<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/04/2023 17:45, Gordon Swobe
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJvaNPkDNLNA8gkE0z8cWDQbDdyqkCZQmYCxg0-DstoCDwO_cA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at
10:32 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a
href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It seems
to me that the differences of opinion here have a deeper
cause <br>
than any mentioned.<br>
<br>
It's a conflict about which general approach we should take
to <br>
investigate how the mind works: The scientific method, or
pre-scientific <br>
ideas such as intuition and philosophical debate.<br>
<br>
I notice that I never did get any reply from Gordon on my
question <br>
whether he agreed that spike trains are the language of the
brain. <br>
Almost as if he was simply ignoring the matter, regarding
the foundation <br>
of all brain activity as being irrelevant to how it works.</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I wrote to you that in my opinion you were
conflating linguistics and neuroscience. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Actually, you went further than that, arguing
that linguistics is not even the correct discipline. But
you were supposedly refuting my recent argument which is
entirely about what linguistics — the science of language —
can inform us about language models.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-gts</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Yes, prior to my question. Which has a point. But you are still
dodging it.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>