So, sorry, but I am looking at the same data, and as far as I am
concerned I see almost no evidence that probability theory plays a
significant role in cognition at the concept level.
What that means, to go back to the original question, is that the
possibility I raised is still completely open.
To a large extent, current data about human cognition is like a
Rorschach blot!
I.e., it is sufficiently noisy and incomplete, that people with many
different views can see in it conjectural evidence for their own
perspectives ;-)
My own approach has been to take
-- philosophy of mind (as I presented in The Hidden Pattern and
earlier works)
-- the theory of computation and algorithms
as the basic foundations, but then given foundations based on these,
to look to cognitive science for whatever inspiration it can give.
I do not claim however that I can prove my interpretation of
contemporary cog sci data correct, any more than you can prove your
interpretation correct. The data is too sparse to support solid
interpretations at present.
And I definitely wouldn't want the NM AGI design to be judged based
on my intuitive and speculative assessments of data about human
cognition. Whatever its various conceptual inspirations, the NM
design is a specific mathematical and software design that may be
assessed on its own merits (by those who are looking at its details,
which of course have not been publicly disclosed at the moment ;-).
-- Ben
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
