Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the
role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting yourself to a
whole raft of assumptions about how knowledge is generally represented and
processed. However, there are *huge* problems with that set of implicit
assumptions .... not to put too fine a point on it, those implicit
assumptions are equivalent to the worst, most backward kind of cognitive
theory imaginable. A theory that is 30 or 40 years out of date.
The gung-ho neuroscientists seem blissfully unaware of this fact because
they do not know enough cognitive science.
Richard Loosemore
I don't think this is the reason. There are plenty of neuroscientists
out there
who know plenty of cognitive science.
I think many neuroscientists just hold different theoretical
presuppositions than
you, for reasons other than ignorance of cog sci data.
Interdisciplinary cog sci has been around a long time now as you know ... it's
not as though cognitive neuroscientists are unaware of its data and ideas...
I disagree.
Trevor Harley wrote one very influential paper on the subject, and he
and I wrote a second paper in which we took a random sampling of
neuroscience papers and analyzed them carefully. We found it trivially
easy to gather data to illustrate our point. And, no, even though I
used my own framework as a point of reference, this was not crucial to
the argument, merely a way of bringing the argument into sharp focus.
So I am basing my conclusion on gathering actual evidence and publishing
a paper about it.
Since such luminaries as Jerry Fodor have said much the same thing, I
think I stand in fairly solid company.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
