4 ms·

That's his whole point. It doesn't store or retrieve.

criddell 10y ago
And is that the defining characteristic of a computer? I don't think it is.
hasenj 10y ago
Then how come that when I see your comment, my brain knows what letter each symbol represents, and knows what each word means, and can construe a meaning out of the sentence?
delinka 10y ago
Indeed it does. If not, how then can you, "recall" the names of your family upon seeing their faces? You've stored a representation of each face, you've stored their names, and you retrieve that information to maintain the relationship.
- karmajunkie 10y ago
  pattern recognition. you see a face, and the visual stimulus refires the same set of neurons, which then fire additional neurons, creating a chain that eventually fires off the set that is connected with the sound of that face. This is a pattern of neuron activity, and its not the same as retrieval.
  - ef4 10y ago
    You're just describing a different way to physically distribute the bits. From a mathematical standpoint it's still very clear that information-theoretic bits are going in and coming back out again. Or to put it another way, if you really think that isn't computing, you need to argue that this new piece of hardware also isn't computing: https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercharges-machine-learning-tasks-with-custom-chip.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercha...
    - karmajunkie 10y ago
      ah, no, its not just twiddling bits. You can make analogies to that if it makes it easier to describe a process, but all analogies break down. One may create a mathematical model of the processes but unless that model mimics and predicts the biology so closely as to be indistinguishable from the reality, its still just a model. Your second assertion is simply wrong. Asserting that what the brain does isn't the same as what a computer does simply doesn't imply that a computer designed to mimic some aspects of biological neural nets is not a computer.
      - ef4 10y ago
        > twiddling bits This kind of phrasing implies that you aren't hearing what I'm saying. You're still picturing physical bits that can be twiddled. I'm not making an analogy to any physical bits at all, I'm not even making an analogy. I'm talking about bits in the information-theoretic sense. If I can send a signal to a person and as a result that person can do better than random at picking an intended symbol out of a set of symbols, then bits of information were conveyed. If the person can do the same thing at a later point in time, then bits of information were also stored. No analogies are required, this is literally the definition of "information" and "bits" since 1948.
        karmajunkie 10y ago
        I'm hearing what you're saying, and if you want to take the broadest possible definition of a computer, then sure, the human brain is a computer. So is a protractor. Shadows on the ground could be used to "compute" the integration of a curve. But its pretty clear that this isn't the issue at hand in the OP.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You've just described a way go store, process, and/or retrieve information. A lossy and generative one. We've modelled similar ones on both digital and analog machines. It not being a conventional implementation doesn't mean what it's doing isn't computation.
    - karmajunkie 10y ago
      I didn't say it wasn't computation. I said it wasn't a computer.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Then it's a device that performs many types of specific computation. The definition of a computer.
        karmajunkie 10y ago
        That's a pretty broad definition of computer, even moreso if you're going to claim that the way the human brain arrives at an answer is "specific computation". Moreover, its clearly not the definition used by the author of the article.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        The author screwed up by considering only digital computers. You keep ignoring addressing my main counterclaim that there's multiple models of computation, the brain matches one pretty closely, and so it's likely computing and/or a computer. The evidence I presented of alternative models of computation, neurons, and implementations in those models is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11731697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11731697

And is that the defining characteristic of a computer? I don't think it is.

Then how come that when I see your comment, my brain knows what letter each symbol represents, and knows what each word means, and can construe a meaning out of the sentence?

delinka 10y ago

Indeed it does. If not, how then can you, "recall" the names of your family upon seeing their faces? You've stored a representation of each face, you've stored their names, and you retrieve that information to maintain the relationship.

karmajunkie 10y ago
pattern recognition. you see a face, and the visual stimulus refires the same set of neurons, which then fire additional neurons, creating a chain that eventually fires off the set that is connected with the sound of that face. This is a pattern of neuron activity, and its not the same as retrieval.
- ef4 10y ago
  You're just describing a different way to physically distribute the bits. From a mathematical standpoint it's still very clear that information-theoretic bits are going in and coming back out again. Or to put it another way, if you really think that isn't computing, you need to argue that this new piece of hardware also isn't computing: https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercharges-machine-learning-tasks-with-custom-chip.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercha...
  - karmajunkie 10y ago
    ah, no, its not just twiddling bits. You can make analogies to that if it makes it easier to describe a process, but all analogies break down. One may create a mathematical model of the processes but unless that model mimics and predicts the biology so closely as to be indistinguishable from the reality, its still just a model. Your second assertion is simply wrong. Asserting that what the brain does isn't the same as what a computer does simply doesn't imply that a computer designed to mimic some aspects of biological neural nets is not a computer.
    - ef4 10y ago
      > twiddling bits This kind of phrasing implies that you aren't hearing what I'm saying. You're still picturing physical bits that can be twiddled. I'm not making an analogy to any physical bits at all, I'm not even making an analogy. I'm talking about bits in the information-theoretic sense. If I can send a signal to a person and as a result that person can do better than random at picking an intended symbol out of a set of symbols, then bits of information were conveyed. If the person can do the same thing at a later point in time, then bits of information were also stored. No analogies are required, this is literally the definition of "information" and "bits" since 1948.
      - karmajunkie 10y ago
        I'm hearing what you're saying, and if you want to take the broadest possible definition of a computer, then sure, the human brain is a computer. So is a protractor. Shadows on the ground could be used to "compute" the integration of a curve. But its pretty clear that this isn't the issue at hand in the OP.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  You've just described a way go store, process, and/or retrieve information. A lossy and generative one. We've modelled similar ones on both digital and analog machines. It not being a conventional implementation doesn't mean what it's doing isn't computation.
  - karmajunkie 10y ago
    I didn't say it wasn't computation. I said it wasn't a computer.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Then it's a device that performs many types of specific computation. The definition of a computer.
      - karmajunkie 10y ago
        That's a pretty broad definition of computer, even moreso if you're going to claim that the way the human brain arrives at an answer is "specific computation". Moreover, its clearly not the definition used by the author of the article.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        The author screwed up by considering only digital computers. You keep ignoring addressing my main counterclaim that there's multiple models of computation, the brain matches one pretty closely, and so it's likely computing and/or a computer. The evidence I presented of alternative models of computation, neurons, and implementations in those models is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11731697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11731697