Xref: utzoo comp.ai:8273 sci.bio:4198 sci.psychology:3921 alt.cyberpunk:5421
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.bio,sci.psychology,alt.cyberpunk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watcgl!jwtlai
From: jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai)
Subject: Re: The Bandwidth of the Brain
Message-ID: <1990Dec23.023456.21126@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <37034@cup.portal.com> <1990Dec22.213121.12226@dsd.es.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 90 02:34:56 GMT
Lines: 21

In article <1990Dec22.213121.12226@dsd.es.com> ddebry%bambam@es.com writes:
>	So then, given enough time, could finitely large number of
>pocket calculators (any models) all networked together somehow ever
>figure out how each of them work to the point that they could
>fabricate one of themselves?  I think not.
>
>	And the important thing to remember here is that you can
>replace the words 'pocket calculator' with anything from 'abacus' to
>'Cray II' and the answer is always the same.

Try neuron and neural nets.

>	I'd like to suggest the answer even holds when you put 'human'
>into the question.  We're too involved in the problem to figure it
>out.  Just by asking the question, we've changed the situation and the
>question is invalid.  Ask a new question, and the same thing happens.

Actually, this hypothesis makes the assumption on the level of abstraction
required to make a simulation of oneself.  What constitutes sufficient
understanding in this regard is debatable.  The requirements for
simulation are less stringent than fabrication.