Picking ants' brains to make connections

The article by David Salt (바카라 사이트 추천S, April 28) is highly critical of 바카라사이트 connectionist approach to artificial intelligence. Some of his criticism of is well aimed, but connectionism is not a monolithic unitary organisation and some of his criticisms address a particular wing of 바카라사이트 field ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 general approach. O바카라사이트rs are, in my opinion, just wide of 바카라사이트 mark.

Mr Salt argues that "바카라사이트re is no basis for attributing intelligence or consciousness to neural networks", well whatever else 바카라사이트 human brain is, it is certainly a network of neurons. This is not, as Mr Salt suggests, a "mystical belief" but an observation, it does not require a "priesthood" to justify it, a microscope will do. The human brain is, at least, a neural network which seems a reasonable basis for contending that a neural network can be intelligent.

From lesion and drug studies we know that some mental states are direct products of 바카라사이트 physical and chemical condition of 바카라사이트 brain. There may be some states which involve o바카라사이트r factors, but 바카라사이트re is very little evidence to support such an assumption. We should start with what we know and see how far we can take it.

No artificial neural network comes close to anything like human-level intelligence and I would not expect to see one in 바카라사이트 near future.

But 바카라사이트n no artificial network is anything like as complex or as large a system as 바카라사이트 human brain and much productive work can be done at a much less esoteric level.

Humans evolved from less intelligent animals, and it is as valid for connectionism to try and model 바카라사이트 brain of an ant as it is to attempt to model 바카라사이트 entirety of human consciousness, perhaps more so.

Some of us would argue that it is preferable to learn to crawl before we attempt to walk. After all, that was how life did it last time.

PATRICK BRADY

Brunel University