Texas Teach
Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2016,12:57) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ May 21 2016,12:05) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2016,11:57) | | Quote (N.Wells @ May 21 2016,07:43) | This allows them to calculate the chance of false positive signals, which in turn allows them to calculate the efficieny of the system in distinguishing true signals from noise.
| Quote | | In the above example, doubling the number of synapses and hence introducing a 50% noise tolerance, increases the chance of error to only 1.6 × 10^−18. |
I'm skipping over the significant portion of the paper that discusses how all this translates to learning rules for memorization of sequences, but "a network of standard linear or non-linear neurons with a simplified dendrite structure cannot easily implement these activation and learning rules."
This in some ways corresponds to your "confidence evaluation". In particular, you are going to get all excited that the authors talk about incrementing and decrementing............ |
There is no confidence "evaluation" just confidence "levels" associated with each data element stored in memory.
And no, a single neuron learning how to reliably respond to a given set of sensory inputs is indicative of self-organization of a memory-wide addressing circuit made of made of many neurons.
Spare me the long pompous speeches about what authors in another area of science are writing about. I rely on neuroscience related research for clues how the human brain is wired together as I expect it to be, but I am not doing what everyone else is doing and I am proud of that even though you spit on me for not doing what everyone else does. |
So you demand everyone else connect biology to cognitive science even when that has fuck all to do with their research, but you don't care what everyone else is doing? Can't you see how hypocritical that is? |
Did you on purpose misrepresent what I said or are you normally an asshole?
What the theory explains very much connects to biology, but expecting educators such as yourself (not that all are like you most are not) to have a functional understanding of what is most important to know in cognitive science is asking too much from an asshole that is not even involved in any systems biology related research. I would repeat an old phrase that mentions something to effect of "those who can't teach" but that is unfair to teachers who can, and teach too. |
We know you're an asshole, and you completely failed to understand what I said. You demand that evolutionary biology must have something to do with intelligence and cognitive science. This is both stupid and false.
Your admitted lack of education leads you to insist that molecules guess. Any actual education in chemistry would make you pause before suggesting something so ludicrous.
Your arrogance leads you to insist that because you read a few books about robots you understand science better than people who actually got an education and do this for a living.
You're hypocrisy leads you to demand that scientists listen to your "ideas" whilst ignoring anything they have to say.
Guess better, Gaulin.
--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr
"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
|
