Neurons are *NOT* simple. There are all sorts of physiological features
that affect their behavior, etc. While I totally agree with your point
about "Not only do you have to invent several new layers of abstraction, you
also have to invent the control structures to manage all those abstractions
and layers." -- as far as I'm concerned, ASSERTing clearly incorrect
statements like "Neurons *are* simple" totally invalidates your credibility.
If neurons are simple, what type of neurons are you talking about? Does the
length of the axon have any effect on ostentation? Do axons only transmit
at their termini or do they have some sort of affect on other neurons that
they pass? What about the effect of local ionic and neurotransmitter
concentrations?
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Jun 1, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
One is elegance. It would be "oh, so nice" to find one idea that would
solve the entire problem. After all, everyone knows that the single
concept of "neurons" is what our brains are built upon . . . . The
problem is that they then take an incredibly simplistic view of what a
neuron is and then can't figure out why they can't get it to work or why
they have to use radically different simplifications and formulas to
make it work in different circumstances.
Neurons *are* simple, analogous to a transistor. What they rarely seem
to consider is how many different patterns and levels of pattern
abstraction are required to make, say, a general purpose CPU design
scale. You do not go from the 2,300 transistors of an Intel 4004
(nematode nervous system) to a modern CPU (reptilian nervous system)
simply by slapping more transistors onto the 4004 design. Not only do
you have to invent several new layers of abstraction, you also have to
invent the control structures to manage all those abstractions and
layers. All made out of simple transistors.
I think the general problem with neural networks is not the concept of
the neuron but the notion that you can scale up the utility of a simple
neural network simply by slapping more neurons onto it. It would be
lovely if it was that simple, but I do not think the evidence supports
the notion that the design can be both simple and efficient (in the sense
that evolution would find a design to be "efficient").
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
