Richard, On 6/11/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am using cognitive science as a basis for AGI development,
If my fear of paradigm shifting proves to be unfounded, then you may well be right. However, I would be surprised if there weren't a LOT of paradigm shifting going on. It would sure be nice to know rather than taking such a big gamble. Only time will tell for sure. > and finding it not only appropriate, but IMO the only viable approach. This really boils down to the meaning of "viable". I was asserting that the cost of gathering more information (e.g. with a scanning UV fluorescence microscope) was probably smaller than even a single AGI development project - if you count the true value of your very talented efforts. Hence, this boils down to what your particular skills are, which I presume are in AI programming. On the other hand, I have worked in a major university's neurological surgery lab, wrote programs that interacted with individual neurons, etc., and hence probably feel "warmer" about working the lab side of this problem. Note that no one has funded neuroscience research to determine information processing functionality - it has ALL been to support research targeting various illnesses. The IP feedback that has come out of those efforts is byproduct and NOT the primary goal. It would take rather little experimentation to make a BIG dent in the many unknowns relating to AGI if that were the primary goal. BTW, neuroscience researchers are in the SAME sort of employment warp as AI people are. All of the research money is now going to genetic research, leaving classical neuroscience research stalled. They aren't even working on new operations that are needed to address various conditions that present operations fail to address. A friend of mine now holds a dual post, as both the chairman of a neurological surgery department and as the director of research at a major university's health sciences complex. He is appalled at where the research money is now being "thrown", and how little will probably ever come of it. He must administer this misdirected research, while also administering a surgical team that still must often work in the dark due to inadequate research. He feels helpless in this crazy situation. The "good news" here is that even a few dollars put into IP-related research would probably return a LOT of useful information for AGI folks. All I was saying is that somehow, someone needs to do this work. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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
