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 were > simple because (essentially) you could black-box them with something like a > bayesian function. > > You stepped in and said things that implied you were defending his position, > that is all. > > I certainly am not arguing that neuron functionality will probably be > modelled much more simply, in the long run. But that is different. >
I think you misinterpreted his position also then. I certainly interpreted it to mean something along the lines of what I've just summarized, or even more generally that a design that is even not a neural net can be even more efficient and simple. He is too smart to believe in silliness you argued against. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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
