Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rutgers!att!mtuxo!lzfme!jwi
From: jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Simulation and Understanding (was Re: Simulation verus reality)
Summary: You get a simulated computer, not a simulated opeating system
Message-ID: <1262@lzfme.att.com>
Date: 14 Apr 89 16:34:18 GMT
References: <827@htsa.uucp> <5790@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <5106@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <5254@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: AT&T, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 63

In article <5254@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, lammens@sunybcs.uucp (Jo Lammens) writes:
> >Perhaps I missed something by jumping in the middle of this, but it
> >seems to me that all the articles posted on this Simulation vs Reality
> >argument are talking about two fundamentally different concepts as if
> >they were the same.  Understanding and simulation are not the same
> >thing.  
> 
> I would not want to imply that they are the same. But I do think that
> in order to simulate, there has to be understanding. In a previous
> posting I used the analogy of trying to understand how an operating
> system works by modeling (and simulating) the transistors that make up
> the machine on which it runs. Suppose I know nothing about operating
> systems nor computers, and I want to simulate an o.s. using some other
> technology, say a mechanical construction with gears and pulleys etc.
> If high-level understanding is not required to simulate, I would be
> able to build my machine by studying the behaviour of the transistors,
> and modeling them with the gears and the like. Even though I model a
> transistor sufficiently precisely, and throw in a lot of them, do you
> think I will ever get the simulated o.s. to work if I don't know how
> it works or even what it's supposed to do? Going back to the original
> theme of neurons and brain functions, do you think that throwing in a
> lot of simulated neurons (I mean a whole lot) will automatically
> result in brain functions, consciousness or what have you, if you
> don't know what they are or even what they're supposed to do? This is
> not a rethorical question.

Modeling the atoms of a car will get you a simulation of some metal
and plastic. This does not have any necessary relationship to
getting from here to there. A simulation of a car need only move
some person(s) and/or material(s) from one place to another while
providing relative protection from the environment, and, optionally,
some thrills for the people who find that a necessary part of a car
ride, and some privacy for the people who find that a necessary part
of a car ride, and some music for the people who find that a
necessary part of a car ride, and a mother-in-law in the back seat
for those who find that a necessary part of a car ride.

Modeling the transistors of a computer will get you a simulation of a
computer. This does not have any necessary relationship to modeling
an operating system (or an application program). Simulating an
operating system is perhaps the clearest example of the difference
between simulating function and simulating form. An operating system
is defined as a set of functions -- it doesn't make any difference
what the form is as long as the function is identical. Thus, UNIX
runs on the 80386 or on the 68020 or on the VAX and we still
recognize it as UNIX.

Similarly, modeling a neuron may get you a simulation of a
brain. This does not have any necessary relationship to modeling a
mind (or an intelligence). The question still remains, can you
simulate a mind (or an intelligence) without necessarily simulating
the brain? Until somebody provides a simulation that we can't tell
from the real thing, we won't know.

Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi 

I believe in absolute freedom of the press.
I believe that freedom of the press is the only protection we have
	from the abuses of power of the church, 
	from the abuses of power of the state,
	from the abuses of power of the corporate body, and 
	from the abuses of power of the press itself.
Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.