Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site spuxll.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!ech
From: ech@spuxll.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Human Models
Message-ID: <514@spuxll.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Jun-84 14:38:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: spuxll.514
Posted: Wed Jun 27 14:38:01 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 04:10:22 EDT
References: <1137@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, South Plainfield NJ
Lines: 21

Jules Greenwall's suggestion is an extreme example of what researchers in the
area refer to as a "meat machine."  Traditionally, such experiments contain
a neuron model and attempt to simulate a brain at THAT level of detail.

His suggestion suffers from a similar problem, also: assuming that one
has a complete quantum-mechanical model of a human brain, how is one to model
the behavior of molecules, in real time, with a computer made of molecules?
I thank him for the suggestion, of course, because it drives home an
important point: you simply can't build a real-time emulation of a brain
by modelling it at the quantum-mechanical level; you MUST use some
"higher level" model.

Note that, except for rather simple neuron nets, traditional meat machines
are also many orders of magnitude removed from a real-time simulation of
a brain of human-class complexity.

Finally, I will note that we are on the verge of opening yet another round
of the reductionist/wholist debate; yet again, I will recommend that you
go devour a copy of "The Mind's I".

=Ned=