On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >> I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available >> neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural >> knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions about neural >> KR from available data involves loads of theoretical presuppositions >> ... >> >> However, my view is that this is well known among neuroscientists, and >> your reading of the Quiroga et al paper supports this... > > You have still not answered my previous question about your claim that there > are "essentially no neuroscientists" who say that spiking patterns in single > neurons encode relationships between concepts. >
I did reply to that email > And yet now you make another assertion about something that you think is > "well known among neuroscientists", while completely ignoring the actual > argument that Harley and I brought to bear on this issue. I read that paper a year or two ago, I don't remember the details and don't feel like looking them up right now, sorry... I was admittedly replying based on a semi-dim recollection... My recollection is that you were arguing various neuroscientists were overinterpreting their data, and drawing cognitive conclusions from fMRI and other data that were not really warranted by the data without loads of other theoretical assumptions. Sorry if this was the wrong take-away point, but that's what I remember from it ;-) ben ------------------------------------------- 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
