On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lastly, I did not say that the neuroscientists picked old, broken theories > AND that they could have picked a better, not-broken theory .... I only said > that they have gone back to old theories that are known to be broken. > Whether anyone has a good replacement yet is not relevant: it does not > alter the fact that they are using broken theories. The neuron = concept > 'theory' is extremely broken: it is so broken, that when neuroscientists > talk about bayesian contingencies being calculated or encoded by spike > timing mechanisms, that claim is incoherent. >
Well, you know I read that paper ;-) "A theory that is 30 or 40 years out of date", you said -- which suggested something that is up to date, hence the question. Neural code can be studied from the areas where we know the correlates. You could assign concepts to neurons and theorize about their structure as dictated by dynamic of neural substrate. They will be no word-level concepts, and you'd probably need to build bigger abstractions on top, but there is no inherent problem with that. Still, it's so murky even for simple correlates that no good overall picture exists. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- 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
