J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
But that is a world away from the idea that neurons, as they are, are
as simple as transistors. I do not believe this was a simple
misunderstanding on my part: the claim that neurons are as simple as
transistors is an unsupportable one.
Richard, you reliably ignore what I actually write, selectively parsing
it in some bizarre context that I don't recognize. There is a reading
comprehension issue, or at the very least you don't follow what I
consider to be the dead obvious theoretical implications.
Metaphorically, you are arguing that the "latex sheet" model of
gravitational curvature is stupid because astronomers have never seen
latex in space, and then wonder why the physicists are giving you funny
looks.
Are you arguing that the function that is a neuron is *not* an
elementary operator for whatever computational model it is that
describes the brain?
I directly and exactly *quoted* several passages that you wrote.
But you don't call that "quoting", you call it "reliably ignor[ing] what
I actually write, selectively parsing it in some bizarre context that I
don't recognize."
Hmmmm.....
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
