Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins
From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument
Message-ID: <16874@cup.portal.com>
Date: 8 Apr 89 20:09:28 GMT
References: <10992@bcsaic.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 53

In article <29075@sri-unix.SRI.COM> ellis@unix.SRI.COM (Michael Ellis)
writes:

>>..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?

     The universe is not analog.  Time, matter and space are all discrete. 
Time is quantized into events.  Matter is quantized into particles.  Space
is quantized into the Planck distances.   These are crude and inaccurate
examples, but they give the general idea.


>>..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? 

     I take it to mean that brains are incredibly tolerant of noise both
external and internal.  Putting a bulk tape eraser to your head and turning
it on does not noticeably affect one's thought processes.

     If thought processes were in fact highly dependent on the precise
level of each signal in the brain (which is all that analog signals give
you over discrete ones, more accuracy), then any disturbance of those
signals whatsoever would cause the collapse of the mind.

This tolerance for global external disturbances suggests that there are
attractors (strange or otherwise) governing various important behaviors in
the brain.  Attractors work just as nicely for discrete systems (at a high
enough level of resolution) as they do for analog ones.


>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.

     Yes, the brain is at base representable as discrete - at the quantum
wave function level.  The operative question becomes what level of
generalization and approximation of this we need to reproduce the
macroscopic behavior.


Dan Hankins

"Lie down on the floor and keep calm." - John Dillinger