"Lance Sherman" <lancesherman at insightBB.com> wrote in message news:<V0I0d.23947$MQ5.12109 at attbi_s52>...
> I'm not sure I see the question -
>> by "biological neural network", do you mean a biologically plausible
> artificial NN?
>>> "Harry Erwin" <herwin at theworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1gjy8r1.1ov7fmr5a7cl2N%herwin at theworld.com...> > I've been exploring neural implementations of displacement
> > representations. I'm suspicious that Minsky and Papert (1969) implies
> > that it is very difficult to use a biological neural network to do
> > vector operations. Any pointers?
> > --
> > Harry Erwin <http://www.theworld.com/~herwin>
> > My neuroscience wikiwiki is at
> > <http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw/phpwiki/index.php>
Well, It is easy to make analog networks that do matrix-like
operations, but non-linear networks (e.g., with thresholds) would make
that rather difficult! However, what we showed in 1969 was
non-looping neural networks could not recognize topological features
of things in was that woulkd be scalable. And those theorems still
are true, regardless of improvements in how fast such networks can
learn the things that they can learn.