Russell Wallace wrote: > On 6/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > This thread has completely missed Ben's original point, surely. > > > It diverged certainly, which is why I changed the subject heading for my > latest reply. > > It has nothing to do with whether neurons are faster/better/whatever > than > digital circuits, it has to do with the way that artificial neurons are > used in current NN systems to represent information. > > The fact that neurons are slower than digital systems is a trivial > difference between them. That doesn't make them inherently less > capable of > doing syntax, for example.
What I said in my previous reply was that something very like neural nets (with all the beneficial features for which people got interested in NNs in the first place) *can* do syntax, and all forms of abstract representation. I do not think it is fair to say that they can't, only that the particularly restrictive interpretation of NN that prevails in the literature can't. Richard Loosemore --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
