🚀 go-pugleaf

The following was posted a few weeks ago to net.ai and net.cog-eng. It
was re-posted by someone to sci.electronics. It seems that math and
physics should get  crack at it too. After this posting will follow
about 5 others giving a sample of the exchange. Original follows:

----

I'd like to test whether there is a coherent formulation of the
analog/digital distinction out there. I suspect that the results will
be surprising.

Engineers and computer scientists seem to feel that they have a
suitable working definition of the distinction, whereas philosophers
have argued that the distinction may not be tenable at all.
Cognitive scientists are especially interested because they are
concerned with analog vs. nonanalog representations. And
neuroscientists are interested in analog and nonanalog processes in
the nervous system.

I have some ideas, but I'll save them until I sample some of what the
Net nets. The ground-rules are these: Try to propose a clear and
objective definition of the analog/digital distinction that is not
arbitrary, relative, or loses in the limit the intuitive distinction
it was intended to capture.

One prima facie non-starter: "continuous" vs. "discrete" physical
processes.


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771