On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
But that is a world away from the idea that neurons, as they are,
are as simple as transistors. I do not believe this was a simple
misunderstanding on my part: the claim that neurons are as simple
as transistors is an unsupportable one.
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 t
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 "ne
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 som
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
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The example was a strawman?
It was a precise analogue of the situation we are talking about, so calling
it a strawman, or calling it irrelevant, is just a way of avoiding what I
said.
I was refer
Below, Rodney Brooks sets up a de facto model of the development of
intelligence - and it strikes me any such models are v. useful for AGI, for
they suggest a natural order of levels in which any intelligence may have to
learn about the world. Can anyone think of any similar models whatsoever,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The example was a strawman?
>
> It was a precise analogue of the situation we are talking about, so calling
> it a strawman, or calling it irrelevant, is just a way of avoiding what I
> said.
>
> I was refering to a sp
