2011/10/11 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> > > No. Your claim is that all inputs must also be neurological.
> > He *never* said that. What he said is this : "If you know the input + the
> > working of a neuron, you can predict the output (fire or not fire), the
> > input can be from adjacent neurons or from nerves which are link to the
> > external environment via sensors." You are the one keeping on claiming
> > the model must predict the external environment and that is non-sensical.
> Adjacent neurons = neurological.
> Nerves = neurological.
> Sensors = neurological.
> His claim excludes internal spontaneous causes. I'm just pointing out
> that neurological outputs cannot be predicted without them and that
> those cannot be determined from the physiology and the environment
> alone. You have to know what the brain is feeling to predict
> everything that the neurons that make it up are going to do.
You have to know the transition rule(s) of the neuron. Transition rule(s) +
input = output.
Input == Internal state of the neuron + environment state where the neuron
is (adjacent cells, nerves signal, chemical environment, ...)
You don't have to know what the brain is feeling as a whole... because the
neuron does not.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at