From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max Tue Jan 28 12:17:15 EST 1992
Article 3110 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max
>From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Rules of the Game (reply to V. Yodaiken) was Re: Searle's response to silicon brain?
Keywords: [sorry about late reply - newsfeed was dead for weeks]
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.213320.19198@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:33:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Jan23.213320.19198
References: <40972@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Jan6.000140.7015@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <41893@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 36

In article <41893@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>I wrote:
>>>>>There is no evidence to suggest that silicon digital neuron simulators can
	^^^^ this was your claim. Read it again. Got it?

>>>>>mimic real neurons...
>>>>
>
>Max Webb replied:
>>>>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, ...
	^^^ here is the evidence, a reference, which you have yet to read.
	    before you spout off again, I suggest you read it.

>The evidence is that some neuronal behavior can be simulated to some 
>degree. That's nice. But it is not evidence that all neuronal behavior
>can be simulated, or even that significant neuronal behavior can be
>simulated.

I consider waveforms, lesion behavior, and functionality to be
'significant'. So does anyone else actually working in the field(s)
Until you read at least some of the literature, I see no point in
further discussion with you. Demonstrate some of that 'love of science'
you keep lecturing us about, and GO READ IT.

> You've got a *hypothesis*, it may even be true. But when you
>start throwing around terms such as "substantial degree" about a system
>which is not well understood, you venture from science to ideology.

How do you know how well understood it is? YOU DON'T READ THE RELEVANT
LITERATURE. You won't check out the evidence you have been given. So
why should I be impressed with your rhetoric? Until you look at the data
you have been given, what do you have to talk about?

	Max


