Ben Goertzel wrote:
> The neuron = concept
'theory' is extremely broken: it is so broken, that when neuroscientists
talk about bayesian contingencies being calculated or encoded by spike
timing mechanisms, that claim is incoherent.
This is not always true ... in some cases there are solidly demonstrated
connections between neurally computed bayesian contingencies and
observed perceptual and motor phenomena in organisms...
I agree that no one knows how abstract concepts are represented in the brain,
but for sensorimotor stuff it is not the case that work on bayesian population
coding in the brain is "incoherent"
No contest: it is valid there.
But I am only referring to the cases where neuroscientists imply that
what they are talking about are higher level concepts.
This happens extremely frequently.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
