The brain is not a computer • Hacker News Board

Re: The brain is not a computer

#131

Post by realitycheckxxx » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:45 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #73

realitycheckxxx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bravo. You can understand that only if you offer an abstract definition of terms like 'computer', 'computation', 'calculation' etc. If you define 'computing' as something these clusters of regular matter we call 'computers' do, then if would exclude animals and other things. But, when you're thinking in abstract terms, then you come to the conclusion that a lot of things in nature are 'computing'. The same thing coul…

Current definitions of intelligence are not abstract definitions [..] but rather are labels/descriptions of particular human traits. Agreed with the rest of what you wrote, but "intelligence" is more or less uniformly defined as the ability to quickly assimilate and apply information. What we try to measure is the speed, accuracy and complexity of that process. We have tried to measure the same process with dogs, par…

The definition you've offered is an abstract definition, but it's not the one used in experiments and in everyday life.

What these experiments with animals are designed for is to check which animals can do things in a similar way to humans.

Why are ravens intelligent? Is it because they can quickly process information? No, that is not what experiments are checking. They are labelled as intelligent because they can use tools to unlock their food.

Why are dolphins intelligent? Is it because they process complex information quickly? No, it's because they have large brains and exhibit empathy towards humans plus they seem to be able to communicate with each other.

People don't say "Well, that system can process complex information quickly, therefore it's intelligent". Instead, what you'll hear is "WOW, animal X can use tools, can communicate, organize in groups! They are more intelligent that we thought". Using tools or communicating is just one way of processing information. There are many other ways. For example, an animal might not be able to use tools in a cage to unlock their food, but they could be a terrific fighter in the jungle. Fighting in a jungle is a process that demands quick information processing, but those animals are somehow below in intelligence than revens or dogs. That is because people aren't using the definition you've provided.

  > You are correct that the tests we use incorporate human traits. But that's as much because we are mainly testing humans as because we use humans as our reference.

There is no need to incorporate human traits, because you've already defined the term in a good way. Why do you need humans for reference? You have the definition, you can provide measurement for speed (X per second) and you're good to go. You don't use humans to measure acceleration of objects, so why would you use humans to measure intelligence?

Re: The brain is not a computer

#132

Post by khedoros » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:46 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #103

Freaky wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're suggesting they do this without storing information? Hmm.

The author and several of his sources argue that they do this without internal mental representations of objects.

There are pieces of data that I store in some manner (and that would be easier stored in a computer). I'm thinking about phone numbers, addresses, and such. The fact that I can accurately reproduce those pieces of information on demand has to mean that I'm storing them in some way. Are there literally a string of neurons with numbers stamped into them? Certainly not. Is there a cloud of neurons that (along with other, connected information), connects to the clouds representing "me", the concept of a "phone", image and tactile checksum-like data allowing me to recognize my current mobile phone, and a ton of other information? Absolutely. And somewhere in that mess, there's a strong link to a numerical sequence that "feels right" when I access those other neural clouds of concepts.

There's something in the physical structure of my brain that encodes various data in a probabilistic, fuzzy, emotionally-connected way, and in a way that will be virtually impossible to identify and understand. The information's still stored.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#133

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

karmajunkie wrote: post #105

I find it somewhat amusing that all of the top comments on a story about how the human brain is not a computer seek to analogize the computer to the brain in order to prove that the brain is in fact a computer, while actual experts on the brain have gone into detail on exactly why that isn't the case. Dunning-Kruger much?

Did they ever compare it to an analog computer? Do they even know what one is? Because analog experts have and there's so many similarities. See my main comment to OP for links.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#134

Post by khedoros » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #44

My the article is misargued mush. It's hard to analyse all 4000 words of it but to pick on a few points: >But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not onl…

I found it odd how he noted rooting and nursing instincts in infants, then said that we aren't born with rules or software. That seems self-contradictory.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#135

Post by radarsat1 » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

karmajunkie wrote: post #102

radarsat1 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even pedantic, it's just wrong. He's ignoring years of neuroscience. We know that the brain uses signals, and that these signals are composed of codes. We know that to interpret the world, certain information processing must take place. We are learning more about the exact nature of this processing, more about how neurons and even other fundamentals of the body code information and contribute to processing (…

Got a few citations on that? Neurons react to stimuli, that's certainly well-established. But codes?

Well, afaik we can't easily record individual neurons inside the brain, although there are some studies towards that goal. Most brain studies work on areas of activity. Even MRI is not that precise, to be frank. But for studying human perception, a technique often used is called microneurography, which involves sticking a probe into the nerve fibers along a known neural pathway and recording the electrical stimulations.

From this we can often find things like:

- frequency of impulses increases as stimulus increases

- different numbers of neurons in a similar area fire simultaneously

Things like that. The wikipedia articles linked by wickedagain contain a good summary. I won't link specific sources, since there are thousands, but here's one for instance:

http://jn.physiology.org/content/85/4/1561

There in fig 6 for example you can see that the frequency of nerve firing increases in the tibial nerve as heat is applied to the paw. (Yes, a lot of information comes from horrible animal studies. It's part of the reason I didn't continue in this domain of work -- although rest assured, this technique is possible with humans, without harm.)

So, do impulses in the perceptual nervous system reflect how brains work, how we think? It's hard to say for sure, but it's clear that information is coded according to certain possibilities related to how neurons work, and this information must be combined and processed somehow to create what we call perceptions. Is it such a stretch to imagine that these perceptions become their own codes, abstract reductions of correlations of perceptual information, that are evaluated, compared, and combined in the much, much more nerve-dense central cortex to produce what we call "thought"?

Re: The brain is not a computer

#136

Post by karmajunkie » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

ef4 wrote: post #119

karmajunkie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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-supercha...

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.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#137

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #103

Freaky wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're suggesting they do this without storing information? Hmm.

The author and several of his sources argue that they do this without internal mental representations of objects.

Comment below you makes powerful counter that there's storage that allows faithful reproduction of stored data. To add to it, I lost most of my memory to a brain injury that destroyed physical elements and reduced interconnections. Result is no recall on all sorts of things. Implies those memories were stored in those connections and physical spaces.

The brain has storage for data. It just works differently, is lossy, and connects with other data for compression or reinforcement. This is still storage.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#138

Post by karmajunkie » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #130

karmajunkie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

I didn't say it wasn't computation. I said it wasn't a computer.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#139

Post by khedoros » Thu, May 19, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

karmajunkie wrote: post #105

I find it somewhat amusing that all of the top comments on a story about how the human brain is not a computer seek to analogize the computer to the brain in order to prove that the brain is in fact a computer, while actual experts on the brain have gone into detail on exactly why that isn't the case. Dunning-Kruger much?

I think the issue is that in our everyday lives, we see people doing things that appear to require collection, storage, retrieval, and processing of information. Honestly, I'd want to see an explanation for how I can do something like drive from home to work without doing some combination of those four things. The article doesn't do that, and in many cases, the examples of human behavior seem to specifically contradict the author's claims.

Re: The brain is not a computer

#140

Post by olleicua » Thu, May 19, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

I feel like the main issue with this article was a failure to adequately define "computer" and "information processing". There were some good points. In particular the fact that a given experience will likely cause completely different changes in the brains of any two individuals is poignant in the face of Kurzweil's claims. If the claim of the article was "Kurzweil is way to optimistic" then it would have been much better. Instead it works from an entirely too specific and poorly defined understanding of what a computer is to argue a point that is fairly difficult to defend.