From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb Mon Dec 16 11:02:18 EST 1991
Article 2161 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
>From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: From neurons to computation: how?
Message-ID: <12722@pitt.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 91 12:33:42 GMT
References: <12707@pitt.UUCP> <40684@dime.cs.umass.edu> <458@trwacs.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.pitt.edu
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 20

In article <458@trwacs.UUCP> erwin@trwacs.UUCP (Harry Erwin) writes:
>In principle, we can create a thinking being from the right elements, but
>a colleague (a neurophysiologist) keeps hammering the idea into me that a
>cell is not just a collection of element and compounds. It's not even an
>organized collection. He points out that it's a dynamic system, and the
>dynamics are sufficiently complex and sufficiently coupled with its
>environment that it's very difficult to imagine any way of building it in
>isolation. Similar point applies for a brain. Thus, studies of simpler but
>related systems are extremely valuable.
>
True, but remember that a lot of the cellular machinery is generic
to cells and has little to do with their specialized function,
say, as a neuron.  You may not have to simulate every last process
in a cell to get the important behavior out of it, if you understand
what that behavior is.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


