The following subline under "machine intelligence" "AI, robotics, computational neuroscience, brain emulation, cognition systems" takes up too much space and if useful at all, is less than 1% as useful as giving more space to the titles of threads would be. Repalce this subline with: "AI, neuroscience, cognitive systems" and give the display space saved to show more of the thread titles. Does not "AI" + "cognitive systems" + "neuroscience" include 100% of anything that can reasonably be called "brain emulation" and / or "robotics"? Lets show more "machine intelligence" in the use of space available.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS - Drop one of the five words in the subline of "Human Science" also, for same reasons.
Problem: The AI forum doesn't encompass neuroscience. Neuroscience would fall into Human Science. The AI forum does encompass computational neuroscience which is another ball of wax altogether. However, I do agree that some of the forum labels could be rewritten. Recently, I became aware of 'lucid dreaming' being placed under the parapsychology bandwagon, this makes no sense to me as lucid dreaming is simply that. Lucid dreaming. Nothing supernatural about it at all. Perhaps Dave confused it with OBE or something. However. Care should be taken when dealing with the topic subheadings, in my opinion. Perhaps a thread could be created in which the headings for each forum could be discussed and hashed out? Of course, democracy doesn't generally work well around here....
Ok, drop neuroscience. I am not sure what you mean by “computational neuroscience”, so it does not tell me much. If forced to guess, I would suppose that it the some network of mathematically modeled neurons where each unit is a reasonable detailed model of real neurons (refractory periods, axon propagation delays, dendritic tree summations etc.) If that is the case, perhaps "neural models" instead of neuroscience could appear. As a mater of fact, these subline terms are all ignored in most posts as they go off thread and/or degenerate in to name calling - I essentially never read them, but assume they are useful to a new comer for a few weeks. I am, however, often annoyed that I must drag the pointer to the title to lean what the thread is about as the fraction of the title that does fit in the current space available is usually insufficient to tell with clarity. For example: "Agricultural transformation in...." is a typical title fitting in the space now available. - Not a very intelligent use of the screen space available IMHO.
Correctomundo. It's all about simulating the neuronal network inside a computer so as to somehow spark an emergent intelligence of some sort. Or, at least get to some sort of understanding of the mechanics of neuronal functioning as regards to the emergent quality of the mind.
IMHO, that objective is based on the false assumption that the mind "emerges" - as is the idea that a unified perception of a 3D world of recognized objects "emerges." I am in no way supporting a "soul" etc when saying this. The visual field is broken down into approxiamtely 20 different "characteristics" or "features." the most commonly spoken of being: color, shape, motion, location, surface texture, of each "object." These are processed in separate parts of the brain and these features are NEVER ARE REJOINED ANYWHERE. "Emergence" of both unified vision and mind are just a way to cover our ignorance. (Sweep the dirt under the "emergence rug." - Personnally I more admire the God/soul answer, but think it is without any support, but at least not obviously and demostrably* false.) I have posted an answer to these problems, consistent with physics, which also permits free will to exist. SEE: (not the best link, but the first I could relocate): http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1031482&postcount=17 It is a reply to someone. If only interested in my essay, start at the bold text "Genuine Free Will is Possible" -------------------------- *My essay give three examples illustrating the stupidiy /falseness of the "emergent" POV, in addition to the neurological fact that the visual features never come back together anywhere in the brain. I.e. instead of a yellow tennis ball and blue sky, why do we not perceive a yellow sky and blue tennis ball etc.
Been a month now and nothing has happen on very simple suggestion of post 1. Not many comments, but some support and only objection taken care of (by slight re-wording). Is there any point to user feed back about how to improve the site? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for reviving the thread! You're right. Some of sublines needs to be changed. I'll see what can be done with them.
