in order to understand the functional level, I can only
say that, well, they WOULD say that, wouldn't they?
I have given this reference before, but in case you missed it, there was
a special issue of Cognitive Neuropsychology in which the lead article was:
Harley, T. A. (2004). Does cognitive neuropsychology have a future?
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 3-16.
This article started a huge debate in the field, and is now one of the
most widely cited references. Basically it was an Emperor Has No
Clothes attack on some of the neuroscience follies I am alluding to here.
And, for what it is worth, Harley and I are now collaborating on a book
chapter that takes that original article further. (Sorry for the plug,
but you know the kind of stupid nonsense I have had to take from some
unmentionable amateurs on these lists who attack arguments by making
libelous accusations about a person's qualifications and credentials).
Overall, I think that perhaps you are using 'neuroscientist' to mean
something broader than you may have intended: did you mean to
distinguish those people from the cognitive scientists, or were you not
aware of the huge divide between them?
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
