James Rogers wrote:
> What the hell does evolvable hardware have to do with this?
Because it embodies, to a degree, a mode of operation which
some (not all, I'll grant you) neuroscientists have come to
believe is the key to intelligence not just in human beings
but in all animal nervous systems. I can supply references,
if you're interested; if not, that's cool too!
> If you want to make a straight hardware comparison to the human
> brain, you'll win some and lose some. You've basically ceded
> the argument.
I don't buy that it's possible, at this stage, to make a
"straight hardware comparison" to the human brain without
begging a lot of questions.
> Who cares if we haven't done something as long as we know
> that its possible (realizing that any argument to the contrary
> would be invoking magic)? It took mankind a while to learn
> powered flight as well.
Nobody cares, unless they're in a particular hurry, or have
an emotional investment in believing that it's got to be done
in a particular way.
> Give me a processor that can properly utilize as many transistors as the
> brain has neurons, and it would be a fair comparison.
No it wouldn't -- not by a damn sight. Your processor would still
come up way short.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:03 MDT