TV/Movie's/Radio you've been on (1 Viewer)

[Willie Willions]

Oops, I have to take responsibility for that brilliant witticism.

 

[the strange guy]

*sigh* I wish there were threads which had heated arguments about computers or cognition.

 

[mac warzonescum]

Ooops: seem to have slipped into my 'pedantic argumentive wretch persona' that I use on other forums there...

 

[Stanto]

I want to be in Fair City so there could be a story line were i could fuck the two pigs up! The Wankers!!!!

 

[SeanR]

I was in The Irish Times when I was about 6. .|..|

I'll post the pics sometimes, they're brilliant.

 

[Cormcolash]

Well, not an attack as such, but an inference that I was claiming that the paleo/meso/neo-lithic ages were categories of geological time, which wasn't actually the case.

He's got ya there.

 

[nooleen]

I assume the irony of using a human produced document to show the insignificance of humans doesn't escape you?

it's what it documents that shows what i was saying, not the document itself. anyway i was just jumping on the opportunity to spout more shite about geology. which reminds me, did i ever tell you about this rock that i blah blah.....

 

[nooleen]

Anyway, the earth made the rocks, but the humans made up the geology. Go on the humans!

i won't even dignify that with a response. 'cept this one.

 

[Super Dexta]

*sigh* I wish there were threads which had heated arguments about computers or cognition.

are you a modularist or a connectionist?

 

[the strange guy]

I'm a Dynamic Connectionist through and through. Even Fodor himself finally accepted that modularism, while a nice and neat little theory, falls apart under scrutiny and should only be accepted as a metaphor. Computational theory of mind is also holding less and less sway these days in the Cog Sci world. I reckon anyone who still thinks of the mind as a computer should have their own minds blown apart. You'll be bored/excited to death about all this stuff next year, young lady.

 

[nooleen]

Distinguishing feature integration from detection. (Pelli, Palomares, Majaj 2004)

sounds like a real page-turner

 

[Super Dexta]

I'm a Dynamic Connectionist through and through. Even Fodor himself finally accepted that modularism, while a nice and neat little theory, falls apart under scrutiny and should only be accepted as a metaphor. Computational theory of mind is also holding less and less sway these days in the Cog Sci world. I reckon anyone who still thinks of the mind as a computer should have their own minds blown apart. You'll be bored/excited to death about all this stuff next year, young lady.

Ah! A fence-sitter.

 

[Super Dexta]

P.S. Will you marry me?

 

[oh shit]

 

[nooleen]

can't believe i never image searched 'nerds' before. you should have persevered as far as the second page at least

 

[W.]

was gona do a photoshop of her and oly.. Not arsed, i'm sure you can all guess how it might have worked.

 

[nooleen]

it's just as well, i've had way too much photoshop for one day with that moshzilla crap, not to mention mr T

 

[oh shit]

can't believe i never image searched 'nerds' before. you should have persevered as far as the second page at least

i tip my hat to you

 

[Regan]

i was on hiúdi before it became cula 4 on tg4.
not exactly my finest moment but i did win a plethera of fine hiúdi related stationary.

 

[the strange guy]

Ah! A fence-sitter.

How is that fence sitting? Computational theory and dynamic connectionism are very different. While dynamism can be modelled on a computer, it doesn't fit with a modular input/output computational theory.
Computational theory proposes that the brain receives inputs from the environment through perception. These individual tokens are represented as discrete symbolic entities in the brain. The symbols are then manipulated according to static rules in discrete time intervals which are then passed between individual mental modules. Once converted into 'outputs', they take the form of thoughts, behaviors, and actions.
The Dynamic Connectionist framework differs with its emphasis on temporal continuity, the dynamic coupling of mind, body, and environment, and an emphasis on connectionist computation void of intrinsic discrete representational entities.
Put simply, Computational theory believes that there is a never changing internal representation for 'tea', while dynamic connectionist theory believes that the concept of tea is represented through a distribution of neurons which is susceptible to change. The concept of tea is altered slightly every time you think about it through the process of activating neural connections.

PS Only if it's one of those no-strings-attached one night marriages