Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3302 sci.lang:4060
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Categorization: 2 non-sequitors
Message-ID: <3200@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 89 13:02:01 GMT
References: <15585@cisunx.UUCP>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 20

From article <15585@cisunx.UUCP>, by anwst@cisunx.UUCP (Anders N. Weinstein):
"... But intuitively, it looks like
" not every such machine is usefully described as applying a rule in this
" way.

I share your intuition.  If you don't understand how the machine
works, how can you give a rule?

"  In particular, this certainly doesn't seem a natural way of
" describing connectionist pattern recognizers.  So why couldn't it turn out
" that there is just no simpler description of the "rule" for certain
" category membership than: whatever a machine of a certain type recognizes?

It could, clearly.  It's like those puzzles where you're given a few
numbers in sequence -- 1, 3, 22, 23, ... -- and asked to give the
next one.  Except here it's inscrutable Nature talking, so there's
no reason to expect to find the answer, and we really should
just reply: "Ha! I'm not going to fall for that one -- you tell me."

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu