6 years ago :: May 14, 2012 - 9:29AM #11 | |
The Global Workspace conceptual viewpoint is a valuable semantic account that is cobbled together in search of a working model. The developing work of Tononi & Sporns - ITT - is a much more pragmatic and science based approach; where data specific to the hypothesis can be collected and measured. I am going to be very simple in my comments. F5 has been playing nice and I want to see it stay that way. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 14, 2012 - 10:43AM #12 | |
Do you mean these wo guys "Measuring information integration" www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/4/31/ ? Do they share testable framework for public usage like Jeff Hawkins is doing? |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 14, 2012 - 2:47PM #13 | |
Dr Tononi has a lab and active research ongoing at the U of Wi. He has just produced another peer-reviewed paper in the last couple of months.
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 14, 2012 - 8:08PM #14 | |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 17, 2012 - 4:16PM #15 | |
F5, I have already cited Christof Koch's acknowledgement of Tononi's methodology. I see no such objective citation for your view, except - well your opinion. Tononi has created a math-based theory, the only kind that is objectively (hence pragmatically) capable of processing data. This is the reason why he is emerging as the shinning star. Please note that Tononi's conclusions are very different than mine and I don't see him as being on some team of action figures that fight for my fastasy team. His work is positioned to be directly supportive of a view that is against my positions - I just respect the science.
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 17, 2012 - 4:20PM #16 | |
F5, as the years go by - is your Dan Dennett action figure showing a little wear? |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 17, 2012 - 5:08PM #17 | |
Markom, If you mean testable in "public and private neurological labs" - yes. As to a method that non-scientists can use - no. However, the math is always open to use, as computer simulation. Tononi's formuli and units of measure are spelled out exactly.
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 17, 2012 - 7:51PM #18 | |
In one sense it doesn't matter whether the Global Workspace hypothesis is right or not. The real debate here is between science, which is materialistic and evidence-based, and magic, which emotional, imaginary and unexamined. That's to say, science can and does explain its arguments in great detail and tests them with research and debate. We lack any coherent description of the magical case, how it arose and how it works; and we lack any examinable evidence to suggest that anything magical is going on at all, whether in the brain or anywhere else. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 18, 2012 - 8:28AM #19 | |
Blu, I surely agree and practice in my work what you wrote - with one glaring exception. Science, in the last 60 years, is no longer material based. It is empirical evidence (as data) based and there is data about non-material phenonmena such as evidenced by logical coding and decoding processes. Material science has specific units of measure! Some number of times I have linked to a list of those units. That list does not include bandwidth, an important measure needed to understand communication channels. Tononi's intergrated information - likewise will not qualify for the list of physical units of measure. There is no mass or force related values. I know you want to believe differently. You and others continue to conflate a metaphysical position of materialism - with one of evidence based science.
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: May 18, 2012 - 8:54AM #20 | |
It's nice when you can model something mathematically and one should always try to see if one can. But when your field is in the business of reverse engineering nature's functions, mathematical models aren't always going to be all that helpful. Perhaps you need to let go of your fetish. |
|
Quick Reply
|