rjfoley2014

I had trouble getting through that book partly because it didn't seem as clearly structured as his previous books. I also noticed that he refers to some of the same concepts and approaches as Hawkins. I don't think he was as clear about his methodology but it's still worth a look. I'll have to try and read it again.

I really like that book "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins. I really think he's on to something there. I've read a number of AI books and they all seem very contrived even though the theories and approaches can be used to explain some human behavior or emulate some human behavior. His approach really gave me that sense of having arrived at a final solution to the problem of defining and replicating human intelligence because he has redefined what it means to be intelligent. It also calls into question the validity of intelligence tests and the merits of using those tests to accurately measure intelligence. Steph frequently makes reference to intelligence - he grants you 120 i believe but I've never understood what exactly that means and I'm sure he's referring to outdated measures. The fact is we can be intelligent in a variety of domains and traditional tests are inadequate.

Did anyone notice that the website submitted as evidence had at least three articles that contradicted the others? Look carefully at the other articles and also consider the nature and mission of that particular web site. There have been lots of studies on efficacy of stimulant meds for people with ADHD that contradict these studies. I happen to have ADHD myself and have a very profound understanding of the condition and the prevailing treatments. I assure you it is real and stimulant medications can have a possitive effect for some people. The condition can be crippling to both children and adults and we need to be committed to understanding it before dismissing it as either a symptom of child abuse or a product of pharmacological propaganda.