What are you talking about? It is YOU who keep referring to
fantasy. I never did once, ever, except in response to your
queries.
> > By the way, was Einstein an idiot for doing all those
> > Gedankenexperimente? That's just speculation, right?
>
> Just because Einstein did it, doesn't mean it is the right thing to
> do. Einstein also committed adultery, is that alright now too? Too
> bad Einstein didn't believe in God or that would be OK also.
It was 'right' because it was useful. It resulted in the theory of
general relativity.
[I am leaving out our arguments about sexy brunettes and dumb
blondes, which has nothing to do with memetics or mechanics
of dreaming; although I do dream occasionally of both sexy
brunettes and dumb blondes. (humour alert)]
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a direct quote from your
> > summary included that humans, with the smaller cranial capacity,
> > had to "develop a new brain mechanism". You can argue about my
> > replacing 'develop' with 'evolve', but that's a small matter of
> > semantics that does not touch on the real issue.
>
> The program in question did not "develop" anything. That was just
> the author's literary license coming into play.
I'm confused. The article you referred to talked about humans
developing a new brain mechanism. If a neural network "develops"
(for lack of a better term) a mechanism that appears identical,
then what word should I use other than "develop"? If we don't
use "develop" for either the neural net or the human, the fact
still remains that the neural net is doing something that appears
identical to what the human brain does when it dreams. I claim
that this is an interesting result. I do not claim that I under-
stand how the neural net "developed" such a behavior, but I do
claim that it is interesting that it behaved in such a way.
Are you at all interested in the result?
> > Do you have any opinion at all as to why the experimental neural
> > networks behave in such a way, or is any speculation about it at
> > all to be scoffed at?
>
> Random "thoughts" are just random "thoughts". It is obviously hype
> to make anything further out of it.
"Obviously". That word that is the bane of all scientists.
I'm sorry, but I find it remarkably interesting. That doesn't
mean I'm gullible or even trying to make anything in particular
out of it just yet, only that I'm impressed by a striking
coincidence.
[clip]
BTW, when I get a chance, I am going to read both the article
you mentioned, and the article Mr. Boyd mentioned. I shall not
likely have that chance until mid-January, since it's the
holidays, and I'm moving on the new year.
- JPSchneider
- jschneid@hanoverdirect.com