On 12/8/06, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hinton basically seems to be using the same kind of architecture as Edelman,
in that you have both bottom-up and top-down streams of information (or I
often just call this feed-forward and feed-back to keep the terminology more
consistent with
On 12/5/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Eric Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt We have slowed evolution through medical advances, birth control
Matt and genetic engineering, but I don't think we have stopped it
Matt completely yet.
I don't know what reason there is to think
On 12/5/06, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The good news is that Minsky appears to be making the book available
online at present on his web site. *Download quick!*
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
See under publications, chapters 1 to 9.
The Emotion Machine 9/6/2006( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Philip Goetz wrote:
...
The disagreement here is a side-effect of postmodern thought.
Matt is using evolution as the opposite of devolution, whereas
Eric seems to be using it as meaning change, of any kind, via natural
selection.
We have difficulty because people with political agendas -
This is a better link from the company that I found by
Googling nanosyntax:
http://nanosyntax.com/
The basic idea is that word senses are not atomic but
are composed of something more primitive whose
sentence-distributed structure is called nanosyntax.
As I am about to write a parser using a
On 12/8/06, J. Storrs Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I had to guess, I would say the boundary is at about IQ 140, so the top 1%
of humanity is universal -- but that's pure speculation; it may well be that
no human is universal, because of inductive bias, and it takes a community to
search the
Nope. I think, for example, that the process of evolution is universal -- it
shows the key feature of exponential learning growth, but with a very slow
clock. So there're other models besides a mammalian brain.
My mental model is to ask of a given person, suppose you had a community of
10,000
