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

[james bower]

Ok, had enough here - back to work.

It is emblematic, however, for me of the larger problem that a discussion that started out by raising concerns about abstract models, disconnected from the physical realty of machine we are supposed to be understanding, has turned into a debate about quantum theory and consciousness.

I rest my case

The very best to everyone and to all of us as we try to figure this out.  I have no doubt that everyone is sincere and truly believes in the approach they are taking.  For my part, I will stick with the nuts and bolts.

Jim Bower

p.s Last one - personally I take Darwin’s view that the question of consciousness isn’t that interesting.  




On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Richard Loosemore <rloosemore at susaro.com> wrote:

> 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

 

 

Dr. James M. Bower Ph.D.

Professor of Computational Neurobiology

Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies.

15355 Lambda Drive

University of Texas Health Science Center 

San Antonio, Texas  78245

 

Phone:  210 382 0553

Email: bower at uthscsa.edu

Web: http://www.bower-lab.org

twitter: superid101

linkedin: Jim Bower

 

CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:

The contents of this email and any attachments to it may be privileged or contain privileged and confidential information. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, any of the information contained in this e-mail, or

any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be

immediately returned to the sender or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof and any and all hard copies made must be destroyed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail immediately.

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20140128/59f443a5/attachment.html>