On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To believe that you need >> something more complex, you need evidence. > > Yes, and the evidence that you need something more complex is overwhelming > in this case (if you have anywhere near adequate knowledge of the field). >
You need evidence about principles of AI, not just about particulars of human brain. To clarify what you mean, please suggest a specific piece of evidence (a paper, well-known fact, etc.). On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't know what you mean. This particular conversation is not placed >> in the specific enough context to talk about doing something or >> obtaining experimental results. > > This particular conversation was discussing neurons. The neural network > model of neurons is *entirely* local. There are *many* globally-mediated > effects that dramatically affect cognition. These are simply not handled. > There are *many* time-related effects that affect neuron-firing. These are > not handled. There is *a lot* of experimental evidence that both of these > things are necessary for coherent cognition -- yet, you and J.R. wish to > sweep it all away in the interest of mindless simplicity. > Handled? Handled by what? You are finding some meaning that I didn't intend to convey. But it seems that I do believe so. Human brain is a rather complex thing, if only to encode evolutionary psychology and special-purpose modalities. Still, it doesn't mean that you'll need these in blank slate AI. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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
