Again, when you say that these neuroscience theories have "squashed the computational theories of mind", it is not clear to me what you mean by "the computational theories of mind." Do you have a more precise definition of what you mean?
ben g On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Colin: > > others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual hardware > neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K. 'Thermodynamically > equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion channels', *Neural > Computation* vol. 19, no. 2, 2007. 327-350.) ...and others ... then things > will be diverse and authoritative. In particular, those who have recently > essentially squashed the computational theories of mind from a neuroscience > perspective- the 'integrative neuroscientists': > > Poznanski, R. R., Biophysical neural networks : foundations of integrative > neuroscience, Mary Ann Liebert, Larchmont, NY, 2001, pp. viii, 503 p. > > Pomerantz, J. R., Topics in integrative neuroscience : from cells to > cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2008, pp. > xix, 427 p. > > Gordon, E., Ed. (2000). Integrative neuroscience : bringing together > biological, psychological and clinical models of the human brain. Amsterdam, > Harwood > > > > Colin, > > This all looks v. interesting - googling quickly. The general integrative > approach to the brain's functioning is clearly v. important. > > *Distinctive Paradigms/Approaches. But are any distinctive models or more > specific paradigms emerging? It isn't immediately clear why AGI has to pay > special attention here. Can you do a bit more selling of the importance of > this field. > > *Models - I notice some researchers are developing models of the brain's > functioning. Are any worthwhile? I called here sometime ago for a Systems > Psychology and Systems AI, that would be devoted to developing overall > models both of the intelligent brain and of AGI systems. Existing AGI > systems like Ben's offer de facto models of what is required for an > intelligent mind. So it would be v. valuable to be able to compare different > models, both natural and artificial. > > *Embodied Cognitive Science. How do you see int. neurosci. in relation to > this? For example, I noted some purely neuronal models of the self. For me, > only integrated brain-body models of the self are valid. > > *Free Will. An interest of mine. I noted some reference that suggested a > neuroscientific attempt to explain this (or perhaps explain it away). Know > any more about this? > > > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
