Newsgroups: sci.nonlinear,sci.cognitive,bionet.neuroscience,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Turtles All the Way Down
Message-ID: <CyCM9C.960@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <37kblp$ak1@universe.digex.net> <37kln5$nh3@portal.gmu.edu> <37l2d0$hpr@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 20:29:36 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.nonlinear:1847 sci.cognitive:5484 comp.ai.philosophy:21431

In article <37l2d0$hpr@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>Personally, I tend to doubt any argument which tries to make anything
>important out of a difference between digital and analog.  It is
>worth remembering that movie theaters have long been delivering
>discrete shows, with the picture image switching 24 times per second,
>and except for the occasional backward turning wagon wheels, it all
>looks continuous to us.  This should caution us that arguments about
>the importance of analog components are bogus.

Can be bogus.

But I find this discussion puzzling.  If some quantum effects
are required (which is what Penrose seems to think), then presumably
they must actually take place and not just be simulated by some
numbers that go through the right motions.

Now that in itself is no threat to *artificial* intelligence,
so why are people so determined to crush the idea?

-- jeff
