Re: "analog computer" = useless hypothesis?

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sun Apr 01 2001 - 12:26:07 MDT

From: "James Rogers" <>
> I don't think there can really be an argument with a fully informed crowd.
> All the arguments I've seen on "analog" versus "digital" have been grounded
> largely in ignorance of what these things actually mean in terms of
> measuring/using/converting a signal.

For computing purposes, can we then conclude that "analog" machines have no
Calvin, Edelmann, et al., theorize the human brain operates via pattern
recognition and various modeling networks, which supercedes the analog/digital
question, right?

As Eugene Leitl has pointed out, there may actually be no "analog computer" at
This one looks good (even though hypothetical):

Yet another definition:
A computer that represents data in terms of physical measures or quantities
and proceeds along a continuum constituted by its components. Analog computers
are especially suited for the solution of complex non-linear equations and for
the simulation of multi-dimensional, parallel and continuous processes. There
is no restriction on the physical processes analog computers may utilize. Most
common media are fluids and gases which can be made to vary in numerous
DIMENSIONs. Compared with digital COMPUTERs, the programming of analog
computers is time consuming and limited in scope. (Krippendorff)

Are these really "analog," and are they really "computers"?

Is there really no such thing as a real analog computer?

Stay hungry,

--J. R.

Useless hypotheses:
 consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:44 MDT