From: Mikael Hall (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 11 2009 - 16:34:45 MDT
Kaj, you're talking about abstract neural networks - neural networks are
biological. So in my view the neurons are just the neurons of the traders.
And so no, this is not irrelevant, nor is it strange that social
organisation is cognitive.
I believe viewing an observer is about defining (interconnected) events,
passively or actively, and that we may generally describe the moment for
moment functionality of observers by a sequence of cognitivity - what to do
-> do it-> it is done =
(SD -> D -> T).
One very important fact of technology is that it concerns only to the D part
(so that a few decisions can produce masscopied doings). And in the
stockmarket, decisions are now, with the help of the computer, to a large
extent replaced by masscopied doings - and so is worth study. There is
always a danger in masscopied doings (inadaptivity etc) and this is relevant
to the main subject of this mailgroup."Intelligence by brute force search"
illustrate these concerns. Any imlementation of General Artifical
Intelligence must consist of flexible SD->D->T sequences.
2009/3/11 Kaj Sotala <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Petter Wingren-Rasmussen
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > After reading Simulation, Consciousness, Existence by Hans Moravec. I
> > started thinking about possible neural networks that already exists,
> > of brains and computers..
> > I think the Global stockmarket can be viewed as a neural network.
> > it to the brain:
> A "neural network" is a certain type of mathematical model. It's
> pretty obvious that the stock market is not a neural network in any
> sense that doesn't stretch the original term to the point of breaking.
> (What exactly are the stock market's equivalents of neurons, and what
> corresponds to the weigths of their connections?)
> However, the stock market *is* an information-processing system, and
> it can also be viewed as a form of mental architecture. See for
> instance http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.33.6906
> , in which it is said:
> "One idea that is emerging is that social organization is itself a
> form of cognitive architecture. The argument is as follows. Cognitive
> processes involve trajectories of information (transmission and
> transformation), so the patterns of these information trajectories, if
> stable, reflect some underlying cognitive architecture. Since social
> organization - plus the structure added by the context of activity -
> largely determines the way information flows through a group, social
> organization may itself be viewed as a form of cognitive architecture.
> If this view is accepted, it has an odd consequence: we can use the
> concepts, constructs and explanatory models of social groups to
> describe what is happening in a mind."
> (Having said this, this thread sounds somewhat off-topical to me.)
-- "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical." — Niels Bohr "There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start and so on." — Robert Byrne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT