Connectionists: Physics and Psychology (and the C-word)

[Richard Loosemore]

On 1/28/14, 3:09 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:
> Hi Richard, thanks for the feedback.
>
> > Yes, in general, having an outcome measure that correlates with C ... 
> that is good, but only with a clear and unambigous meaning for C 
> itself (which I don't think anyone has, so therefore it is, after all, 
> of no value to look for outcome measures that correlate)
>
> Actually, the outcome measure I described is independent of a clear 
> and unambiguous meaning for C itself, and in an interesting way: the 
> models, like us, essentially reinvent the entire literature, and have 
> a conversation as we do, inventing almost all the same positions that 
> we've invented (including the one in your paper).
>

I can tell you in advance that the theory I propose in that paper makes 
a prediction there.  If your models (I assume you mean models of the 
human cognitive system) have precisely the right positioning for their 
'concept analysis mechanism' (and they almost certainly would have to... 
it is difficult to avoid), then they would indeed "reinvent the entire 
literature, and have a conversation as we do, inventing almost all the 
same positions that we've invented".

However, I can say *why* they should do this, as a tightly-argued 
consequence of the theory itself, and I can also say why they should 
express those same confusions about consciousness that we do.

I think that is the key.  I don't think the naked fact that a 
model-of-cognition reinvents the philosophy of mind would actually tell 
us anything, sadly.   There is no strong logical compulsion there.  It 
would boot me little to know that they had done that.

Anyhow, look forward to hearing your thoughts if/when you get a chance.

Richard Loosemore
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20140128/4a5b1a57/attachment.html>