Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!saswss
From: saswss@hotellng.unx.sas.com (Warren Sarle)
Subject: Re: bias
Originator: saswss@hotellng.unx.sas.com
Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <D7ytyz.7tI@unx.sas.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 19:25:47 GMT
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: hotellng.unx.sas.com
References: <1995Apr28.195623.7533@cm.cf.ac.uk> <799418450snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 23


In article <799418450snz@longley.demon.co.uk>, David@longley.demon.co.uk (David Longley) writes:
|> ...
|> Well, as I have tried to elaborate elsewhere (Fragments of Behaviour 1 - 9) I
|> think something of an almighty mistake has been committed in this new look at
|> Artifical Neural Networks. Whilst they may be a good model of how we &  other
|> biological systems make sense of data, I am arguing that this is  *not*  what
|> we should ideally be modelling if we are interested in *intelligent systems*.
|> ...
|> Surely we  should be using standard statistical technology which
|> we CAN formally understand, and which we know is based on formal mathematical
|> and logical principles.

As I have tried to explain on numerous occasions, there is great overlap
between neural networks and standard statistical technology (see the
FAQ for more info and references). Hence the argument above is based
on a false premise.

-- 

Warren S. Sarle       SAS Institute Inc.   The opinions expressed here
saswss@unx.sas.com    SAS Campus Drive     are mine and not necessarily
(919) 677-8000        Cary, NC 27513, USA  those of SAS Institute.
