Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!retina.cis.ohio-state.edu!kolen-j From: kolen-j@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (john kolen) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: CoOntinuous vs discrete Message-ID: Date: 28 Mar 91 16:53:03 GMT References: <91082.223501DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: Ohio State Computer Science Lines: 25 In-reply-to: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU's message of 24 Mar 91 06:35:01 GMT >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 Computers are discrete systems until they encounter environmental factors which interact with them at a physical level. Radiation is one such factor, while heat is another. Each can change the behavior of the system in unpredictable ways. Designers add in shielding, cooling fans, redundant parts, to prevent such occurences. A stupendous effort is expended to build computers so they behave as discrete systems, but it is not apparent that nature went to such extremes. Rather, it exploited the natural state-like properties of continuous dynamical systems. By changing from one attractor to another, state-like behavior can be obtained. This method does entrench a particular type of attractor, i.e. the attractors can be fixed points, limit cycles, or strange (chaotic) attractors, all that is necessary is some way to uniquely identify them. John -- John Kolen (kolen-j@cis.ohio-state.edu)|computer science - n. A field of study Laboratory for AI Research |somewhere between numerology and The Ohio State Univeristy |astrology, lacking the formalism of the Columbus, Ohio 43210 (USA) |former and the popularity of the latter