Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5312 talk.philosophy.misc:3385 sci.philosophy.tech:1836 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!spdcc!merk!alliant!linus!mbunix!bwk From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Kort) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Can Machines Think? Summary: Chaos and Serendipitous Noise. Keywords: Deterministic and Chaotic Brains Message-ID: <85218@linus.UUCP> Date: 30 Dec 89 12:50:18 GMT References: <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <32029@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Sender: news@linus.UUCP Reply-To: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry Kort) Organization: The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA Lines: 18 In article kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes: > I agree that an AI need not model any particular person at a particular > time. But since the error in a numerical model is cumulative over time > slices, it's not just the behavior of the system at a given time that > won't match, but also the general shape of the trajectories though the > state space of the system. If a numerical model of the brain is claimed > to be accurate except for "noise", and therefore claimed to be conscious, > then it must be shown that what is called "noise" is irrelevant to > consciousness (or thinking). Fluctuations that seem to be "noise" may > have significant consequences in a chaotic system. Noise is to thinking as genetic mutations are to evolution. Most noise is counterproductive, but occasionally the noise leads to a cognitive breakthrough. That's called serendipity. --Barry Kort