On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> They want some kind of mixture of "sparse" and "multiply redundant" and "not >> distributed". The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no >> consistent interpretation of what they tried to give as their conclusion. >> If you think there is, bring it out and put it side by side with what we >> said. >> > > There is always a consistent interpretation that drops their > interpretation altogether and leaves the data. I don't see their > interpretation as strongly asserting anything. They are just saying > the same thing in a different language you don't like or consider > meaningless, but it's a question of definitions and style, not > essence, as long as the audience of the paper doesn't get confused. > > -- > Vladimir Nesov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/
Yes, neuroscientists rarely try to give a coherent cognitive-level theory ... that is not their job. I think the data they are gathering is valuable, but they are probably not going to be the ones to eventually weave it into a coherent and detailed cognitive theory. I got fed up with neuroscience in the 1990s after proposing a lot of nice cognitive theories, and finding that available neuroscience data was not adequate to verify or refute any of them. Unfortunately, in 2008 this is still basically the case ... brain imaging tech has a long way to go... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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
