There seems to be a sort of universal confusion between "computer", digital computer", "stored program computer", et al.
My very first computer program composed rock and roll melodies on a Borroughs E-101. It was a plugboard programmed electromechanical digital computer with no stored program. It WAS a computer, though not the sort that most folks here are used to dealing with. Steve On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 4:19 PM Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-Med4fda1593e43f2a72777092> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M57eb2234de4e835ba1ee55bf Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
