On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ed Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben, > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > It is a shame the brain science people aren't more interested in AGI. It > seems to me there is a lot of potential for cross-fertilization. > I don't think many of these folks have a principled or deep-seated **aversion** to AGI work or anything like that -- it's just that they're busy people and need to prioritize, like all working scientists Similarly, not many AGI types show up at computational neuroscience modeling type conferences To create connections between fields there has to be some strong indication of real value offered by one field to the other ... and preferably mutual value... But of course, the catch is that this value will only be demonstrated once the researchers in the different fields actually start coming together more I was involved w/ trying to build these kinds of links in the late 90s when I co-founded two cross-disciplinary university cog sci degree programs. It's hard because different people from different fields speak different languages and have different ideas of what constitutes successful or interesting research. The problem of bringing together AI and neuroscience and psychology was *partially* solved back when by the creation of cog sci as a discipline ... but obviously the solution was only partial because "cog sci" to a disturbing degree got sucked into "cog psych", and now someone needs to work again to pull AGI and brain-sim work together. Obviously, there's only so much one maverick outsider researcher like me can do to help nudge these two research communities together, but I'll do what I can via the AGI conferences, anyways.... ben g ------------------------------------------- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
