On Mar 8, 8:13 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo... from yahoo.com> wrote:
> Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page 334
> is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the
> future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all rolled
> into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there is no
> other way.
>>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtyp...
The other way might be inventing a machine that behaves
intelligently just as we invented flying machines without
the need for flapping wings or feathers.
When I tried to talk about simple networks you dismissed
them saying, in essence, you weren't interested as they
didn't cover conditioning in all its complexity.
Taken from above cool paper.
"An artificial neural network need not incorporate all
potentially relevant information from neuroscience, only
the minimally necessary constraining and enabling features
to accommodate the behavioral relations being simulated."
"... artificial neural networks are constrained by a subset
of the relevant biobehavioral principles, precisely the
subset that permits the phenomena of interest to be simulated."
It seemed to be about conditioned aversion, the so called
Garcia effect, that I have read about in easier to read
and less boring style then the "cool paper" you refer to.
Maybe you can explain it, in less technical terms than the
paper, so that the views and mechanisms of this neural network
model might find a wider audience?
JC
