Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!dickey From: dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick J Dickey) Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Neural Networks - Pointers to good texts? Message-ID: <1475@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 11:49:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.1475 Posted: Wed Oct 21 11:49:02 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 16:17:10 EDT References: <230@titn.TITN> <4191@well.UUCP> <1465@ssc-vax.UUCP> <3807@venera.isi.edu> Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA Lines: 46 Keywords: neural networks ai Summary: well.... Xref: mnetor comp.ai:951 comp.lang.lisp:510 From postnews Wed Oct 21 07:49:49 1987 > >interpretation, let me make the following observation. In 1943, McCulloch > >and Pitts published a paper entitled "A logical calculus of the ideas > >immanent in neural nets". Minsky and Papert (Perceptrons) state that this > > Well . . . this is all rather silly. The PUBLISHED title of the classic > paper by McCullogh and Pitts is "A Logigal Calculus of the Ideas Immanent > in Nervous Activity." They NEVER use "neural net" as a technical term Well, this is very interesting. When I read Calvin's original posting I was struck by the claim that neural nets had been studied for 25 years. This surely seemed too small a figure to me. To check this out without initiating a major research project, I grabbed a copy of Minsky and Papert's "Perceptrons" which happened to be on my desk at the time and opened to the bibliography. M&P give the title of the McCullough and Pitts paper as "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in neural nets". I'm looking at it right now and that's what it says. Apparently, the citation is wrong. Well, I stand corrected. I might comment by the way that regardless of the merits of Calvin's claim that artificial neural nets ought to be named something else, I think the effort is doomed to failure. The reason being that we seem to have become an excessively marketing-oriented society. Labels are attached to things to stimulate desired responses in "consumers," not to clarify crtical distinctions. The practical problem one faces in much of the industrial world is attempting to gain support for one's "research." To do this, one presents one's proposed program to a manager, i.e., one markets it. The noise level in this process is so high that nothing less than hype makes it through. My experience with managers leads me to believe that they may have heard of neural nets. If I tried to start a "neuroid" project, they would say "Isn't that the same thing as a neural net?" I can guarantee you that they aren't interested in the distinctions between artifical and biological nets. How can an aerospace company make a profit from biological nets? In other words, to start a artifical neural net project, I have to call it a neural net, show how it applies to some product, how it adds value to the product (neural nets will make the product more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, and able to leap over tall buildings at a single bound), and how all this can be done by next year at a half man-year level of effort. If I lived in an ivory tower (a not unpleasant domicile), I'd say that Calvin is right on. Out here in the cinder block towers, he's out to lunch. To summarize, I'm sympathic to his viewpoint, but my sympathy isn't going to make much difference.