Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kolmogorov!ari
From: ari@kolmogorov.physics.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Connectionism, a paradigm shift?
Message-ID: <11400004@kolmogorov>
Date: 15 Aug 89 01:16:00 GMT
References: <24241@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:iuvax.cs.indiana.edu:24241:kolmogorov:11400004:000:1976
Nf-From: kolmogorov.physics.uiuc.edu!ari    Aug 14 20:16:00 1989


Much of the hype with Neural Networks sounds much like the hype in
the study of Chaos.  One author of a popular book on Chaos claims
a paradigm shift in physical science, even as far as to claim
that the 20th century will be remembered for the theory of
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the theory of Chaos!

One difficulty in the field of Chaos is the mixing of hype with solid 
theoretical and conceptual advances.  Chaos is a broad title
given to a large class of ideas and observed (usually computationally)
phenomenon as well as some theory.  It is much more a collection
of bits and pieces and tantalizing glimpses than a cohesive
theory.

One posting claims that:
"Doing neural nets this way is akin to allowing probability to be
a mathematical field, and to statistical mechanics
and quantum theory."

Which seems to imply that the fields of probability, statistical mechanics
(my own field) and quantum theory are in some sense the less precise
version of some other field or fields which simply simulate, rather than
theorize.

These views seem wrong to me, and certainly, the bulk of
NN research appears to be at a much less about theory, and much
more about description and simulation.

This is very well and good, and is much more akin to Monte Carlo 
Ising Spin simulations in statistical physics.  However, 
such simulations are not the bulk of statistical physics.

The current legacy of Chaos theory is a more descriptive rather than
theoretical understanding of chaotic phenomena.  Of course solid work
has been done, but a lot of pretty pictures have made more than
the fair share of impact.

I believe it is important to any field to understand the differences
between observing, describing, classifying and understanding phenomena.
One should not claim the last simply from the first.



Aritomo Shinozaki co/ Physical Theory Group	ari@kolmogorov.physics.uiuc.edu
Beckman Institute
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana IL, 61801