Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!husc6!sri-unix!ellis From: ellis@unix.SRI.COM (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: "Boss, look: da brain, da brain!" Message-ID: <29075@sri-unix.SRI.COM> Date: 29 Mar 89 06:55:10 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <416@censor.UUCP> <4277@xyzzy.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@unix.sri.com (Michael Ellis) Organization: SRI, Menlo Park, CA. Lines: 34 > Wayne A. Throop >> Stevan Harnad >> If you examine the brain with a view to slicing off its "transducers" >> and "effectors," you come up against a problem, because even if you >> yank off the sensory surfaces, what is actually left over is repeated >> analog transforms of the sensory surfaces as you go deeper and deeper >> into the brain. >..First is the trivial one, that the chemical reactions in the brain >are, at base, representable as discrete and symbolizable. That is, >there is a limit to the "analogness" of the brain's representation >of the world around it. This is exactly what you need to show. I would consider it be a miracle if it just happened to turn out that way. References? >..In fact, it would be very, VERY surprising if the analogness mattered, >because the analogness that exists in human neural systems is not accurate. The analogness of the brain is not accurate? What does that mean? Can I infer that a digital technician would be a bit confounded by such signals as are found in the brain? >It seems plausible (and even likely) that the "analogness" of signals within >the brain are not representations of analog quantities in the "real >world". Grasping for straws. Just who have you been reading? Douglas Hofstadter? The brain is clearly analog. What you *desperately* have to show us is that it is "at base, representable as discrete". You have only given us a wish list of blanket assertions. -michael