From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psgrain!percy!nosun!hilbert!max Thu Jan  9 10:33:39 EST 1992
Article 2509 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psgrain!percy!nosun!hilbert!max
>From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: The Rules of the Game (reply to V. Yodaiken) was Re: Searle's response to silicon brain?
Summary: You demand more than science can give
Keywords: [sorry about late reply - newsfeed was dead for weeks]
Message-ID: <1992Jan6.000140.7015@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 6 Jan 92 00:01:40 GMT
References: <40825@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1991Dec19.222224.7716@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <40972@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 47

In article <40972@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1991Dec19.222224.7716@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>>In article <40825@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>There is no evidence to suggest that silicon digital neuron simulators can
>>>mimic real neurons or that mind is no more than than the product of
>>
>>Read Koch & Segev, for a start. The simple fact is that real neurons
>>are being simulated now, generating identical waveforms, and behavior. Some
>>models mimic lesion behavior. Today. Your assertion is flat wrong, ...
>
>... but I keep seeing material in scientific journals which contradicts
>your claim. For example, in Science (Dec 6) there is an article on 
>depression which quotes a fellow by the name of Post at NIMH.
> ....[quote deleted]
>So, unless I'm just confused, we have here some suggestion that
>phychological states may cause physical changes which, according to Post,
>may predispose further depressive episodes. Do your simulations take these
>effects into account?  Can they?  [Answer: I see no apriori reason why not-mgw]

Ah, I think I see the rules of the game now. You claim there is 'no'
evidence that neurons can be mimicked by digital simulators; when
confronted with references to biologically realistic simulations
of some biological NN's, you point to some phenomenon that we don't
yet understand, and say "See! we don't know anything."

The only way to satisfy you, it seems, is to simulate and explain
_every_single_behavior_ of _every_single_net_. Am I wrong? If those
are the rules of the game, I am not interested in playing. I note
that this is the same strategy the creationists use in talk.origins.

Science has never worked that way. You start with theories and models
that explain some of the data, and try to capture more and more of
the real worlds behavior in them. You don't throw up your hands and
say that since no current model explains ALL the data, no model is
possible. If we did that, noone would ever make ANY progress.

I repeat: the evidence that neurons can be simulated in realistic
ways is there. You have been given references; either retract your
claim, or refute the (rapidly growing) body of work. The swimming
behavior of Lampreys can be simulated on Crays, and the high level
behavior of visual cortex has also been replicated to a substantial
degree.

The evidence is there - will you go look at it? or will you demand
perfection first, knowing it will never arrive?

	Max


