Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!emory!ogicse!moe!maxwebb
From: maxwebb@moe.cse.ogi.edu (Max G. Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Continuous vs discrete
Message-ID: <19631@ogicse.ogi.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 91 01:28:58 GMT
References: <91082.223501DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <91093.195412DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: news@ogicse.ogi.edu
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Computer Science & Engineering
Lines: 27

In article <91093.195412DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>
>I am not talking about minor disagreements in the magnitude of an
>effect, but about modes of behavior that will be missed altogether.
>Given this, how can we think that computer simulations can even
>begin to provide a realistic model of the human brain, or any other
>"intelligence".

OK, I'll try one more time, and then I've got to get back
to my olfactory cortex simulations. Marko claimed that
discretization error made simulation impractical. That is
the _specific_ point I am addressing.

There is Noise in these systems, much greater in magnitude
than the discretization errors introduced. I can show you
a feature in olfactory cortex (bulb renormaliztion) which
gives relative noise immunity. Fact is, you only need abt
4-5 bits of accuracy to get a workable system. I think
we _can_ simulate such a system.

Since the noise alone complete destroys any sort of
'aliasing' introduced by discretiztion, i am not
worried about the networks behaving completely differently.
They MUST be more robust than that just to work at all.

Gotta go to class - yikes! bye.
Max