X-Message-Number: 7849 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: CryoNet #7840 - #7847 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:45:19 -0800 (PST) Hi again! For Garrett Smyth: I'm not arguing with you and basically I'd say you're correct. I will add one more point though, and its one that people involved in the theory of computing will like: neural nets are NOT von Neumann machines, either the ones working in us or the ones we make for our computers. The ones working in us are not DIGITAL, in addition to the second problem our neural nets share with those used in computing: there are many more than just one processor --- or should be, to take advantage of the features of neural nets (yes, small ones have been emulated in PCs, just as small parallel computers can be emulated (sort of) in PCs ... though you lose speed, and have very strong limits on the number of processors you can emulate!). Forgetting for a moment the issue of analog responses, neural nets have another feature. Certainly someone may claim that their behavior might be IMITATED by a von Neumann machine --- just as small neural net programs can run in PCs. But the definition of von Neumann machine omitted one major issue important to us as human beings (and it would remain important even if we can become immortal): the TIME required for these machines to work. We want parallel machines so that we can solve our problems in a reasonable time. Any kind of computer, theoretical or not, which fails to do so becomes at most a theoretical curiosity. And so we see the foundations shifting underneath us as we live. Theorists have started to look at nondigital computers too. Personally I think that we'll see von Neumann's ideas become historical curiosities. Sun now makes parallel machines, and Intel with its MMX chips uses parallelism right on the chip... so far, noticeable only to the assembly-language programmer. But we'll see. Long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7849