Mark A Mandel <mam at theworld.com> writes on 24 August 2002 at 14:37:25 -0400 > On 24 Aug 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > #Mark A Mandel <mam at theworld.com> writes: > #> And let's not forget that despite their name, the software constructs > #> that their creators optimistically named "neural nets" probably have > #> very little in common with wetware. > # > #I'm not so sure. They certainly exhibit startlingly wetware-like > #properties. I'm thinking especially of some of the artificial insects > #that have been built. > # > #And after all, we *do* understand the neuronal biochemistry pretty > #decently. > > That's simulation of behavior at an insect level. ELIZA can simulate > conversation convincingly at a certain level, too. How similar > (homeomorphic?) are the innards? How far does it scale toward human > cognition? The two are pretty completely unrelated. The inset behavior ones demonstrate the behavioral complexity possible from a simple net; ELIZA by contrast is specifically programmed in straight-forward procedural terms. Neither one has much to do with human cognition that I can see, but the inset behavior one is starting to explore the behavior and capabilities of stuff related to the hardware that human cognition runs on. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info