Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!maxwebb
From: maxwebb@ogicse.ogi.edu (Max G. Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: CoOntinuous vs discrete
Summary: discrete approx = to finite precision
Message-ID: <19175@ogicse.ogi.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 91 00:44:46 GMT
References: <91082.223501DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <1991Mar25.141743.21124@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 26

>One thing that has always bothered me about the comparison between
>computers and brains is that (most) computers are finite state machines,
>while it is not obvious to me that brains are.  It is well known that
>mathematical modelling of continuous systems on disctrete lattices
>will miss some classes of solutions entirely, so I have trouble following
>the arguments based on analogies between computers and brains.  Can someone
>out there shed some light on this for me?
>

The 'apparent' continuity in the response of neurons is not too
relevant, due to the low precision in the device. Whatever each
neuron is computing, it is not computing it to 32 bits accuracy!

Having infinite precision in one number is equivalent in power
to having infinite # of (sequentially accessible) bits of memory.
(of course)

Hence, discrete devices should have no problem simulating such
neurons. Simply set the smallest delta between two numbers in
your representation to 1/2 the relative inaccuracy of the neuron
between two different presentations of the same stimuli.

	Max.
-- 
Max Webb 	| maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
		| 20 nw 16th, #315, Portland Or, 9209