3 ms·
The point is that out definition of the computability of a function is too narrow, and does not take into account the real-time all connected nature of the comp
by linschn 11y ago
The point is that out definition of the computability of a function is too narrow, and does not take into account the real-time all connected nature of the computation the brain does.
Therefore, we lack formal way of satisfactorily compare the brain to a Turing Machine.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoI don't see why. Your computer reacts to keyboard and mouse in the real time, also for network packets going in and out. And it's plain turing machine. It does so by regarding every input as they become available, one by one. Information comes to brain via neurons, and those have finite speed, it's not as they had quantum-like properties. Signal in; signal out, with delay and altered magnitude.
- linschn 11y agoThe important word is : formal. I, too, think that the brain is 'a computer'. But the formal definitions of computation we have today require the computer to be left alone for some time between the moment the input is given and the moment the output is due. The brain does not work like that, ergo we lack a formal model of how the brain operates, and thus the definition of 'computable function' -which is based on our model of computation- is less general than what the brain can do. e.g. We have no proof that the only way neurons communicate with one another is via the synapses.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoBrain, too, needs some time to react to any incoming event. I fail to capture the difference.