>> -- 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 of opinion, no?
As you've just stated it, yes. However, rereading your previous e-mail, I
still don't really see where you agree with his cog sci (as opposed to what I
would still call neurobiology which I did see you agreeing with).
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Bogus Neuroscience
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 off a bit ...)
I think the difference between my and Richard's views on Granger would likely
be best summarized by saying that
-- 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 of opinion, no?
-- 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/?&;
-----
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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56325849-3cdbfb
