From: Luke (wlgriffiths@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 22 2009 - 12:23:08 MST
@Mu In Taiwain:
re: 1) When I said "hogwash", I was referring to the statement "IBM
simulated a cat cortex". I wasn't referring to you, or them, or anyone else
who might have said it. I was referring to the statement itself. I
recognized your uncertainty because you used the word "asserts", which marks
the statement as coming from the third-person. You continue to have my
respect.
re: 2) What I described would definitely be a particular brain. What about
being a "useful human" might not be captured if you were able to capture the
behavior of that particular brain?
@Matt Mahoney: Where does this 10**9 (10**15) come from again? Is that the
full storage capacity of the brain? Something like (num_synapses *
num_possible_weights_per_synapse)? If it is, what do you think of the
conjecture that one could ("sufficiently") characterize a neural network by
a set of input/output that would be far smaller than the total storage
capacity of the network?
Thanks
- Luke
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mu In Taiwan <mu.in.taiwan@gmail.com>wrote:
> Luke,
>
> 1) Viewpoints/arguments I describe are not necessarily the same as
> viewpoints I hold.
>
> 2) The problem of training a human brain how to be a useful human, is
> different to the problem of training an artificial neural net, how to work
> like a human brain (in general, or a particular brain).
>
> One may take 16 years, the other, 1 minute or a thousand years.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT