Believing Any Of these 10 Myths About What Is A Billiard Player Keeps You From Rising > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Now let’s take the information term. The long-established practitioners, Mr. Wrench and Mr. Toller; were just now standing apart and having a friendly colloquy, in which they agreed that Lydgate was a jackanapes, just made to serve Bulstrode's purpose. He would find himself having to use these terms because they are, to the best of our knowledge, the best terms we have to explain the regularities we observe. They never go away entirely, but my suspicion, Sam, is that the author of that article will simply find a language that doesn’t have its roots in the world of information, and apply these new terms. Think about your visual system: When you open your eyes in the morning and you don’t know what’s out there in the world, electromagnetic energy, which is transduced by photoreceptors in your retina and then transmitted through the visual cortex, allows you to know something about the world that you did not know before. Where we run into trouble is if we don’t move to mathematics but remain in the world of metaphor. Harris: And yet we don’t have to use terms like "hydraulic pumps" or "four humors." We can grant that there have been bad analogies in the past where the details were not conserved going forward.

Harris: Let’s forget about the math for second and talk about something that’s perilously close to metaphor. That’s the computer term. Te - An Okinawan term which means "hand". You described it as "consilience," in Ed Wilson’s term. Here is the value, or the utility and disutility, of the concept. That magazine article you mentioned is criticizing the information concept, not the computer concept-which is limited, and we all agree, but the information concept is not, right? Most important, the brain is constantly rewiring and adapting based on inputs, and your computer is not. Then, in the 1950s, actually ‘58, John Von Neumann wrote a book, the famous book The Computer and the Brain. John Von Neumann himself realized it was a metaphor, but he thought it was very powerful. The value of what Turing and Von Neumann did was to give us a framework for starting to understand how a problem-solving machine could operate. And the model of problem-solving itself is what we mean by computation.

We tend to use whatever current model we use and project that onto the natural world as almost the best-fitting template for how it operates. In my brain, they’re combined into a coherent representation of an object in the world. But I can sever the two hemispheres of the brain, and you can still function. Different with existing evidence theory, the new mass function in complex evidence theory is modelled as complex numbers and named as meta mass function. The information theory of the brain allows us to build cochlear implants. But as I say, it’s useful as a full experiment for how the brain might operate. They said perhaps what Alan Turing did in his paper on intelligent machinery has given us the mathematical machinery for understanding the brain itself. We didn’t really have in our mind’s eye an understanding of how that could work, and they gave us a model of how it could work. Even in that article, he was talking about the nervous system being changed by experience-he just didn’t want to talk about the resulting changes in terms of "memory" or "information storage" or "encoding" or anything else that suggested an analogy to a computer.

It’s a memory for structure and physiology and even for certain behaviors that have proved adaptive in the past. I think the article is so utterly confused that it’s almost not worth attending to. It has to do with this legitimate fear of anthropomorphism, and I think that what we do in these sorts of more exact sciences is try to pin down our definitions so as to eliminate some of the ambiguities. I think there’s a very real sense in which education and learning make you smarter. So taking away a map doesn’t just make you worse at getting from one door to another, it makes you worse in many ways. These meta-critical dicta typically make general pronouncements ("all sentences are meaningless" or "There is no such thing as truth"), and assume some unjustified exemption from its own pronouncement. Krakauer: Absolutely, What is a billiard player that’s what we are talking about. The extent to which that’s useful is proved by neuro-prosthetics. The neurons are densely wired, whereas that’s not true of computer circuits, which are only locally wired. The beautiful thing-that’s why mathematics is so extraordinarily powerful-is that once we move to the mathematical model of memory, exactly as you say, you can demonstrate that there are memories stored in genes, there are memories stored in the brain, and they bear an extraordinary family resemblance through the resemblance in the mathematical equations.