[ExI] asim roy brain theory
rpwl at lightlink.com
Sat Nov 22 03:53:21 UTC 2008
Brent Allsop wrote:
> Thanks for this informative analysis and judgment. As I started
> examining this, I had a similar feeling, but Richard, in operational
> brain mechanics, is clearly much more of an expert than I.
> Additionally, non of this has anything to do with the 'Hard Problem'
> right Richard? Which is a much more significant and likely to bear
> powerful world changing fruits (as in THE greatest scientific discovery
> - ever) in the very short turn future - right Richard?
> Brent Allsop
Was this sarcasm?
If so, why?
> Richard Loosemore wrote:
>> spike wrote:
>>> Is anyone here up to speed on Asim Roy? This connectionist theory of
>>> brain seems cool, but I lack the background to judge it.
>> I got a draft version of the paper earlier this year, and after a
>> quick scan I filed it under 'junk'.
>> I just read it through again, and the filing stays the same.
>> His basic premise is that connectionists argued from the very
>> beginning that they wanted to do things in a way that did not involve
>> a central executive. They wanted to see how much could be done by
>> having large numbers of autonomous units do things independently.
>> Turns out, quite a lot can be achieved that way.
>> But it seems that Asim Roy has fundamentally misunderstood the force
>> and the intent of that initial declaration by the connectionists.
>> There was a reason they said what they said: they wanted to get away
>> from the old symbol processing paradigm in which one thing happened at
>> a time and symbols were separated from the mechanisms that modified or
>> used symbols. The connectionists were not being dogmatic about "No
>> Controllers!", they just wanted to stop all power being vested in the
>> hands of a central executive ... and their motivation was from
>> cognitive science, not engineering or control theory.
>> Roy seems to be completely obsessed with the idea that they are wrong,
>> while at the same time not really understanding why they said it, and
>> not really having a concrete proposal (or account of empirical data)
>> to substitute for the connectionist ideas.
>> To tell the truth, I don't think there are many connectionists who are
>> so hell-bent on the idea of not having a central controller, that they
>> would not be open to an architecture that did have one (or several).
>> They just don't think it would be good to have central controllers in
>> charge of ALL the heavy lifting.
>> Roy's paper has the additional disadvantage of being utterly filled
>> with underlines and boldface. He shouts. Not good in something that
>> is supposed to be a scientific paper.
>> Sorry, but this is just junk.
>> Richard Loosemore
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat