From: J. Andrew Rogers (andrew@ceruleansystems.com)
Date: Thu Apr 06 2006 - 13:30:59 MDT
On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Phillip Huggan wrote:
> Human neural synchronizations are an entirely different class of
> phenomena than are the computer programming variety.
On what grounds do you assert this? You appear to be saying that
neural synchronization processes have no equivalent description in
computer science. Apparently you know a lot more about both neuron
behavior and computer science than the rest of us.
Synchronization at its broadest abstraction has a pretty simple
description and well understood mathematics. What kind of
"synchronization" is this that it is outside the scope of
conventional mathematics and engineering? Is it supernatural
synchronization?
> There is no computer programming equivalent to the chemistry
> hardware our brains run off of.
This statement makes little sense on a couple different levels. The
nature of the machinery is irrelevant to the software abstraction,
except as an engineering detail. Without having any knowledge of the
computational fundamentals used by the brain, I can still comfortably
say that a silicon equivalent can be implemented in the language of
your choice. Computation in its various forms is fungible.
> Computers don't use chemistry, brains do.
You seem to think this statement is making some sort of distinction
that does not exist. Chemistry is not magic nor does it have special
extra-computational properties, and I have never seen a chemistry-
free computer in any case.
Clearly this topic has overwhelmed your imagination and
understanding, because you are retreating to the position of ceding
everything to the Big Mystery In The Sky and leaving it at that. It
was not constructive when neolithic people did it, and it is not
constructive now. Shock Level 4 indeed.
J. Andrew Rogers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT