Probably what most people mean by computer is roughly the usual common sense digital or perhaps quantum computer. There are also theoretical hypercomputers. I guess I would define computer simply as something that follows the usual form:
input -- function -- output Input and output might be feedback oriented -- the output is part of the input. Or, there may be no output. Maybe a computer just inputs and makes a computation. I think the only hard requirement is that there is some kind of function happening based upon the input and there will almost certainly be output. So, I my opinion is a brain qualifies as a computer -- under the looser definition. Mike A On 6/26/19, Steve Richfield <steve.richfi...@gmail.com> 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 <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed., 26 Jun. 2019, 4:25 am Steve Richfield, >> <steve.richfi...@gmail.com> >> 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-Mf5fa96e49ab106773fb4c745> >> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M69d163c1315d244b4056592d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
