On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and
> itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by any
> possible program no matter how detailed?
Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:
1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined, that
is they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the same
2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined,
that is they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator
can do the same thing.
And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular
processes and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a
sign of inferiority. Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion for
spaghetti code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write
AAAAAA.... 10,000 times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim
with that sort of thing, and very complex chemical metabolic processes like
digestion (which has nothing to do with intelligence) has even more
Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically
dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster Gary
Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess
John K Clark
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.