On Mar 7, 8:44 pm, casey <jgkjca... from yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:13 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo... from yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page 334
> > is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the
> > future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all rolled
> > into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there is no
> > other way.
>> >http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtyp...>> The other way might be inventing a machine that behaves
> intelligently just as we invented flying machines without
> the need for flapping wings or feathers.
>> When I tried to talk about simple networks you dismissed
> them saying, in essence, you weren't interested as they
> didn't cover conditioning in all its complexity.
Unfortunately, current NNs do little more than solve toy problems. In
the recent presentation by Hinton, he mentioned it took him 17 years
to figure out how to properly make something [boltzmann probabilistic
networks] that works significantly faster and better than backprop
networks. And what do his marvelous new networks solve? The
recognition of the numbers 1 to 9 in various distorted forms. 17 more
years down the tubes.