Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discreteness and Relevance: A Reply to Roman Poznanski

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Eliasmith, C. (2001), ‘Attractive and In-Discrete: A Critique of Two Putative Virtues of the Dynamicist Theory of Mind’, Minds and Machines 11, pp. 417–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliasmith, C. and Anderson, C. H. (in press), Neural Engineering: Computation, Representation and Dynamics in Neurobiological Systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Freeman, W.J. (2000), ‘Brain Dynamics: Brain Chaos and Intentionality’ in E. Gordon, ed., Integrative Neuroscience, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbroeck, H. (1995), ‘Binary Chaos',’ Aportaciones Matemáticas, Serie Comunicaciones 16, p.473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbroeck, H. and Zertuche, F. (1998), ‘Discrete Chaos',’ Journal of Physics A 32, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Chris Eliasmith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eliasmith, C. Discreteness and Relevance: A Reply to Roman Poznanski. Minds and Machines 12, 437–438 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016100502231

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016100502231

Keywords

Search

Navigation