Hi Richard, On Dec 6, 2007 8:46 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try to think of some other example where we have tried to build a system > that behaves in a certain overall way, but we started out by using > components that interacted in a completely funky way, and we succeeded > in getting the thing working in the way we set out to. In all the > history of engineering there has never been such a thing. > I would argue that, just as we don't have to fully understand the complexity posed by the interaction of subatomic particles to make predictions about the way molecular systems behave, we don't have to fully understand the complexity of interactions between neurons to make predictions about how cognitive systems behave. Many researchers are attempting to create cognitive models that don't necessarily map directly back to low-level neural activity in biological organisms. Doesn't this approach mitigate some of the risk posed by complexity in neural systems? -- Scott ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73399933-fcedd2
