🚀 go-pugleaf

In <344397B0.66CD@bigfoot.com> "the_walrus@bigfoot.com" <the_walrus@bigfoot.com> writes:

>Erik Vick wrote:

>> I am interested in knowing why a neural net must be biologically
>> plausible?  (Yes I'm a NN newbie)  I thought there were two accepted
>> methodologies of Neural Nets : 1) the biologic modeling approach and 2)
>> more of a functional modeling approach.

>> Is it your position that to gain common sense / learn, the construct
>> must be a biologically plausible neural net?

>Learning in ANNs has recently been proven to be NP-Complete (the book is
>by Judd, and I can't remember the name ... someone helpful might know
>it), so they ain't viable as they stand.

I presume you are talking about the 1990 book "Neural Network Design
and the Complexity of Learning." I haven't yet read the book.  From
what I see by skimming, I'm not persuaded one needs to take the
NP-completeness seriously.  Judd appears to define a formal problem,
which he admits is an approximation of what connectionists take
neural networks to be doing.  Very little would seem to follow from
"an approximation of the problem is NP-complete".