What the Neocortex Does

Kevin K. KK at _._
Fri Aug 4 17:41:48 EST 2000



Gary Forbis wrote:
> 
> "Kevin K." <KK at _._> wrote in message news:3989AC71.7969B1CA at _._...
> >
> >
> > Harry Erwin wrote:
> >
> > > You're missing my point. Symbols are signs. They belong to a countable
> > > set. Wind-tunnel models can vary continuously (or discontinuously). That
> > > matters--there are some applications (for example in hydraulic analysis)
> > > where symbolic modeling encounters an intractable problem, but analog
> > > modeling works fine.
> >
> > Intractability is a an issue relating to computational efficiency --
> > i.e. the time or space required to perform the calculation. It has no
> > bearing on Church's thesis. A Turing machine can be written to solve the
> > hydraulic problem to any desired degree of accuracy because the TM has
> > an infinite supply of time and space. It may take a while, but that's
> > okay, because Church's thesis concerns computability in principle, not
> > in practice.
> 
> I hate "in principle" arguments applied to real objects.

That's what this thread is about, in reverse. Mr. Erwin claimed that a
real object (the bat brain) had some bearing on a longstanding
mathematical principle (Church's thesis).

BTW, do you hate it when "in principle" arguments like "the interior
angles of triangle total 180 degrees" are applied to real triangles? ;-)






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list