Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!homer.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!col.hp.com!sony!nntp-sc.barrnet.net!news.fujitsu.com!amdahl.com!amd!amd.com!txnews.amd.com!news
From: bridgwtr@vanzandt.amd.com
Subject: Re: RFD: My Learning/Thinking Neural Network
Message-ID: <DD4ozn.80u@txnews.amd.com>
Sender: news@txnews.amd.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: corgi
Organization: n/a
X-Newsreader: <WinQVT/Net v3.9>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 04:11:45 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <40bge2$6ib@kaleka.seanet.com>, inficom@inficom.seanet.com writes:

>>   Joseph Bridgewater <bridgwtr@vanzandt.amd.com> writes:
>> ...  We have developed a learning, thinking neural network.
>>  It thinks.
>
>What do you mean by "think" in this case? IMHO, no software program, no matter
>how sophisticated, truly thinks. I think software can EMULATE thinking to an 
almost
>total extent, but I still wouldn't call even a near-perfect emulation "true" 
thinking.

That is a very interesting point.  I think it would come down to your precise 
definition of think.  Perhaps you have decided that only people, or only 
bio-logicall creatures can "think".

At first, we were wondering the same thing, but as development continued, we 
concluded that we were willing to call this a "Thinking" NN.  Sure, that is Our 
Humble Opinion.  (BTW, we were suprised to have achieved that)
