Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!maytag!watdcsu!ssingh
From: ssingh@watdcsu.waterloo.edu ( SINGH S    - INDEPENDENT STUDIES    )
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Simulation verus reality
Message-ID: <5791@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 89 04:52:09 GMT
References: <827@htsa.uucp> <5790@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <5106@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Reply-To: ssingh@watdcsu.waterloo.edu ( SINGH S    - INDEPENDENT STUDIES    )
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25

In article <5106@cs.Buffalo.EDU> lammens@sunybcs.UUCP (Jo Lammens) writes:
>
>I wonder if there's any point in doing that. If you want to understand
>how a car works, you don't analyze it in terms of chemistry and quantum
>mechanics, although it is probably possible to do so - at least in
>principle. If you want to achieve high-level understanding, you should
>probably use high-level descriptions. That's basically why nobody
>wants to use machine code any more to write a complex program,
>although it is possible to do so - at least in principle.
>
You're right. There is no reason to analyse a car in terms of quantum
mechanics. That is carrying reductionaism too far. We know that in
the construction of the car, there are parts. It makes sense to analyse
this system of parts for a true understanding of what is going on.

The basic unit of information processing in the brain is the neuron.
Clearly tons of neurons put together will give us some form of
behaviour. It makes sense to abstract the properties of the neurons
into some sort of precise model. Then do simulations (soft or hardware)
that show us a system of N neurons. But the model MUST be consistent
with the actual properties of biological neurons. Other simulations
could be constructed with different unit properties.

>BITNET: lammens@sunybcs.BITNET          Internet:  lammens@cs.Buffalo.EDU
>UUCP: ...!{watmath,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!lammens