Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)
From: dan michaels (feedbackdroids_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: dan michaels: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Previous message: Paul Bramscher: "Re: The Identity Theory of Mind"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Sep 2004 09:13:05 -0700
erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message news:<fa69ae35.0409221716.4cb93523@posting.google.com>...
> feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message news:<8d8494cf.0409220931.77227228@posting.google.com>...
> > Hi Eray, let me give you an image to hold in your mind. First, forget
> > about all of the metaphysics being discussed on this forum. Think
> > about the question ... can the complexity of the brain completely
> > account for generation all of the behavioral output and processing of
> > all perceptual inputs, storage of memories, consciousness as we know
> > it, etc, without recourse to external entities [spirits, ephemeral
> > minds, cadres of homunculi, on and on]?
> >
> > Now think about there being some 100 trillion synapses located in a
> > volume roughly the size of your own fist. This is literally a "sea" or
> > "cloud" of synapses not unlike the idea of a cloud of electrons in
> > some piece of matter. We're assuming of course that action at these
> > synapses is fundamental to all mental/brain/behavioral processes. Now,
> > if you could describe this mathematically, how would you go about
> > doing so?
>
> With discrete computation. The "why" is explained in prior posts. The
> power of the continuum (if there is such a thing!) is not needed.
> That's just fancy of some eccentric physicists who don't pay attention
> to what can be known about matter. I am going to have to repeat
> myself, but the brain is Turing-complete, and it is discrete. That is
> why. It's not just a practical matter.
>
> Regards,
Ahh well, always the same loop with us. I think part of the problem
might lie in your term "power of the continuum". This seems to imply
that discrete devices and discrete responses are the same thing. They
are not. An analog amplifer is a discrete device, physically and
electronically, but the best way to describe its input-output
characteristics is with continuous maths. Likewise, dendritic trees
are discrete, and their inputs are synaptic-quanta, but the
postsynaptic potentials are continuous. Oh well.
I'm not too big on discrete maths, so how would I describe an
exponential decay using discrete maths ???? I had always assumed they
invented calculus and continuous maths for this purpose.
And I know you always come back to Turing. Is matter Turing-complete
???
- Next message: dan michaels: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Previous message: Paul Bramscher: "Re: The Identity Theory of Mind"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|