I must confess I have never heard of this constraint, but my first
question would have to be, how is "computation" defined? An important
consideration is that there are many lines of evidence supporting the
idea of the brain as made up of parallel processers, so there may be
much more "throughput" than would be possible with a single channel
serial processer, howsoever many "computations" might be possible in a
given period.
re lines of evidence: ranging from clinical pheonomena (as exemplified
in cases such as my Deep Dyslexia patient and my Propagnostic patient,
to cite just two interesting experiments of nature) to much heavy-duty
anatomical/physiological work.
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
(& NYAS)
In <garyjaz-1111981702270001 at usr-66-184.globaleyes.net>
garyjaz at globaleyes.net (Gary Jasdzewski) writes:
>>Recently I posted to this group a question about the reasons why
cognitive
>scientists (linguists, psychologists, etc.) should pay attention to
the
>neurosciences. I haven't received many replies, sad to say.
However, I
>did run across an idea called the '100 step constraint' in a marvelous
>book called _Speaking Minds_. The idea is that the brain is not fast
>enough to perform more than 100 computations in something like 300
>milliseconds, and so any cognitive theory must take this into account.
Is
>anyone familiar with this idea? Is it well known in your field? What
are
>the numbers used to calculate it?
>>--
>gary jasdzewski
>gary at siu.edu>http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~garyjaz
