Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote:
> What I'm saying is that it's possible to converge upon 0., above,
> without actively invoking 'chance', even though such will be
> passively present.
> Is what's here sufficient?
No. Not at all. You omit the overdriven system aspects completely
which alters the basic conjectures and the outcomes. Thus there
is always a range of possible responses resembling randomness
coupled with unpredictable neural misfires and random outside
factors like being bumped on the head (or unexpected pain or a
million other things.)
See also "complexity."
Then throw diet, allergies, and excitability in for good measure.
These are all variables which come into and go out of play in
completely unpredictable ways but affect outcomes.
There are other factors as well far too numerous to get into here.
A non-model human brain isn't something we're ready to get our
hooks into just yet. Obviously you can make any predictions you
might care to if you first establish the model, but that's a form
of cheating. There's no real world correlation to such a model.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
