BTW: I use the same authors and frame the problems of epistemology that you do, so I understand where you’re coming from.
My work is in epistemology, testimonial truth, decidability, economics, and law. I spent time on AI in the 80s before the AI winter arrived, and we realized it was a hardware problem we couldn’t solve. Even today the hardware requirements are still astounding because we ignored Turning, and we have computers architected inversely for neurological computation in real-time. Hopefully, we’ll see neuromorphic computers so that AGI compute is no longer centralized. 😉
Good to see your thoughts and work.
Curt
Reply addressees: @dela3499
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-29 03:05:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674252655307243520
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674251142488891394
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Carlos,
As someone much older that has been involved for decades, your outline looks about correct.
Only reaction I had going through it, is that you’re using abstract names for physical processes and regions in the brain, and you might consider “physical thing as abstract name” section heads – this would anchor (legitimize) your framing.
Something akin to:
Sensation (nerves) as …..
Disambiguation (neural columns) as …..
Adversarial Organization (rear and side neocortex) as …..
Episodic Modeling (hippocampal(indexing)) as …..
Autoassociative Prediction (hippocampal vs neocortex)as …..
Adversarial Valuation (neocortex, thalamus, brain stem) as …..
Attention capture (Thalamus) as …..
Executive function (prefrontal cortex) as …..
Recursion (working memory, recursion (wayfinding)) as …..
Just a suggestion so that you aren’t written off as philosophizing independent of physical causality instead of trying to communicate effectively to the reader.
Curt
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1674251142488891394
Leave a Reply