I meant than "hability to perform calculation" is embedded in both the human brain and modern digital computers, no matter what the global activity is: moving a hand or solving a square root on the blackboard, both are extremely high level operations. However, It's true that you can use the calculation capabilities of a computer with total flexibility while neural networks are mostly "hardwired" to carry on specific operations (like recognition, yes).
And the total computing power of a brain, in terms of neural computing power, is estimated to be much greater than most supercomputers today.
Yes, I've read something about this recently... what was it... oh yeah... the article in ''Scientific American'' about Hans Moravec, the AI hothead. He compared the computational capabilities of computers with those of certain animals (like Bacteria, Mouse), and predicted that the 'human level' (of performance & speed) will be achieved at about 2040... Nevertheless, he still meant performance only.
Yes of course, but you still have to find which component of the human brain is lacking on a computer. At the moment we have a good amount of evidence about the brain being a computer made of meat.
I won't object to that (regardless of how it sounds) but I does this mean, that after copying this 'meat' in silicon You get a properly working copy?
Yes, neural networks. [...]
What did you found dissapointing?
Uhm... I must admit, that maybe I just quit them to easily. (I specialize in different things). I was shown the (mathematical) structure of them (during just one lecture), and what, I think, appears to You - the simplicity of the network - was for me rejecting. I just lacked respect for something that is not more complicated that a set of linear equations. I'm sure you know that... uhm.. that's kind of embarassing to say, mathematicians sometimes tend to ignore too simple things, which is of course wrong... But I understand that I shouldn't criticize the whole range of NN's applications, so maybe I should look it through again few times...
You say you know neural networks, therefore you know the perceptron details and the mathematical formulation.
So shoot out, what's your problem with this area of scientific research? (I cross my fingers, I hope we don't have to discuss the Penrose-Hameroff lunacy).
I just think that NNs cannot solve any problem that cannot be solved by, call them, 'classical' alghoritms. No revolution there.
There is no need to be sarcastic. Your arguments against AI were simplistic, so I assumed you were not well informed about the AI world.
I was not sarcastic at all. I really think I should read more about the efforts of AI-programmers, and I maybe I will. I don't think I am well infomed about the 'AI World', one can hold titles in mathematics and not be informed, I guess I'm the case. So no irony there. As I said before, the mathematics of Neural Networks seemed trivial for me, maybe I judged too hastily...
Not at all, from the point of view of materialism there is not a "ideal" brain which serves as reference to consider others as handicapped or not. From materialism POV, there exist strictly different brains, with differente properties and capabilities. There would be an statistical average about brain propierties, which could be used to label a brain as "normal", but that's all.
Well of course, I didn't mean anything else. That's all the meaning of the world "normal" You can really find anywhere (outside mathematics, where it means hundred different things, as You probably know).
This reminds me my former teacher's saing: There are no normal people, just the ones that haven't been yet tested.
It's of course simple, but still a bit funny.
It seems you see the human brain as an absolute value, a tool with universal habilities avalaible to all humans. A very optimistic view, to be fair.
Sure.
Yes, it is very provocative. It clashes with reality very strongly, I don't think you can support this opinion with evidence. However finding evidence in the opposite side is very easy.
Haha, too easy, unfortunately. Let's just say this is the expression of my hopes about what it means to own a brain. Don't treat it as a scientific theorem or even a hypothesis. It's just my belief.
I am well aware of the materialist point of view of this matter: that the 'geniuses' have some specific parts/regions of brain more active that "normal" ones, and so on... But there's no discovered limit of activity (which, in my understanding, would have to be of the form of some quantitative characteristic of brain) , where "normality" ends, and the genius begins. That's the simple consequence of the fact, that as You well know, the "normality" is just a statistical median, and nothing more. No limits are well-defined... At least I am not familiar with it.
So it's always good to hope that everyone (statistical majority) is "able & capable"... Even if that hope is somewhat insane.
Back to NN:
I once again repeat, that I don't mean to quarell or be sarcastic. I feel I have some lacks of knowledge about the applications of Neural Networks, I'd be happy to change that.