goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (10/19/87)
I agree with the respondent whose user-name was listed as "smoliar" that this
haggling about earliest references is "silly". In fact, I don't understand
the need for any territorial fight over terminology here.
Do physiologists actually use the two-word term "neural network" in their
literature? "Neuron", and "neural tissue", surely, but do they actually use
"neural network" ? If not, then there is no ambiguity. Sure there is some
danger of confusion, but no more than I think is usual in cases of "learned
borrowing". The term "neural network" as used by "connectionist/AI"
researchers caught on precisely because this model of computation is based on
the gross behavior of real, mammalian-brain neurons. It can be viewed in some
ways as a study of the human brain itself. Thus it is no greater an abuse of
terminology than, for example, "pipeline computers".
On the other hand, whatever became of the term "cybernetics" that Norbert
Weiner coined long ago? I thought its definition was quite suitable for
denoting this research. I doubt that "connectionist" is much help, in view of
the fact that the "connection machine" is more a project in pure parallelism
than intended as a neural model.
If I am wrong about any of this, please enlighten me.smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (10/21/87)
In article <8300006@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > On the other hand, whatever became of the term "cybernetics" that Norbert >Weiner coined long ago? I thought its definition was quite suitable for >denoting this research. I do not profess to be an expert in either the history of cybernetics or the usage of the term; but, with that qualification, let me try to address this question. As I recall, Weiner's original concern was with the design of analog devices which, by virtue of feedback circuits, were capable of control of other devices and adaptive behavior (which may be regarded as self-control). Through my encounters with the literature as an AI researcher, I have observed that the term "cybernetics" appears with greater frequency in Europe (particularly the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom) than it does in the United States. There is definitely a tendency to recognize that Weiner's original principles could be generalized from analog to digital hardware. However, I have the distinct impression that cybernetics grew from the belief that behavioral knowledge was something which would ultimately be encoded in the feedback loops, rather than in an explicit device concerned with memory or the storage of a knowledge base. I would appreciate any reactions to these comments simply to get the historical record straight.