Richard said
But .... I have no problem with this at all! :-). This is exactly what I
believe, but I was arguing against a different claim! Rogers did
actually
say that "neurons are simple" and then went on to claim that they were
simple because (essentially) you could black-box them with something like
a
bayesian function.
You stepped in and said things that implied you were defending his
position,
that is all.
I certainly am not arguing that neuron functionality will probably be
modelled much more simply, in the long run. But that is different.
Vlaimir said:
I think you misinterpreted his position also then. I certainly
interpreted it to mean something along the lines of what I've just
summarized, or even more generally that a design that is even not a
neural net can be even more efficient and simple. He is too smart to
believe in silliness you argued against.
Mark says>
Vladimir, I believe that you are mistaken. Go back and reread Rogers's
e-mails or ask him. Then we'll have ground truth. What say you J. Andrew?
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
