Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 173 posts

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#91

Post by coreyp_1 »

mamon wrote: post #88
coreyp_1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"any desired level of precision" is actually the issue. The moment you choose a level of precision, you cease being accurate (at that level). If you make the argument that a TM has infinite memory, and can therefore represent an infinite precision, then I would counter that our current defintion of a TM requires a finite tape alphabet (and finite number of states), which is part of the TM's known computational limita…

> It is possible that the brain's imprecision (I would argue that "inconsistency" might be a better word) is a requirement of it's computational ability Is it possible that brain is in fact a quantum computer? I can imagine that under all those neural networks there is a small part where, trapped in some complex protein structure, some qbits exist and are crucial to most advanced brain functions, such as consciousnes…

"Is it possible that brain is in fact a quantum computer?"

It's an interesting thing to ponder.

Quantum computing is still just another computational model, and it's main Advantage is that it involves non determinism. But non determinism, in and of itself, can be modeled by deterministic computer.

I think the biggest problem is that we don't understand what computation is taking place in the brain, or even if it is "computation" according to our current definition of the word. I think that this issue is the biggest problem in reconciling whether or not it is possible to accurately model the human brain.

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#93

Post by sudosysgen »

the_af wrote: post #57
The_rationalist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing Human Brain with a CPU is misconception. no it is not. Yeah architecturally they are very different and CPU are arguably more programmable / general and less efficient. What does matter is whether CPUs are theoretically able to achieve all the things that a brain can do (and even more) And indeed CPUs as turing complete, programmable machine are a strict superset of what brains can do. The gap between what…

Before CPUs existed, we would compare brains to steam engines. There was a very interesting article posted here on HN a while ago, explaining why humans always pattern match their understanding of the "mind" (or "soul") to whatever technology is fashionable in their time: steam engines, computers, etc. It also explained the pitfalls of doing so. I think there is at this time no indication human brains are in any way…

To be fair, CPUs are Turing machines. That makes them much more comparable to anything that mainly does information processing than to anything else.

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#95

Post by partyboat1586 »

derefr wrote: post #80
kristopolous wrote: post #69

They aren't the same thing. They are different classes of objects, different tasks. This comparison is kind of silly. I'd hate my computer to have the memory accuracy or the computational accuracy of my brain. I'd hate to have the creativity and inspiration of a computer. Delete being such a nontrivial operation is probably a good thing for humans. Copy being imperfect probably has something to do with the phenomenon…

> memory accuracy There are individuals with very good memories for all sorts of things, who seem to manage to reconsolidate their memories near-losslessly (at least within the confines of the mental schema they organize said memories into.) Surgeons with anatomy, lawyers and judges with case-law, etc. At this point I’m convinced that the lossy method humans intuitively reconsolidate memories with, isn’t so much a fe…

A surgeon might remember anatomy with great accuracy but he is unlikely to remember the details of some case law nearly as well. Our memories are associative, that is how they differ from computers. It's easy for a surgeon to remember anatomy because he has been immersed in it for a long time and it all interconnects, i.e there are a lot of associations to call up the memory. Computers on the other hand could remember 20 facts about anatomy and 20 facts about case law no problem without needing any framework to attach them to.

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#96

Post by happythomist »

marcosdumay wrote: post #73
cmehdy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CPUs as turing complete, programmable machine are a strict superset of what brains can do In what way can this be proven? It's very tempting in an era of tech-centered growth to think of computers as the solution to everything, but we are barely even beginning to understand the brain. We know computers fairly well and can talk about them, but how can we make such a claim when we don't know the other thing we're tal…

> In what way can this be proven? Proven? Nothing in science is ever proven. But on half a millenium we have failed to find anything that can't be simulated by math, and Turing completeness means a computer can simulate anything that can be simulated by math. We also can simulate all the smallest components of a brain. At this point the claim that math can not simulate it is highly extraordinary.

We have not been able to simulate any aspect of subjective, conscious experience using a mathematical model, and personally I think we have no good reason to believe we ever will. The qualitative, by definition, cannot be quantified.

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#97

Post by jbay808 »

derefr wrote: post #80
kristopolous wrote: post #69

They aren't the same thing. They are different classes of objects, different tasks. This comparison is kind of silly. I'd hate my computer to have the memory accuracy or the computational accuracy of my brain. I'd hate to have the creativity and inspiration of a computer. Delete being such a nontrivial operation is probably a good thing for humans. Copy being imperfect probably has something to do with the phenomenon…

> memory accuracy There are individuals with very good memories for all sorts of things, who seem to manage to reconsolidate their memories near-losslessly (at least within the confines of the mental schema they organize said memories into.) Surgeons with anatomy, lawyers and judges with case-law, etc. At this point I’m convinced that the lossy method humans intuitively reconsolidate memories with, isn’t so much a fe…

I remember when I first took a data structures course, learning things like trees and linked lists, I had a total paradigm shift with respect to how I understood my own mind.

I had never really thought about the different ways that data could be organized, and how they perform differently. I figured that since this was so basic to computer science, my own mind couldn't be doing something completely different. It might not be the same in detail as any computer data structure, but it couldn't be completely unrelated either.

I realized that data structures might make information feel different. For example, I can only tell you what the 16th letter of the alphabet is by counting from "A". I can't sing the alphabet song backwards. These are at least qualitatively characteristics of a singly linked list. The same goes for my phone number and my credit card number. I wouldn't be able to dictate them backwards, except by mentally traversing them forwards and then holding the whole number in my conscious memory as I reverse the digits, or if that's too tiring, traversing it forwards multiple times and stopping at different points.

I have many detailed memories of past events, conversations, and trivial facts, but it's hard for me to remember them on command. I need some kind of prompt to point me to the right index where I can retrieve it.

I agree a lot with the interpretation that we have a messy OS that bungles memory management and does lossy compression and a poor job of disk defrag, running on some very impressive hardware.

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#98

Post by dtnewman »

I imagine a group of dogs sitting around and asking "How are we so good at thinking about fun ways to play with squeeky toys?".

The truth is, that our ability to reason about ourselves is limited by our ability to reason. Perhaps there are aliens out there who would laugh our cognitive abilities--their's being so much better than ours.

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#100

Post by aeternum »

dtnewman wrote: post #98

I imagine a group of dogs sitting around and asking "How are we so good at thinking about fun ways to play with squeeky toys?". The truth is, that our ability to reason about ourselves is limited by our ability to reason. Perhaps there are aliens out there who would laugh our cognitive abilities--their's being so much better than ours.

Most dogs seem to acknowledge that humans are better when it comes to playing with toys, otherwise why would they bring them over for humans to throw?
Post reply on HN