3 ms·
I think the most interesting and relevant strand of philosophy of mind is the connectionism of Rumelhart, McClelland and the PDP Research Group (including "godf
by f00_ 9y ago
I think the most interesting and relevant strand of philosophy of mind is the connectionism of Rumelhart, McClelland and the PDP Research Group (including "godfather of deep learning" Geoff Hinton), exemplified in the tome "Parallel Distributed Processing" released in 1986
It even has an accompanying manual on how to implement artificial neural networks.
http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~plaut/IntroPDP/index.html http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~plaut/IntroPDP/index.html
More along this line is found in David Marr's Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WcIiSCDqhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WcIiSCDqhE
There is a spiritual successor to the PDP books called "Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development" lead by Jeffery Elman who did some of the first research on Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). It makes heavy reference to Chomsky's work on language and innateness
https://crl.ucsd.edu/~elman/Papers/book/index.shtml https://crl.ucsd.edu/~elman/Papers/book/index.shtml
This line of work even has heavyweight ancestors in Donald Hebb's work on the neural basis of learning in "The Organization of Behavior" (1949) and the noted austrian economist(?)/classical liberal and anti-communist Frederick Hayek covered similar lines in his book "The Sensory Order" (1952)
I think this tradition is carried on in the work of Yann Lecun, who recently released a talk titled "Deep Learning, Structure and Innate Priors"
http://www.abigailsee.com/2018/02/21/deep-learning-structure-and-innate-priors.html http://www.abigailsee.com/2018/02/21/deep-learning-structure...
- zerostar07 9y agothat would be "5 books on the philosophy of connectionism"
- f00_ 9y agoconnectionism is an approach to the philosophy of mind, the most successful approach as evidenced by recent deep learning hype the only book in the OP I thought was even mildly relevant was the one by Dennet, and it's generally acknowledged that it's pretty bad. A more interesting but flawed approach, that resonates as someone who loves Dawkins and Hitchens (atheists and advocates of evolution), is Gerald Edelman's Neural Darwinism (1978). There is even modern research (that is real, working code) at the University of Texas that could be considered a successor to Edelman: NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44