Richard,
Since you are clearly in the mode you routinely get into when you start
loosing an argument on this list --- as has happened so many times before
--- i.e., of ceasing all further productive communication on the actual
subject of the argument --- this will be my last communication
Ed Porter wrote:
Why is it that people who repeatedly and insultingly say other people’s
work or ideas are total nonsense -- without any reasonable
justification -- are still allowed to participate in the discussion on
the AGI list?
Because they know what they are talking about.
And because
===Colin said==
The tacit assumption is that the model's thus implemented on a computer
will/can 'behave' indistinguishably from the real thing, when what you are
observing is a model of the real thing, not the real thing.
===ED's reply===
I was making no assumption that the model
Why is it that people who repeatedly resort to personal abuse like this
are still allowed to participate in the discussion on the AGI list?
Richard Loosemore
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
You originally totally trashed Tononi's paper, including its central
core, by saying:
It
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That book is a bit out of date now, but still, he took complexity and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That book is a bit out of date now, but still, he took complexity and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.
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I know Dharmendra Mohdha a bit, and I've corresponded with Eugene
Izhikevich who is Edelman's collaborator on large-scale brain
simulations. I've read Tononi's stuff too. I think these are all smart
people with deep understandings, and all in all this will be research
Hi,
So if the researcher on this project have been learning some of your ideas,
and some of the better speculative thinking and neural simulations that have
been done in brains science --- either directly or indirectly --- it might
be incorrect to say that there is no 'design for a thinking
Richard,
Please describe some of the counterexamples, that you can easily come up
with, that make a mockery of Tononi's conclusion.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:r...@lightlink.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 8:54 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ed Porter ewpor...@msn.com 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
Colin,
From a quick read, the gist of what your are saying seems to be that AGI is
just engineering, i.e., the study of what man can make and the properties
thereof, whereas science relates to the eternal verities of reality.
But the brain is not part of an eternal verity. It is the
Ed,
I wasn't trying to justify or promote a 'divide'. The two worlds must be
better off in collaboration, surely? 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
To add to this discussion, I'd like to point out that many AI systems have
been used and scientifically evaluated as *psychological* models, e.g.
cognitive models.
For instance, SOAR and ACT-R are among the many systems that have been used
and evaluated this way.
The goal of that sort of
I know Dharmendra Mohdha a bit, and I've corresponded with Eugene Izhikevich
who is Edelman's collaborator on large-scale brain simulations. I've read
Tononi's stuff too. I think these are all smart people with deep
understandings, and all in all this will be research money well spent.
However,
2008/12/21 Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org:
However, IMO the rhetoric associating it with thinking machine building is
premature and borderline dishonest. It's marketing rhetoric. It's more
like interesting brain simulation research that could eventually play a
role in some future
Ben,
It would seem to me that a lot of the ideas in OpenCogPrime could be
implemented in neuromorphic hardware, particularly if you were to intermix
it with some traditional computing hardware. This is particularly true if
such a system could efficiently use neural assemblies, because that
22 matches
Mail list logo
