From: Aaron McBride (amcbride@jps.net)
Date: Sat May 12 2001 - 14:53:35 MDT
By that I was referring to the operation of my brain.
From what I've read, it's not as important that a neuron is firing, but
how fast or how hard the neuron is firing. The strength of the connection
between the neurons also analog. Of course, nobody really knows how the
brain works (yet). Something that I find interesting: we don't know how we
work, but we are still conscious, we are still self aware, and
intelligent. We can also improve ourselves (maybe not the extent that we
could if we could physically rewire each other, but we can change the way
we think just by thinking).
I'll think more about the significance of analog vs. digital, but as I see
it.. digital is an artifact, and does not exist in the real world.
-Aaron
At 03:45 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sat, 12 May 2001, Aaron McBride wrote:
>
> > Probably the reason behind the leap in logic is: I am analog.
>
>I sense confusion.
>
>In what way are you analog? For just about any argument you can give,
>I'm pretty sure I can give an equally credible counter-argument that you
>are, in fact, digital. Just for starters, the neuron firings in your
>brain are digitally controlled. Your genetic information is clearly and
>obviously digitally stored and transmitted. On the quantum level the
>common notion is that all matter is discrete. Anyway... My point is
>that the distinction is actually not of significant importance. There's
>something wrong with the very nature of a question like ``Is analog
>better than digital''. On many levels, phenomena that we normally
>associate with digital electronics can be observed in analog devices, and
>vice versa.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT