Talk:Marvin Minsky

The Koan really belongs in the trivia section.

Could somebody explain what is this koan about ? It isn't very understandable for a random person. --Taw

A randomly wired neural net will still have some preconceptions of how to play the game -- you just won't know what they are. In the same sense, entering a room with closed eyes will not make the room (the preconceptions of how to play the game) go away; you just won't know how the room looks -- Ulfalizer

I have no actual knowledge. But it seems by analogy that the point is that just as closing your eyes does not make a room empty, randomly wiring a neural net does not cause it to lack preconceptions of how to play. Presumably, it has random preconceptions, but preconceptions nonetheless. There may be some deeper lesson here in that we cannot build an artificial intelligence that is "pure" in the sense of "not depending on hardware or software". --Jimbo Wales

The whole point of a koan is not that it has an answer, but that it clarifies the problem. It's not supposed to have an explanation, really. It is just supposed to get you asking the right questions. --Dmerrill

I think it may have to do with the role that our preconceptions play in our own understanding of the universe. Look around a room with your eyes open, see what is in it, then close your eyes. Is everything still there? Almost everyone would say yes, because that's what their experience has lead them to believe. But, deprived of that experience, we would not know enough to say yes.

As for the neural net part, it could simply be there for the sake of the koan or it could be that Marvin was saying that a randomly wired neural net would not only have no preconceptions about Tic-tac-toe but also no experience with logic itself, in which case it would have to be taught logic first, which would either (1) defeat the purpose of the experiment or (2) turn one problem (teaching the net to play tic-tac-toe) into two (teaching the net logic and tic-tac-toe). Of course, I know very little about neural nets and could be wrong on this part. --J. Jensen

Another possibility is that the koan is meant to draw attention to the assumptions that are inherent in the design and implementation of the network, not the wiring. --Spazzm 21:05, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

I'm modifying the sentence about Minsky building the first neural network, since it is almost certainly not true, according to this site: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/cs11/article1.html "First Attempts: There were some initial simulations using formal logic. McCulloch and Pitts (1943) developed models of neural networks based on their understanding of neurology. These models made several assumptions about how neurons worked. Their networks were based on simple neurons which were considered to be binary devices with fixed thresholds. The results of their model were simple logic functions such as "a or b" and "a and b". Another attempt was by using computer simulations. Two groups (Farley and Clark, 1954; Rochester, Holland, Haibit and Duda, 1956)."

SNARC was the first randomly wired neural network learning machine, not the first neural network - apparently. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This seems to be wrong. Minsky built an actual neural network machine (made of vacuum tubes) in 1951. PushSingh

Also, I removed from the bibliography section the comments on neural networks and the suggestion that "Network theorists should read it again [...]" as this seems a little on the opinionated side.

Removed "Developed the modern theory of computational geometry and established fundamental limitations of loop-free connectionist learning machines." from the description of "Perceptrons".

While the book does discuss the subject of computational geometry, it does not "develop the modern theory" thereof. The 'fundamental limitations' has since been proven incorrect, see XOR problem.

First the link is broken and there is no current replacement at mit.edu.

Second the claim that he invented the HMD is almost certainly wrong as that would go to Ivan Sutherland. Dfletter (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that source is dead. But what about the Sensorama, introduced in 1962 by Morton Heilig? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sensora certainly appears to have preceded both Minsky and Sutherland's inventions, based on the patent. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2955156A/en

The MIT link - which can be found easily on archive.org - only lists a single line at the bottom with several accomplishments. Unfortunately, the original URL's construction ("~minsky") suggests the claim was self-published by Minsky, which would not be an acceptable sourcing in the first place. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So we had better remove that source and add a {cn} tag to the claim, or else remove both? But I suspect there might be some discussion as to what constitutes a real "head-mounted display" (disregarding any "helmet" appliance). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've fairly exhaustively searched for corroborative evidence (limiting searches to before wikipedia started, to avoid 'wikipedia echoes'), and aside from that one brief biography, nothing. A search of the patent office shows that he did file a patent in 1961 for the confocal microscope, but none for a display, head-mounted or otherwise. I should also retract the suggestion it was self-published, I think the URL was simply set up that way because it was fairly common way to segment sites and pages in the early internet. Nevertheless, one 'footnote' is not enough to be considered canonical. I think it should be removed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply