On Jun 7, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Richard Loosemore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
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.
For the record, Vladimir did a pretty good job summarizing my
position. The reliability with which some people misinterpreted it,
to the point that it almost looked willful, highlighted the futility
of my attempting to close that particular comprehension gap.
J. Andrew Rogers
-------------------------------------------
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
