>> So, one way to summarize my view of the paper is >> -- The neuroscience part of Granger's paper tells how these >> library-functions may be implemented in the brain >> -- The cog-sci part consists partly of >> ----- a) the hypothesis that these library-functions are available to >> cognitive programs >> ----- b) some specifics about how these library-functions may be used within >> cognitive programs >> I find Granger's idea a) quite appealing, but his ideas in category b) >> fairly uncompelling and oversimplified. >> Whereas according to my understanding, Richard seems not to share my belief >> in the strong potential meaningfulness of a)
*Everyone* is looking for how library functions may be implemented precisely because they would then *assume* that the library functions would then be available to thought -- thus a) is not at all unique to Granger and I would even go so far as to not call it a hypothesis. And I'm also pretty sure that *everyone* believes in the strong potential meaningfulness of having library functions. Granger has nothing new in cog sci except some of the particular details in b) -- which you find "uncompelling and oversimplified" -- so what is the cog sci that you find of value? ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=56335298-578a1a
