On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Steve Richfield

> Rob,
> I just LOVE opaque postings, because they identify people who see things
> differently than I do. I'm not sure what you are saying here, so I'll make
> some "random" responses to exhibit my ignorance and elicit more explanation.
I think based on what you wrote, you understood (mostly) what I was trying
to get across.  So I'm glad it was at least quasi-intelligible. :)

>  It sounds like this is a finer measure than the "dimensionality" that I
> was referencing. However, I don't see how to reduce anything as quantized as
> dimensionality into finer measures. Can you say some more about this?
I was just referencing Gardenfors' research program of "conceptual spaces"
(I was intentionally vague about committing to this fully though because I
don't necessarily think this is the whole answer).  Page 2 of this article
summarizes it pretty succinctly: http:// <goog_1627994790>

> However, different people's brains, even the brains of identical twins,
> have DIFFERENT mappings. This would seem to mandate experience-formed
> topology.

Yes definitely.

> Since these conceptual spaces that structure sensorimotor
>> expectation/prediction (including in higher order embodied exploration of
>> concepts I think) are multidimensional spaces, it seems likely that some
>> kind of neural computation over these spaces must occur,
> I agree.
>> though I wonder what it actually would be in terms of neurons, (and if
>> that matters).
> I don't see any route to the answer except via neurons.

I agree this is true of natural intelligence, though maybe in modeling, the
neural level can be shortcut to the topo map level without recourse to
neural computation (use some more straightforward computation like matrix
algebra instead).


Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to