Celebrities in Cognitive Science

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » Celebrities in Cognitive Science

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

dan michaels

Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:05 pm

Guest

Ran across this list, so thought I'd pass it along:

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/cogsci.html

Has links to lots of stuff about important people we've been
discussing on c.a.p, including MM's paper MINDS ARE SIMPLY WHAT BRAINS
DO [hi, JohnC]:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth03.html

OmegaZero2003

Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:45 pm

Guest

WHAT!!!??? You mean NO reference to Longley's Frags?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message
news:4b4b6093.0401031405.76b08b13@posting.google.com...

Quote:

JGCasey

Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:40 pm

Guest

"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message
news:4b4b6093.0401031405.76b08b13@posting.google.com...

Quote:

Ran across this list, so thought I'd pass it along:

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/cogsci.html

Has links to lots of stuff about important people we've been
discussing on c.a.p, including MM's paper MINDS ARE
SIMPLY WHAT BRAINS DO [hi, JohnC]:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth03.html

hi, DanM,

At this stage I see the whole mind, consciousness issue an
open and unresolved question. Until you can conclude the
existence of qualia from "what the brain does" you have
explained nothing.

AI programs are mechanical processes not mind processes.

You can pretend your software animatron is "alive" but I will
reserve my judgement until we have a clearer understanding
of what is really going on in a sentient human being.

--
John Casey

dan michaels

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:14 pm

Guest

"JGCasey" <kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message news:<3ff77d88_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...

Quote:

"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message
news:4b4b6093.0401031405.76b08b13@posting.google.com...
Ran across this list, so thought I'd pass it along:

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/cogsci.html

Has links to lots of stuff about important people we've been
discussing on c.a.p, including MM's paper MINDS ARE
SIMPLY WHAT BRAINS DO [hi, JohnC]:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth03.html

hi, DanM,

At this stage I see the whole mind, consciousness issue an
open and unresolved question. Until you can conclude the
existence of qualia from "what the brain does" you have
explained nothing.

AI programs are mechanical processes not mind processes.

You can pretend your software animatron is "alive" but I will
reserve my judgement until we have a clearer understanding
of what is really going on in a sentient human being.

Hi JohnC, well I guess it's discussions of these terms that keep
c.a.p. alive, as well as many of the philosophy professors with food
on the table. However, as I've mentioned many times, these issues are
in fact of little real interest to me - other than passing curiosity
with what others have to say. If we had really intelligent robots that
could handle some of the common-sensical problems that even a child
can handle, that would be a fantastic leap forward, and personally I
wouldn't care if the robots were conscious or sentient, or whether
they could appreciate qualia. Mimicking or emulation would be fine,
strict duplication of what makes humans special, eh.

This is what I like about Edelman's approach, as he was more
interested in simulating operation of neural mechanisms than simply
engaging in debate on unanswerable questions. Interestingly, he does
suggest possible mechanisms for consciousness, but AFAICT he didn't
even use the word mind in his book.

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:13 am Science Forum Index