On 10/20/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[most of post snipped and agreed with]
Without a number, you could argue that the vast majority of synapses store
subconscious (non recallable) memories. But I can still argue otherwise.
Humans are not significantly superior to other large
If I see garbage being peddled as if it were science, I will call it
garbage.
Amen. The political correctness of forgiving people for espousing total
BS is the primary cause of many egregious things going on for far, *far* too
long.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
Ben,
That is sort of a neat kind of device. Will have to think about that as it
is fairly dynamic I may have to look that one up and potentially experiment
on it.
The kinds of algebraic structures I'm talking about basically are as many as
possible. Also things like sets w/o operators,
True enough, but Granger's work is NOT total BS... just partial BS ;-)
In which case, clearly praise the good stuff but just as clearly (or even more
so) oppose the BS.
You and Richard seem to be in vehement agreement. Granger knows his neurology
and probably his neuroscience (depending upon
And I really am not seeing any difference between what I understand as
your opinion and what I understand as his.
Sorry if I seemed to be hammering on anyone, it wasn't my intention.
(Yesterday was a sort of bad day for me for non-science-related reasons, so
my tone of e-voice was likely
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:05:26 am, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
... but dynamic long-term memory, in my view, is a wildly
self-organizing mess, and would best be modeled algebraically as a quadratic
iteration over a high-dimensional real non-division algebra whose
multiplication table is
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:47 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wote:
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
It took me at least five years of struggle to get to the point
where I could start to have the confidence to call a spade a spade
It still looks like a shovel to me.
In what looks not
On 10/22/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:05:26 am, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
... but dynamic long-term memory, in my view, is a wildly
self-organizing mess, and would best be modeled algebraically as a
quadratic
iteration over a high-dimensional
Mark Waser wrote:
True enough, but Granger's work is NOT total BS... just partial BS ;-)
In which case, clearly praise the good stuff but just as clearly (or
even more so) oppose the BS.
You and Richard seem to be in vehement agreement. Granger knows his
neurology and probably his
Holy writhing Mandelbrot sets, Batman!
Why real and non-division? I particularly don't like real -- my computer
can't
handle the precision :-)
Robin - forget all this digital stuff it's a trap, we need some analog
nano-computers to help fight these crispy impostors!
John
-
This list
-- I think Granger's cog-sci speculations, while oversimplified and surely
wrong in parts, contain important hints at the truth (and in my prior email
I tried to indicate how)
-- Richard OTOH, seems to consider Granger's cog-sci speculations total
garbage
This is a significant difference
Arthur,
There was no censorship. We all saw that message go by. We all just
ignored it. Take a hint.
- Original Message -
From: A. T. Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: [agi] Re: Bogus Neuroscience [...]
On Oct
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
On 10/22/07, *J Storrs Hall, PhD* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:05:26 am, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
... but dynamic long-term memory, in my view, is a wildly
self-organizing mess, and would best be
About the Granger paper, I thought last night of a concise summary of
how bad it really is. Imagine that we had not invented computers, but
we were suddenly given a batch of computers by some aliens, and we tried
to put together a science to understand how these machines worked.
Suppose,
On 10/22/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- I think Granger's cog-sci speculations, while oversimplified and
surely wrong in parts, contain important hints at the truth (and in my prior
email I tried to indicate how)
-- Richard OTOH, seems to consider Granger's cog-sci speculations
So, one way to summarize my view of the paper is
-- The neuroscience part of Granger's paper tells how these
library-functions may be implemented in the brain
-- The cog-sci part consists partly of
- a) the hypothesis that these library-functions are available to
cognitive programs
Granger has nothing new in cog sci except some of the particular details
in b) -- which you find uncompelling and oversimplified -- so what is the
cog sci that you find of value?
--
Apparently we are using cog sci in slightly different ways...
I agree that he
Yeah I'm not really agreeing with you here. I feel that, though I haven't
really studied other cognitive software structures, but I feel that they can
built simpler and more efficient. But I shouldn't come out saying that
unless I attack some of the details right? But that's a gut reaction I have
I think we've beaten this horse to death . . . . :-)
However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between
cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of
this nature are IMO cog sci rather than just neurosci. At least, that
is consistent with
But each of these things has a huge raft of assumptions built into it:
-- hierarchical clustering ... OF WHAT KIND OF SYMBOLS?
-- hash coding ... OF WHAT KIND OF SYMBOLS?
-- sequence completion ... OF WHAT KIND OF SYMBOLS?
In each case, Granger's answer is that the symbols are
On 10/22/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we've beaten this horse to death . . . . :-)
However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between
cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of
this nature are IMO cog sci rather than
As I said above, it leaves many things unsaid and unclear. For example,
does it activate all or multiple nodes in a cluster together or not? Does
it always activate the most general cluster covering a given pattern, or
does it use some measure of how well a cluster fits input to select
Richard,
You might be interested to know how much attention one of your articles
has gotten in the mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com agi@v2.listbox.com mailing
list under the RE: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and
number of synapses thread, which has been dedicated to it.
Below is a
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Dear Readers of the RE: Bogus Neuroscience Thread,
Because I am the one responsible for bringing to the attention of this
list the Granger article (“Engines of the brain: The computational
instruction set of human cognition”, by Richard Granger) that has caused
the
Richard,
I will only respond to the below copied one of the questions in your last
message because of lack of time. I pick this example because it was so
DEEP (to be heard in your mind with max reverb). I hoped that if I
could give a halfway reasonable answer to it and if, just maybe, you
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that speed-reading is
fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a
substantial proportion of the text) is called for to explain the observed
performance.
And I'm
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:01:55 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Did you ever try to parse a sentence with more than one noun in it?
Well, all right: but please be assured that the rest of us do in fact
do that.
Why make insulting personal remarkss instead of explaining your reasoning?
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:48:20 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that speed-reading is
fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a
substantial proportion of the
On Monday 22 October 2007 09:33:24 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
...
Are you capable of understanding how that might be considered insulting?
I think in all seriousness that he literally cannot understand. Richard's
emotional interaction is very similar to that of some autistic people I
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still don't buy it. Saccades are normally well below the conscious level, and
a vast majority of what goes on cognitively is not available to
introspection. Any good reader gets to the point where the sentence meanings,
not the words at
You can DO them consciously but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can
intentionally become conscious of the ones you are doing unconsciously.
Try cutting a hole in a piece of paper and moving it smoothly across another
page that has text on it. When your eye tracks the smoothly moving
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can DO them consciously but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can
intentionally become conscious of the ones you are doing unconsciously.
One every few seconds happens involuntarily, when I try to not let any
through at all; but
Vladimir,
I'm using system as kind of a general word for a set and operator(s).
You are understanding it correctly except templates is not right. The
templates are actually a vast internal complex of structure which includes
morphisms which are like templates.
But you are right it does
33 matches
Mail list logo
