N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 03 2015,01:00) | | Quote (NoName @ Aug. 02 2015,06:48) | | As has been shown repeatedly, your usage requires a radical redefinition from standard usage and especially the standard usage in Cognitive Science. |
As I have been repeatedly showing the problem is primarily from others not being up to date on what's now happening in cognitive science, where a unifying model able to establish standard usage of terms between its subfields (AI, neuroscience, psychology, etc) does not even exist yet. That's why I mentioned this year's article by Andre Fenton, which by the way also has a preview page where in the large illustration I can fuzzily see what I would expect for activity. The challenge for neuroscience was described as "By identifying positioning components like place, direction, distance, borders and the like, the field is given the opportunity to have a shot at piecing together how these components are integrated into the synthetic positioning sense."
http://www.readcube.com/article....o.22451
The only thing for sure is that cognitive science has only just begun to establish standard terminology for all fields. Many of the AI models that were once thought to produce intelligence are being antiquated by what other fields of cognitive science are discovering. The model I program is also more specifically an AI (not neuroscience) program that includes the "positioning components like place, direction, distance, borders and the like" that are now of interest to neuroscientists. So with all said this makes AI useful again to other fields of cognitive science, as opposed to the whole field of AI being antiquated by the model neuroscience is now after. Neuroscientists must include neurological detail of circuits an AI model only has to reduce down to a simple as possible math function or network behavior without losing any of the performance the real thing has. There are two models possible. Each complements and compliments each other.
Where there is nothing new from AI programmers to help neuroscientists along with their model it's expected that to them AI is a ho-hum branch of science that ran out of steam at the turn of the last century. My work helps to avoid that from happening.
With an AI model like this not being overly complicated staying in contact with neuroscience only requires emailing important findings to Andre and occasionally others like Edvard, who only need that to work from and rather not have a pile of papers going into detail they already know. I best I can explain what may apply to the model they are working on that establishes the proper scientific terminology for neuroscience. I only have to get as close as I can then wait for what happens next with the model Andre has in the incubator.
Terminology that fell into place like "molecular (level) intelligence" is required in theory that predicts its existence by ahead of time explaining how intelligence at that level works. In this case it's scientifically impossible to remove something like that from the logical construct of the theory that needs it that way to stay coherent everywhere else. It's now your responsibility to get used to it being that way in theory that goes everywhere else neuroscience is going using a more AI approach that makes it useful, instead of being in competition.
It may seem weird but times change and Salvador Cordova possibly others in the ID movement are now working on the "molecular neuroscience" level where as he explained: at the genetic level of these cells is a "RAM" that gets "addressed" to figure out. Just as well they look for treasure in what others call "junk DNA" than none even try that way. In any event ID is as expected coming of age with an approach that needs the word "RAM" for DNA too for us to be specific, which is something else you have to get used to because the only thing that matters is that we understand each other. What you and others think is irrelevant.
All areas of science have a unique lingo for understanding each other. The emerging niche that Sal and others in the ID movement found themselves pioneering requires another lingo that is doing just fine establishing what is required for an AI type approach where the systematics of "Intelligence" is detected by their being a "RAM" hooked up a certain way. Where he or other finds something useful neuroscientists will find it worth the read, wherever it's said and in whatever scientific lingo is required to make sense in such an "Intelligence" centered paradigm that looks for what causes what in all of biology not just brains. Being able to explain things differently is a good thing. Where the result is a RAM based computer model that puts it all in code that alone can best speak for it, anyway. It's in another language in addition to explaining it in words but for the logic of the system.
All existing areas of cognitive science go on with whatever terminology already works for them. There is no scientific issue in any of the fields of science. What is needed for the niche we are working on to communicate is left up to us to decide, while what other niches need is up to them to decide. In that regard Sal's helping to establish the required DNA=RAM based thinking was a big help in an emerging area of AI science that neuroscience only needs something useful from. Neuroscientists do not even want to get involved in details like that. That's not their area and they have more important things to think about. Which is why the only ones who do are more like trolls just yanking my chain not neuroscientists and other science experts protesting like you are. In the real science all are too busy for what is going on outside their fields to even care about what you claim there is an issue with. Whatever floats our boat is just fine by them, while your issue with it is just plain nuts. |
Let's stipulate that cognitive neuroscience lacks a grand unifying theory and thus needs one. If you could provide one, that would be great.
A common route would be to provide one using standard nomenclature, but you aren't doing that. That's okay: often, new theories require new language, changes in concepts, and different ways of thinking, and if to get to that point you have to redefine old terminology or coin new terms that's fine too. However, there are some caveats to this. First, on the whole you want to keep new terminology to a minimum. Second, for new terms or redefined old terms, you have to provide clear and detailed definitions, and demonstrate that the new terms or redefinitions are necessary and do something that the old terms don't do. Thirdly, you have to provide some evidence that the new terms and the new concepts are in fact real, logical, and worthwhile. So far, you haven't done any of that.
Note that Einstein did not say: "I've got this fantastic new theory. I'm going to call it special evolution and it explains everything. It relies on a whole new concept of evolution where it covers the whole universe, but I'll maybe explain all that later. I'm sure you'll follow along anyway because it's all proven by my computer simulation of a foraging bug avoiding a shock zone. It's going to be something like, something = something squared, or maybe cubed, but it's fractally emergent, so it's now up to the scientific community to figure out the remaining details, but for now it's K-12 simple real-science and should be taught in school, except that snobbish academics are punishing me."
I would guess that "Andre and Edvard" are not finding any value whatsoever in your stuff. Both of them are going to need operational definitions and some supporting evidence. However, feel free to DOCUMENT evidence to the contrary and prove me wrong and yourself right.
|
