Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
Please describe some of the counterexamples, that you can easily come up
with, that make a mockery of Tononi's conclusion.
Ed Porter
Alas, I will have to disappoint. I put a lot of effort into
understanding his paper first time around, but the sheer agony of
Richard,
I'm curious what you think of William Calvin's neuroscience hypotheses as
presented in e.g. The Cerebral Code
That book is a bit out of date now, but still, he took complexity and
nonlinear dynamics quite seriously, so it seems to me there may be some
resonance between his ideas and
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
I'm curious what you think of William Calvin's neuroscience hypotheses
as presented in e.g. The Cerebral Code
That book is a bit out of date now, but still, he took complexity and
nonlinear dynamics quite seriously, so it seems to me there may be some
I mentioned it because looked at the book again recently and was pleasantly
surprised at how well his ideas seemed to have held up In other words,
although there are point on which I think he's probably wrong, his
decade-old ideas *still* seem more sensible and insightful than most of the
Colin,
Here are my comments re the following parts of your below post:
===Colin said==
I merely point out that there are fundamental limits as to how computer
science (CS) can inform/validate basic/physical science - (in an AGI
context, brain science). Take the Baars/Franklin IDA
Richard,
You originally totally trashed Tononi's paper, including its central core,
by saying:
It is, for want of a better word, nonsense. And since people take me to
task for being so dismissive, let me add that it is the central thesis
of the paper that is nonsense: if you ask
Ed,
Comments interspersed below:
Ed Porter wrote:
Colin,
Here are my comments re the following parts of your below post:
===Colin said==
I merely point out that there are fundamental limits as to how
computer science (CS) can inform/validate basic/physical science - (in
Criticizing AGI for not being neuroscience, and criticizing AGI programs for
not trying to precisely emulate humans, is really a bit silly.
One can of course make and test scientific hypotheses about the behavior of
AGI systems, quite independent of their potential relationship to human
beings.
I have been developing an experimental test set along the lines of Legg and
Hutter's universal intelligence (
http://www.idsia.ch/idsiareport/IDSIA-04-05.pdf ). They define general
intelligence as the expected reward of an AIXI agent in a Solomonoff
distribution of environments (simulated by
