Probably a more tractable statement would be a bag of relationships.
This isn't really saying anything different, only emphasizing that facts
are by their nature relationships between things. However, looking at
things as a bag of relationships usually leads in more realistic
directions. In short, this is a frame-of-mind thing.
Ah, but I believe that this IS a requirement due to the nature of facts,
as expressed above.
There are somewhere around 200 different types of neurons behind your
Not necessarily, any more than the contribution of any given transistor
in a Pentium is necessarily small. Sure, we could probably spare a few,
but there are MANY really essential components.
Back in the late vacuum tube era, a friend purchased an IBM-709
computer. Under normal operation these routinely blow a tube every hour
or so. Whenever a tube blew in the CPU or memory the computer would stop
dead. However, when the I/O failed, he often had to replace a half dozen
or so tubes to get it running again! Apparently, there was a LOT of
redundancy in the I/O. I suspect that much the same might be said about us.
I have a design in hand for a somewhat differently structured CPU that
would not only run present programs faster than present CPUs, but would
also simulate neural networks without loss of speed due to architectural
incompatibilities! In short, this is a POLITICAL problem!
... but they sure can't turn as sharply!
Sounds like we are on the same "wavelength" here.