Your brain does not process information and it is not a computer | Aeon Essays (aeon.co)

submitted 5 months ago by plinky@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don't think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago

I’m talking about visual memory what you see when you recall it, not about image recognition. Computers could recognize faces 30 years ago.

I’m suggesting that it’s not linked lists, or images or sounds or bytes in some way, but rather closer to persistent hallucinations of self referential neural networks upon specified input (whether cognitive or otherwise), which also mutate in place by themselves and by recall but yet not completely wildly, and it’s rather far away picture from memory as in engraving on stone tablet/leather/magnetic tape/optical storage/logical gates in ram. Memory is like a growing tree or an old house is not exactly most helpful metaphor, but probably closer to what it does than a linked list

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago

I’m talking about visual memory what you see when you recall it, not about image recognition

What is 'visual memory', then?
Also, on what grounds are you going to claim that a computer can't have 'visual memory'?
And why is image recognition suddenly irrelevant here?

So far, this seems rather arbitrary.
Also, people usually do not keep a memory of an image of a poem if they are memorising it, as far as I can tell, so this pivot to 'visual memory' seems irrelevant to what you were saying previously.

I’m suggesting that it’s not linked lists, or images or sounds or bytes in some way, but rather closer to persistent hallucinations of self referential neural networks upon specified input

So, what's the difference?

which also mutate in place by themselves and by recall but yet not completely wildly

And? I can just as well point out the fact that hard drives and SSDs do suffer from memory corruption with time, and there is also the fact that a computer can be designed in a way that its memory gets changed every time it is accessed. Now what?

Memory is like a growing tree or an old house is not exactly most helpful metaphor, but probably closer to what it does than a linked list

Things that are literally called 'biological computers' are a thing. While not all of them feature ability to 'grow' memory, it should be pretty clear that computers have this capability.

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago

What is visual memory indeed in informational analogy, do tell me? Does it have consistent or persistent size, shape or anything resembling bmp file?

The difference is neural networks are bolted on structures, not information.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago

What is visual memory indeed in informational analogy, do tell me?

It's not considered as some special type of memory in this context. Unless you have a case for the opposite, this stuff is irrelevant.

Does it have consistent or persistent size, shape or anything resembling bmp file?

Depends on a particular analogy.
In any case, this question seems irrelevant and rather silly. Is the force of a gravitational pull in models of Newtonian physics constant, does it have a shape, is it a real number, or a vector in R^2, or a vector in R^3, or a vector in R^4, or some other sort of tensor? Obviously, that depends on the relevant context regarding those models.

Also, in what sense would a memory have a 'shape' in any relevant analogy?