Ben Goertzel wrote:
This stuff is important, but has been around in the literature for years now...
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:59 AM, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/05/do_bayesian_statisti.html
This week's New Scientist has a fascinating article on a possible 'grand
theory' of the brain that suggests that virtually all brain functions can be
modelled with Bayesian statistics.
The link (above) is a blog copy of the article in New Scientist.
Actually it is not important. I think this passage sums it up fairly well:
"Despite these successes, some in the Bayesian brain camp aren’t buying
the grand theory just yet. They say it is hard to know whether Friston’s
results are ground-breaking or just repackaged old concepts - but they
don’t say he’s wrong. Others say the free-energy principle is not
falsifiable. “I do not think it is testable, and I am pretty sure it
does not tell you how to build a machine which emulates some aspect of
intelligence,” says theoretical neuroscientist Tomaso Poggio of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
For all that the *hype* it to make it sound like it works at higher
levels of cognition, it does not.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
