From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin Thu Oct  8 10:10:47 EDT 1992
Article 7073 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin
>From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <740@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:11:12 GMT
References: <1992Sep29.151801.8240@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Lines: 36

The processing that underlies cognition appears to be chaotic. That makes
simulation a lot more problematic, since you have to deal with sensitive
dependence on initial conditions (which is required for responsiveness),
topological transitivity (required for coverage), and dense periodic
points (which can cause problems for simulations). When I was trying to
simulate chaotic decision-making processes, I found that I tended to drop
into relatively short terminal cycles. That phenomenon allowed me to
conclude that the underlying physical process was chaotic, but also meant
that my simulation results were invalid.

Cheers,






















-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com


