6 ms·

Yes “computer” here means “digital electronic computer” and yes the storage, retrieval, and processing all happens very differently in the brain than digital co

Yes “computer” here means “digital electronic computer” and yes the storage, retrieval, and processing all happens very differently in the brain than digital computers are capable of. You may think these are dumb points for the author to make, but it’s not clear to me at all that the media or the VCs who buy the hype about machine learning, AI, and self-driving cars realize just how different they are.

naasking 8y ago
> Yes “computer” here means “digital electronic computer” and yes the storage, retrieval, and processing all happens very differently in the brain than digital computers are capable of. No, it's incorrect to use "digital computer" here. More correct might be a von Neumann architecture computer. But then that shows that the author is attacking a strawman: people comparing brains to computers aren't limiting themselves to such an architecture.
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  Are you sure? This mostly comes up in pop sci explanations where von Neumann architecture may as well be synonymous with "digital computer" because it's all the vast majority of readers are familiar with.
  - naasking 8y ago
    A "digital computer" is simply one in which information is represented in binary. The encoding of information does not alter the process of computation, so that's an irrelevant detail to compare to. We have plenty of Harvard architecture computers (eg. DSPs), and there are plenty of other computational architectures (DNA computing, optical computing, quantum computing).
    - ChrisSD 8y ago
      Sure but my point is they aren't what people think about when you say "digital computer" or use that as an analogy. People think about what they are familiar with in their every day lives.
      - naasking 8y ago
        I don't see how that's relevant. The article is attacking the claim "the brain is a computer". That means all computers. The fact that the article's example were of a specific type of computer architecture, and had nothing specific to do with digital computers per se despite the article claiming it does, just proves my point that the argument is flawed.
        ChrisSD 8y ago
        Because it's about people's mental models. When you use an analogy ("like a digital computer") to examine another phenomena than of course people will interpret that in terms they are familiar with. Otherwise what's the point in using an analogy?
        naasking 8y ago
        The point of an analogy is to make a phenomenon understandable by showing a formal correspondence to phenomenon that is already understood. I've just spent 3 posts explaining that this analogy fails on multiple levels, so the argument by analogy is invalid.
- russdill 8y ago
  A von Neumann architecture does not limit one to a single method of information storage or retrieval, it just limits the efficiency of different methods.

naasking 8y ago

> Yes “computer” here means “digital electronic computer” and yes the storage, retrieval, and processing all happens very differently in the brain than digital computers are capable of. No, it's incorrect to use "digital computer" here. More correct might be a von Neumann architecture computer. But then that shows that the author is attacking a strawman: people comparing brains to computers aren't limiting themselves to such an architecture.

ChrisSD 8y ago
Are you sure? This mostly comes up in pop sci explanations where von Neumann architecture may as well be synonymous with "digital computer" because it's all the vast majority of readers are familiar with.
- naasking 8y ago
  A "digital computer" is simply one in which information is represented in binary. The encoding of information does not alter the process of computation, so that's an irrelevant detail to compare to. We have plenty of Harvard architecture computers (eg. DSPs), and there are plenty of other computational architectures (DNA computing, optical computing, quantum computing).
  - ChrisSD 8y ago
    Sure but my point is they aren't what people think about when you say "digital computer" or use that as an analogy. People think about what they are familiar with in their every day lives.
    - naasking 8y ago
      I don't see how that's relevant. The article is attacking the claim "the brain is a computer". That means all computers. The fact that the article's example were of a specific type of computer architecture, and had nothing specific to do with digital computers per se despite the article claiming it does, just proves my point that the argument is flawed.
      - ChrisSD 8y ago
        Because it's about people's mental models. When you use an analogy ("like a digital computer") to examine another phenomena than of course people will interpret that in terms they are familiar with. Otherwise what's the point in using an analogy?
        naasking 8y ago
        The point of an analogy is to make a phenomenon understandable by showing a formal correspondence to phenomenon that is already understood. I've just spent 3 posts explaining that this analogy fails on multiple levels, so the argument by analogy is invalid.
russdill 8y ago
A von Neumann architecture does not limit one to a single method of information storage or retrieval, it just limits the efficiency of different methods.