Ben,My suspicion is that in the brain knowledge is often stored on two levels:
* specific neuronal groups correlated with specific informationIn terms of the activation of specific neurons indicating high level concepts,I think there is good evidence of this now. See for example the work of
Shane and Ben,
Thanks for the comments.
Let me clarify some general points first.
(1) My memo is not intend to cover every system labeled as neural network
--- that is why I use a whole section to define what I mean by NN
model discussed in the paper. I'm fully aware of the fact that given
a
hi,
My strategy is to first discuss the most typical models of the neural
network family (or the standard NN architectures, as Ben put it),
as what it usually means to most people at the current time. After
that, we can study the special cases one-by-one, to see what makes
them different and
I think I prefer Daniel Amit's approach, where one views NN's as the
class of nonlinear dynamical systems composed of networks of
neuron-like elements.
Then, it becomes clear that the standard NN architectures form a very
small subclass of possible NN's
Of course, most of the
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:20:29AM -0500, Pei Wang wrote:
Of course, most of the limitations of NN can be avoid by generalizing
the concept to such a level. However, at the same time, such a general
notion does not support the claims of advantages of NN, either. How
Biological cognition is
Hi Pei,Most of our disagreement seems to be about definitions and choicesof words, rather than facts.
(1) My memo is not intend to cover every system labeled as neural network--- that is why I use a whole section to define what I mean by NNmodel discussed in the paper. I'm fully aware of the fact
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 06:51:12PM +0100, Shane Legg wrote:
If I had to sum up our differences: I'd say that what you call standard
neural
networks and your NN model, and most of the problems you describe, would
have been reasonable in 2000... but not now, 5 to 6 years later.
They weren't
Biological cognition is based on network processing, too.
No problem here --- it is in the NN ideas that I think is necessary.
However, it doesn't only belong to neural network, in the technical
sense. Both Novamente and NARS do network processing, in the broad
sense.
Because you're reading
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:22:27PM -0500, Pei Wang wrote:
Biological cognition is based on network processing, too.
No problem here --- it is in the NN ideas that I think is necessary.
However, it doesn't only belong to neural network, in the technical
sense. Both Novamente and NARS do
Pei,To my mind the key thing with neural networks is that theyare based on large numbers of relatively simple units thatinteract in a local way by sending fairly simple messages.Of course that's still very broad. A CA could be considered
a neural network according to this description, and indeedto
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:55:32PM +0100, Shane Legg wrote:
To my mind the key thing with neural networks is that they
are based on large numbers of relatively simple units that
interact in a local way by sending fairly simple messages.
That's just one facet. These are units of a large number
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote:
By this same argument, we need this kind of computational power to
create a pocket calculator. Because, before pocket calculators were
A pocket calculator is a primitive system. You, Sir, are no pocket
calculator.
built, the
On 12/18/05, Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
To my mind the key thing with neural networks is that they
are based on large numbers of relatively simple units that
interact in a local way by sending fairly simple messages.
Of course that's still very broad. A CA could be
On 12/18/05, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:36:59PM -0500, Pei Wang wrote:
I'm afraid the issue is not as simple as you belief. Your argument is
based on the theory that to get what we call intelligence, a
necessary condition is to get a computer with the
On 12/18/05, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way I think about it, a neural net is a dynamical system composed
of connected components that roughly model neurons. The system's
dynamics have got to take place via equations that update the
quantitative parameters of the simulated
Forwarded for Pei Wang:
-
Hi,
Recently I tried to organize my ideas about neural network, that is,
what I like and dislike, and why. What I've got so far is a short
memo, which is put at www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/drafts/NN-AGI.pdf for
your comments.
Title: Neural Networks
Hi Pei,As usual, I disagree! I think you are making a straw man argument.The problem is that what you describe as neural networks is just a certainlimited class of neural networks. That class has certain limitations, which
you point out. However you can't then extend those conclusions to
17 matches
Mail list logo
