On 9/28/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But the big developments (the ones relevant to my argument) started > happening in the early 80s or just before. (there may have been stuff I > missed, though, so feel free to correct me).
Yeah, that was the time of the big developments in connectionism alright. > I have looked into what he is doing, but in my terms it counts as > "regular" connectionism (and as far as I can tell, only partially, at > that), whereas I am trying to argue for something that takes a certain > element of the connectionist approach and runs the ball very strongly in > that particular direction. Neither Peter nor the mainstream > connectionist folks are interested (much) in pursuing that line. Fair enough. > I sketched the approach briefly in my paper, but I am currently working > on a more comprehensive version, so unless someone buys the idea and > takes it off the market before then, I'll be able to supply more details > soon. Okay, I'll be interested in taking a look when you have it written up. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=47550771-b5239e
