On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote:
> No, I haven't been smokin' any wacky tobacy. Instead, I was having a long > talk with my son Eddie, about self-organization theory. This is *his*proposal: > > He suggested that I construct a "simple" NN that couldn't work without self > organizing, and make dozens/hundreds of different neuron and synapse > operational characteristics selectable ala genetic programming, put it on > the fastest computer I could get my hands on, turn it loose trying arbitrary > combinations of characteristics, and see what the "winning" combination > turns out to be. > That's a pretty interesting idea, but it won't work...I am joking, what I mean is that it is not very interesting if you are only interested in substantial success, it is much more interesting if you are interested in finding out what happens. Genetic Programming has a flaw in that it is not designed to recall outputs that might be used in a constructive combination. If the algorithm was designed to do this, the candidate outputs (probably) would have to be organized (indexed) by parts and associated with the combinations that created them. Furthermore, since the output of a genetic algorithm is evaluated by a precise method, the sense of "self organization" might be voided or at least made more elusive and problematic. You'd have to redesign how genetic algorithms evaluate their candidate outputs and before you did that you would have to put some thought into how a programmer can design a test for self-organization. It is a subtle question. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
