3 ms·
The author seems to have far to narrow an idea of what a computer is.
by seiferteric 8y ago
The author seems to have far to narrow an idea of what a computer is.
- nmstoker 8y agoYes, this is precisely what I thought as I read it. I don't doubt his expertise on the brain side, but he characterises the computer in a very limited way, almost perfectly suited to make his argument. With the reconstruction of the dollar there are plenty of examples how computers need not store entire instances of a thing to be able to recognise it later, such as applications of hash functions or doing spam filtering.
- naasking 8y agoThis seems like the appropriate response to the article. In fact, the article is even factually wrong on the matter of what we're born with, and it's even wrong on what it considers "information". I suspect this misunderstanding of "information" is the core of the confusion. He needs to revisit physics and learn some computer science, because information and physics are inextricably intertwined, so the brain very much operates on information using rules. Edit: and further, the brain is a finite state automaton due to the Bekenstein Bound, a physics theorem.