Your brain is not a computer. It contains no data, it performs no calculations. That's simply not how brains work.
It is human nature to compare the working of the brain to the most advanced technology of the time. Back in the Bronze Age, that was weaving, ceramics, and distillation. Thus, humans were made from clay and animated by the spirit/breath of God. The fact that the visible vapors coming off of distilled spirits are flammable is where the imagery of the soul as an eternal flame comes from. Think Pe
It's not a Turing machine, but I'd urge you to study any of the good papers on how neurons work that compare them to individual computational elements. I've already cited this one:
Well, for starters, both the authors listed on that paper died in 1969. And the paper itself was published in 1943. So, not the most up-to-date research. That paper is famously wrong about the fundamental functioning of neurons.
Can you cite a single fundamental error? It is, indeed, nearly 70 years old. Microscopes and electronics have improved since then, so there was certainly room for refinement. But the ideas of small feedback loops interacting to create quite sophisticated sensory or processing systems seems well established.
First of all, there is no evidence at all, that our brains would utilize anything similar to a loss function with a single output, nor backpropagation. These are the essential elements of all neural networks, no neural network can train itself without these. Most neural networks have layers too: no evidence at all that our brain would arrive to conclusions using similarly layered structure. Oh well, you could say, they do have “neurons”, right? Ok, but they are completely different, and if you actually use this comparison for anything, you get into trouble.
Great: Where did the original paper I created say there is no backpropagation, no feedback? The models didn't provide extensive feedback because feedback often occurs at higher layers of mentation, layers too complex to model for such a restricted element. The response to a cold sensation relies extensively on local processing, but the model need not include the higher level behavioral feedback of "why did someone expose their flesh to cold".
> Most neural networks have layers too: no evidence at all that our brain would arrive to conclusions using similarly layered structure.
There is considerable evidence of layered structures, though not identical to those of typical AI models. The sensory neurons associated with the eye, for example, do a great deal of pre-processing with _physical_ layers of the retina, detecting edges, color, and motion with very modest numbers of cells. The point of the paper I cited wasn't to design AI: The idea that, for example, useful processing can be done with startlingly few cells based on their physical response to stimuli and physical structure was not completely new, but was well described and has been cited so many times.
This is not to diminish the accomplishments of modern AI. But do appreciate that biological systems do process data. It's not _binary_ data, but vision, touch, hearing, and even language are still data.
You Brain Is Not a Computer (Score:2)
Your brain is not a computer. It contains no data, it performs no calculations. That's simply not how brains work.
It is human nature to compare the working of the brain to the most advanced technology of the time. Back in the Bronze Age, that was weaving, ceramics, and distillation. Thus, humans were made from clay and animated by the spirit/breath of God. The fact that the visible vapors coming off of distilled spirits are flammable is where the imagery of the soul as an eternal flame comes from. Think Pe
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a Turing machine, but I'd urge you to study any of the good papers on how neurons work that compare them to individual computational elements. I've already cited this one:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~./epxi... [cmu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite a single fundamental error? It is, indeed, nearly 70 years old. Microscopes and electronics have improved since then, so there was certainly room for refinement. But the ideas of small feedback loops interacting to create quite sophisticated sensory or processing systems seems well established.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, there is no evidence at all, that our brains would utilize anything similar to a loss function with a single output, nor backpropagation. These are the essential elements of all neural networks, no neural network can train itself without these. Most neural networks have layers too: no evidence at all that our brain would arrive to conclusions using similarly layered structure. Oh well, you could say, they do have “neurons”, right? Ok, but they are completely different, and if you actually use this comparison for anything, you get into trouble.
https://medium.com/@zabop/why-... [medium.com]
Here's a paper from this century. [hilarispublisher.com]
Re:You Brain Is Not a Computer (Score:2)
Great: Where did the original paper I created say there is no backpropagation, no feedback? The models didn't provide extensive feedback because feedback often occurs at higher layers of mentation, layers too complex to model for such a restricted element. The response to a cold sensation relies extensively on local processing, but the model need not include the higher level behavioral feedback of "why did someone expose their flesh to cold".
> Most neural networks have layers too: no evidence at all that our brain would arrive to conclusions using similarly layered structure.
There is considerable evidence of layered structures, though not identical to those of typical AI models. The sensory neurons associated with the eye, for example, do a great deal of pre-processing with _physical_ layers of the retina, detecting edges, color, and motion with very modest numbers of cells. The point of the paper I cited wasn't to design AI: The idea that, for example, useful processing can be done with startlingly few cells based on their physical response to stimuli and physical structure was not completely new, but was well described and has been cited so many times.
This is not to diminish the accomplishments of modern AI. But do appreciate that biological systems do process data. It's not _binary_ data, but vision, touch, hearing, and even language are still data.