Ten Weirdest Types of Computers

An anonymous reader writes to mention that New Scientist has a quick round-up of what they consider to be the ten weirdest types of computers. The list includes everything from quantum computers, to slime molds, to pails of water. "Perhaps the most unlikely place to see computing power is in the ripples in a tank of water. Using a ripple tank and an overhead camera, Chrisantha Fernando and Sampsa Sojakka at the University of Sussex, used wave patterns to make a type of logic gate called an "exclusive OR gate", or XOR gate."

What about the weirdest computer of all?

[MaDMvD]

The brain.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[MaDMvD]

So I gather you disagree, from your semi-intelligible response? Did we (collective humanity) or did we not create the computer you are reading this on? Did we not bring about the technological advances that are stated in the very article you are replying (hardly) to? If so, then are we not the ultimate computer? Equipped w/ the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc?

Re:It ain't ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK editors, forget this is /.? Do you really think you have to explain the words behind XOR?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

So I gather you disagree, from your semi-intelligible response? Did we (collective humanity) or did we not create the computer you are reading this on? Did we not bring about the technological advances that are stated in the very article you are replying (hardly) to? If so, then are we not the ultimate computer? Equipped w/ the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc?

Nope. We also created the nuclear bomb, but we're not the ultimate explosion.

Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God: the idea that because humans are complex, there must be an even more complex being which created us. In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection.

As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!

BTW, the guy you were responding to was clearly making a joke. Lighten up.

XOR gate

[Jurily]

used wave patterns to make a type of logic gate called an "exclusive OR gate", or XOR gate."

Why the explanation? Are /. readers braindead nowadays? What kind of "news for nerds" needs an explanation of what a XOR is?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[CustomDesigned]

Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God.

You are correct when talking strictly about complexity. Intelligent Design people, however, are talking about "chosen" or "specified" complexity. For instance, the number Boggle arrangements is its complexity, but when a person selects a particular arrangement (as opposed to tossing the cubes), that is specified complexity. If an arrangement forms an English sentence, then your judgment of the likelyhood that this was a random roll or selected by an English speaking person would revolve around the Total English Boggle Combinations / Total Boggle Combinations.

This kind of specified complexity is the mirror of entropy - it can only decrease (the message is gradually eroded), with a proof similar to the laws of thermodynamics. No amount of chance plus natural selection will expand the message to reveal more of what the author intended to say.

The philosophical problem comes with detecting design by non-human intelligence, possibly not even part of this universe. There are a ton of presuppositions as to how to recognize a message vs noise. The SETI project has to assume that the hoped for aliens think like us in certain aspects. And you run smack against the anthropic principal as an all purpose alternative for the philosophical materialist.

The materialist basically says that the Boggle cubes all come up in English because the universe has an English filter that is more likely to destroy combinations that are less like English. It is not surprising to the materialist that the universe has this property (that survival would produce intelligence). It is just the nature of the universe. And if it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

And once you assume that the universe selects for intelligence, it is no longer surprising that the low level systems supporting that intelligence (cell biology) also appear to be designed. A materialist scientist would even act like an ID scientist and look for "evolutionary strategies" as if there were a Designer, because a universe that selects for intelligence is effectively that.

In fact, textbooks talk about how Evolution did this and Evolution did that, and Evolution found an amazing solution to this problem. (Without actually detailing the step by step evolution of this or that.) The text is just as informative if "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "God" is substituted for "Evolution".

The war between philosophical materialism and and intelligent design is essentially a religious war, and has very little to do with science.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of specified complexity is the mirror of entropy - it can only decrease (the message is gradually eroded), with a proof similar to the laws of thermodynamics.

This is, of course, so incomplete as to be bullshit. Thermodynamics only requires entropy to increase globally, or in closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. Therefore any statement that entropy must increase on Earth because of the laws of thermodynamics is simply false. They easily permit locally decreasing entropy at the cost of increased global entropy. Want proof? Clean your room.

The war between philosophical materialism and and intelligent design is essentially a religious war, and has very little to do with science.

It has absolutely nothing to do with science, because intelligent design itself has absolutely nothing to do with science. It only exists to use science-like language as part of a religious argument in order to trap people into thinking that it is somehow related to science.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

I've never heard anyone believe in your claim that God had to be more complex just because we are complex.

Then you've never argued with a creationist. EVERY argument about God eventually breaks down to the idea that a complex system such as a human being cannot be created by chance or natural selection, therefore "God".

A higher power does not imply greater complexity.

Yes, it does. If it's not more complex, then it's not a higher power. If you fail to understand simple symantics like that, I don't see how we can discuss more complex topics.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

I think he was implying that the human wetworks are pretty impressive to have dreamed up taking ones and zeros and making them into such marvelous things

The thing is, the human mind doesn't really do that anyway. Who do you know that programs in binary? And can you imagine a human being creating Windows Vista from scratch, in binary?

Human accomplishments, much like evolutionary progression, are cumulative. Our brains are basically simulation programs - they take data, feed it through a series of filters and rules, and then act on the output. However, since we're able to learn, each successive generation gets a different set of rules and filters, allowing us to work out new problems without first having to go back to basics. As such, it's wrong to say that the human mind created modern computers - rather, the human SPECIES created modern computers. There's a huge difference there. All of our accomplishments owe as much to natural selection and the passage of time as they do to the complexity of the human brain.

But yes, I'd agree that the human brain is an amazingly complex piece of machinery, which is impressively adaptive. If that's what he meant, then we are in 100% agreement.

And to the resolution point. I think you're thinking too literally. Show me a computer that can discern a great masterpiece from a technically proficient work.

Show me a human that can.

Even if we ignore the fact that judging masterpieces has nothing to do with resolution, your argument still makes no sense because the judgement of "masterpieces" is subjective. Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling. On the other hand, the artwork of his own people will doubtless hold great value to him, while being nearly worthless to the average westerner.