Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!maxwebb
From: maxwebb@ogicse.ogi.edu (Max G. Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Continuous vs discrete
Summary: Good simulations of NN's exist.
Message-ID: <19392@ogicse.ogi.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 91 20:55:38 GMT
References: <91082.223501DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <1991Mar25.141743.21124@news.larc.nasa.gov> <19175@ogicse.ogi.edu> <MAGI.91Mar28191353@polaris.utu.fi>
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 64

I posted an earlier version of this article in which i was
more heated and sarcastic than I needed to be. Sorry. Canceled it,
but it might have got out anyway.

Marko, it all comes down to this. There are simulations of
neural nets which are close enough to the biological version to
reproduce _waveforms_. Example: predator evasion reflex of
tritonia. Example: swimming behavior of the Lamprey. Example:
stomach ganglia of the lobster. You want ref's?

Since these all do work well, doesn't that kind of indicate
that these networks are simulable?

>> it is not computing it to 32 bits accuracy!
>
>32 bits? Integer? Not floating point?

Yeah, Yeah, of course use fp.  But does floating point rep.
stop being discrete? surprise to me.
Weren't we talking about discrete vs. continuous?

>> Having infinite precision in one number is equivalent in power
>> to having infinite # of (sequentially accessible) bits of memory.
>> (of course)
>
>Yes, of course! What a scientific breakthrough! WOW! But exactly
>becouse of this they use a rotated '8' - symbol in mathematics and
>exponents for smaller numbers. B->
>
Another cheap shot. You seem to be more interested in scoring
rhetorical points than answering the content of my posting.

My point is that by insisting that only infinite
precision simulations of neurons are worthwhile you are charactizing
them as having infinite memory. Implausible. A point that has been
made before, that you have not addressed.

>> Hence, discrete devices should have no problem simulating such
>> neurons.
>
>ARGH! Not again! There is a BIG difference between discrete in
>quantity and discrete in time/space, computers are f*cking discrete in
>time/space!!!!!!!

Watch your tongue. These machines manage to simulate lot's of
time/space continuous systems (turbulent air flow, physics
of vlsi device geometries). Why are you so pessimistic in this
particular arena?

>Did I understand your message clearly or why does it sound so
>suspicious?
>Sorry about flames, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you (hopefully...).

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Marko Gronroos           ! Tel. +358-21-445613 !

If you spent more time reading the literature, and less time
speculating about problems that _might_ or _might_not_ exist
you might be less pessimistic about our chances of success.

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