Hi Steve, I am aware of a huge variety of analogue simulators used back in the day. My favourites are usually associated with the old-school cyberneticists. Not the one you mentioned. Never mind, it's moot.
I've just posted to the 'test' thread, where you'll find more clarity on the meaning of the word 'computer', in contrast to the word 'computation'. The word computer, as you know, originally referred to a human. Now the word refers to (mostly) von-neumann architecture chips used to automate the exploration of abstract symbolic models. Analogue computers are still an exploration of a model of a brain, not the physics of a brain's computation being itself (not a model of a brain, but a brain). That is what I use the word for. The brain is not von-neumann architecture. Not a computer. More generally, it refers to a Turing machine. Brains perform computations using brain physics for the purposes of implementing an adaptive control system for a the creature containing it. It's the difference between the functional capabilities that is the question. That is, the context under which a brain, and a computed (on a Turing machine) model of a brain, are literally indistinguishable. Is the space of all computation by a brain identical to, or a superset of, or only a partly overlapping with the space of all computation by a Turing machine? I am not saying they are not actually equivalent in some context (of the model of the brain). What I am saying is the obvious: If all you ever do is use computers (as I define it), then you are testing for assumed truth of the equivalence (computer physics vs brain physics). You are not doing that part of the science of the proof-of-equivalence that tests for falsehood: where and how the two part company. That's the science done in the ? part of the diagram in the other thread. Cheers Colin On Thu., 27 Jun. 2019, 3:28 am Steve Richfield, <[email protected]> wrote: > Colin, > > You are apparently unaware of the varied history of analog computers, that > include things like electrolytic computers that operated in small tanks of > conductive liquid. These were used to design motors and transformers using > the similarity of electric fields to magnetic fields. > > Also, the hand-crank mechanical tide computer now in a case at NOAA > headquarters, that saw more than a century of usefull full time service. > > Like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, a computer is > anything that usefully computes, REGARDLESS of the intent or perception of > others. > > By this standard, a brain clearly IS a computer. What argument can there > be that it is NOT a computer? > > Steve > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 5:23 PM Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed., 26 Jun. 2019, 4:25 am Steve Richfield, < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Stefan, >>> >>> I probably have more neuroscience background than anyone else on this >>> list, possibly excepting Colin, having worked as a research assistant in >>> the Department of Neurological Surgery at the University of Washington, so >>> I suggest caution when challenging me in that venue. >>> >>> I might also be the only one on this list who has actually held a job as >>> a mathematician at a university department (University of Washington >>> Physics and Astronomy Department). You appear to be clueless in this venue, >>> at least as it intersects with neuroscience. >>> >>> My long-term goal is to fuse mathematics, neuroscience, and computer >>> science into a single effort leading to AGI and beyond. >>> >>> Please excuse my talking down to this audience - in my possibly hopeless >>> efforts to guide this fusion. >>> >>> My main impediment seems to be the few talented people in each of those >>> disciplines who ignorantly dismiss the value of those in the other >>> disciplines. >>> >>> People like you, who see things that obviously are part of the function >>> of neurosystems, but can't (yet?) grok their mathematical significance, so >>> they can apply this understanding to their programming. >>> >>> There are others like you in the other disciplines - like Colin, who >>> immediately dismissed the prospect of ANY sort of mathematics operating in >>> neurons, etc >>> >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> Can I issue my own millionth ARGHHH!!?? and a word of clarification. >> There's a great big crack of misaligned meaning into which your perspective >> on my position has fallen. >> >> The brain's signalling is 100% computation. Agreed. Right there with >> everyone. >> >> What I am saying is that it's NOT A COMPUTER. Sorry to shout. But this >> keeps being missed. The confusion... Is of (a) natural signalling physics >> doing computation with (b) (the physics of) a computer exploring the >> numerical/symbolic properties of a mathematical abstraction of the natural >> computation. >> >> Both are mathematical activities. >> >> I do not deny the presence of mathematics at all! >> >> What I question is the unproved HYPOTHESIS (sometimes called 'substrate >> independence', it has various names), that (a) and (b) are or can be >> functionally indistinguishable. >> >> Neither do I deny that potential equivalence! >> >> What I vehemently demand is that if anyone claims the (a)/(b) equivalence >> hypothesis is proved, they are wrong. This is because the correct science >> that tests the equivalence has not started. >> >> Why? Because if it had started we'd be comparing what computers do with >> what an inorganic version of the brain's signalling physics does. It >> involves a real test for potential disparity between (a) and (b) .... That >> the hypothesis is false. Instead of the universal assumption of the >> equivalence, and confinement to the use of computers. >> >> The science process that examines potential falsehood of (a)/(b) >> equivalence is the appropriate form of the empirical science involving an >> artificial version of brain-physics-as-computation, has never been >> attempted or even proposed. >> >> You may strongly believe that (a) and (b) are equivalent. You may be >> deeply unable to see how (a) and (b) could possibly not be equivalent. >> >> These are just opinions and have no place in science. Neither of these is >> an argument that they are/are not equivalent. >> >> If you want to prove it: DO THE EMPIRICAL SCIENCE CORRECTLY >> >> I have a design for a chip that does the exact kind of computation >> performed by brain's, done with the same physics. It's not a computer. >> Someone else could have their own chip design. >> >> Have I made myself clear? I'm not saying computers can or cannot do >> anything. I am saying that in the context of the brain, the equivalence of >> brain-based computation and a computed model of what the brain does is >> being inappropriately assumed true without any scientific proof of the kind >> demanded in every other science of a natural phenomenon. >> >> I hope a have made the state of affairs clear: the science is all messed >> up. It's gone on way too long. >> >> The catch phrase? >> >> "Brains? Yep, they are 100% computation and 100% not a computer" >> >> If you can get the difference, it will transform AGI and out it back on >> the right path after 65 years of (perhaps justified, but clearly now past >> its use-by) deformity. >> >> Cheers >> Colin >> >> >> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Meb736683df8b84e92c50319b> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Med4fda1593e43f2a72777092 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
