🚀 go-pugleaf

Another perspective?: (deep/surface is a dichotomy and so all possible
descriptions of the relationships are 'known'....)

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

Chris Lofting.






Cijadrachon wrote in message <3613035d.47744380@news.zedat.fu-berlin.de>...
>mentifex@scn.org (Mentifex) wrote:
>
>>  Please first read up on the Default Standard Model of Mind online at
>No thanks.
>I already see  the stuff you write here:
>>
>>  /^^^^^^^^^^^\ Deep Structure: Surface Structure /^^^^^^^^^^^\
>> /visual memory\                    ________     /  auditory   \
>>|      /--------|-------\          / syntax \   |episodic memory|
>>|      |  recog-|nition |          \________/---|-------------\ |
>>|   ___|___     |       |              |        |    _______  | |
>>|  /image  \    |     __V___        ___V___     |   /stored \ | |
>>| / percept \   |    /deep  \------/lexical\----|--/ phonemes\| |
>>| \ engrams /---|---/concepts\----/concepts \---|--\ of words/  |
>>|  \_______/    |   \________/    \_________/   |   \_______/   |
>
>
>First of all: No definition of which aras you count into the mind and
>which ones not.
>
>Then:
>No discerning of different systems with visual memory in the brain.
>No magical understanding of the brain.
>No language structure understanding of  the brain.
>No recognition understanding of the mind.
>-  No  definition  of "episodic memory"?
>- No definition of "deep concepts"
>And so  on.
>
>How about some day you get a vague idea either about the human brain
>ar about building artificial intelligences, before keeping sending
>them totally ... models like that one and others,
>and naming them something to do with " THE  STANDARD model of mind"
>
>There is nothing stnadard about it but the standard of you being wrong
>in lot of you rmodels.