Comments on: Design *for* our brains, not *like* our brains http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/ on programming, usability, and design; by Patrick Dubroy Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:34:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Anne Truitt Zelenka » links for 2007-11-30 http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/#comment-6366 Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:30:52 +0000 http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/#comment-6366 <p>[...] Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Journalism andObjectivity [...]</p> […] Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Journalism andObjectivity […]

]]> by: Patrick http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/#comment-6337 Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:41:00 +0000 http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/#comment-6337 <p>I totally agree. It makes it even worse to propose building software like our minds work when we know almost nothing about how our minds work. Like the flapping flying machines, which were based on a totally superficial analysis of flight.</p> I totally agree. It makes it even worse to propose building software like our minds work when we know almost nothing about how our minds work. Like the flapping flying machines, which were based on a totally superficial analysis of flight.

]]> by: e http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/#comment-6335 Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:35:50 +0000 http://dubroy.com/blog/2007/11/29/design-for-our-brains-not-like-our-brains/#comment-6335 <p>I would be interested in seeing Gelernter's source for ...minds classify information when it is taken out. (Yesterday afternoon at four you stood with Natasha on Fifth Avenue in the rain — as you might recall when you are thinking about “Fifth Avenue,” “rain,” “Natasha” or many other things. But you attached no such labels to the memory when you acquired it. The classification happened retrospectively.)</p> <p>I'm not a neurologist, and neither is he. To my knowledge, humanity hasn't figured out the intricacies of recall. </p> <p>Statements like that remind me of assumptions made by AI researchers: <i>neurons work by computing a set of incoming levels and multicasting a set of outgoing levels. If I make a bunch of things that do that, attach them in series, I'll have a brain</i>. That train of logic was tenuous when it was first posited in the 60s. Given what we know about the functioning of neurons now, it seems even more ridiculous.</p> I would be interested in seeing Gelernter’s source for
…minds classify information when it is taken out. (Yesterday afternoon at four you stood with Natasha on Fifth Avenue in the rain — as you might recall when you are thinking about “Fifth Avenue,” “rain,” “Natasha” or many other things. But you attached no such labels to the memory when you acquired it. The classification happened retrospectively.)

I’m not a neurologist, and neither is he. To my knowledge, humanity hasn’t figured out the intricacies of recall.

Statements like that remind me of assumptions made by AI researchers: neurons work by computing a set of incoming levels and multicasting a set of outgoing levels. If I make a bunch of things that do that, attach them in series, I’ll have a brain. That train of logic was tenuous when it was first posited in the 60s. Given what we know about the functioning of neurons now, it seems even more ridiculous.

]]>