What’s odd to me about this post is that it doesn’t define algorithm, so I don’t know what the claim is.[1]
The closest to a definition is the third-last section. Which I’d critique because (a) the definition should be at the beginning, but okay that’s just a nitpick about writing/structure, more importantly (b) I read it and I’m still not sure I know what the definition is, and (c) insofar as I understand it, I don’t think it maps onto conventional usage very well (see last section).
My best guess of what you mean based on that section is “anything that’s entirely about data processing in the widest sense is an algorithm”? But I don’t think that maps onto the common usage of the term very well. Also I don’t know how it applies to obscure cases. If you have a knotted wire and make the surface repulsive, it will ‘compute’ a way to disentangle, which is an ‘output’ in the sense that it corresponds to a set of topological transformations, but is this an algorithm? (Probably not because it actually does the disentangling itself, rather than just computing how you would disentangle, so therefore it’s not entirely about data processing?)
Edit: even the mechanical adder seems like an unclear case because it physically instantiates the solution, I guess it’s an algorithm because we don’t care about the physical instantiation, so in this case we can view it as only an informational output rather than a device that “does” anything? But this is not a crisp distinction; what if the mechanical adder were part of a larger system where the physical arrangement of marbles were utilized more?
If I did grasp the distinction correctly, then I don’t think this distinction is all that practically relevant. If the brain used some kind of quantum algorithm that had 100000x computational overhang if it were instantiated on a classical computer,[2] then your conclusion that you could replace the input/output mapping with a computer would still be true, so what does it prove? This seems to me like just a restatement of the Turing thesis, or I guess an application of the thesis to brains?
My practical concern RE (c) is that, imE, the concept of algorithm is generally seen as implying that the manner in which the brain does computation is similar to what a computer does, but that’s totally orthogonal to what you discuss here. So I can see people taking away the wrong thing.
“anything that’s entirely about data processing in the widest sense is an algorithm”? But I don’t think that maps onto the common usage of the term very well.
Not sure exactly what you have in mind. I do think “the kinds of things that would be discussed in current and future algorithms textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the brain does useful things (like navigating the world, avoiding threats, seeking opportunities, inventing tools and concepts, etc.), just as “the kinds of things that would be discussed in camera textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the human eye captures images.
Well, more specifically, the human eye is in the Venn diagram overlap between the design & engineering principles of image capture, and the biological constraints (e.g., the affordances of biological cells, and there has to be an evolutionary pathway, etc.). So to understand the human eye, you need to understand both the design principles from physics textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
By the same token, to understand the human brain, you need to understand both the design & engineering principles from algorithms textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
This seems to me like just a restatement of the Turing thesis, or I guess an application of the thesis to brains
Something like that. If you think it’s obvious, that’s great! I guess you’re not the target audience.
Hmm, okay. So after reflecting on this a bunch, I think the things that still bug me about this post after reading your clarification aren’t about factual merits but about implications and tone. I’m not sure what the best practice in such a case is, maybe just not saying anything is best. I guess tell me if you prefer I didn’t write this response lol. But decided to say it this time.
I think this post is a) mostly attacking a strawman, in that most people who you think disagree with you actually do so for different reasons (although not everyone, I concede some people will disagree with the algorithm thing as you define it) and b) even insofar as they do exist, the net effect of this post will be substantially negative because it’s antagonizing, mocking, and unpersuasive.
E.g.:
The hilarious irony of psychedelics is:[4]
Objectively, psychedelics should be the most clear-cut evidence you could imagine for the idea that the brain is a machine that runs an algorithm, and that the mind is something that this algorithm does. After all, these tiny molecules, which just so happen to lock onto a widespread class of neuron receptors, create seismic shifts in consciousness, beliefs, perceptions, and so on.
…And yet, the people who actually take psychedelics are much likelier to stop believing that. Ironic.
This would feel right at home in r/sneerclub, which is odd to me because your posts usually have a very humble vibe. And yea I guess I don’t understand what your theory of mind is for how something good will result from anyone reading this.
But yea feel free not to reply, and can not express similar things in the future if you want.
What’s odd to me about this post is that it doesn’t define algorithm, so I don’t know what the claim is. [1]
The closest to a definition is the third-last section. Which I’d critique because (a) the definition should be at the beginning, but okay that’s just a nitpick about writing/structure, more importantly (b) I read it and I’m still not sure I know what the definition is, and (c) insofar as I understand it, I don’t think it maps onto conventional usage very well (see last section).
My best guess of what you mean based on that section is “anything that’s entirely about data processing in the widest sense is an algorithm”? But I don’t think that maps onto the common usage of the term very well. Also I don’t know how it applies to obscure cases. If you have a knotted wire and make the surface repulsive, it will ‘compute’ a way to disentangle, which is an ‘output’ in the sense that it corresponds to a set of topological transformations, but is this an algorithm? (Probably not because it actually does the disentangling itself, rather than just computing how you would disentangle, so therefore it’s not entirely about data processing?)
Edit: even the mechanical adder seems like an unclear case because it physically instantiates the solution, I guess it’s an algorithm because we don’t care about the physical instantiation, so in this case we can view it as only an informational output rather than a device that “does” anything? But this is not a crisp distinction; what if the mechanical adder were part of a larger system where the physical arrangement of marbles were utilized more?
If I did grasp the distinction correctly, then I don’t think this distinction is all that practically relevant. If the brain used some kind of quantum algorithm that had 100000x computational overhang if it were instantiated on a classical computer, [2] then your conclusion that you could replace the input/output mapping with a computer would still be true, so what does it prove? This seems to me like just a restatement of the Turing thesis, or I guess an application of the thesis to brains?
My practical concern RE (c) is that, imE, the concept of algorithm is generally seen as implying that the manner in which the brain does computation is similar to what a computer does, but that’s totally orthogonal to what you discuss here. So I can see people taking away the wrong thing.
Well I guess there’s two claims, machine and algorithm, but the first I have no issues with so I’m only talking about the second here.
I don’t think it does, this is a hypothetical only
Not sure exactly what you have in mind. I do think “the kinds of things that would be discussed in current and future algorithms textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the brain does useful things (like navigating the world, avoiding threats, seeking opportunities, inventing tools and concepts, etc.), just as “the kinds of things that would be discussed in camera textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the human eye captures images.
Well, more specifically, the human eye is in the Venn diagram overlap between the design & engineering principles of image capture, and the biological constraints (e.g., the affordances of biological cells, and there has to be an evolutionary pathway, etc.). So to understand the human eye, you need to understand both the design principles from physics textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
By the same token, to understand the human brain, you need to understand both the design & engineering principles from algorithms textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
Something like that. If you think it’s obvious, that’s great! I guess you’re not the target audience.
Hmm, okay. So after reflecting on this a bunch, I think the things that still bug me about this post after reading your clarification aren’t about factual merits but about implications and tone. I’m not sure what the best practice in such a case is, maybe just not saying anything is best. I guess tell me if you prefer I didn’t write this response lol. But decided to say it this time.
I think this post is a) mostly attacking a strawman, in that most people who you think disagree with you actually do so for different reasons (although not everyone, I concede some people will disagree with the algorithm thing as you define it) and b) even insofar as they do exist, the net effect of this post will be substantially negative because it’s antagonizing, mocking, and unpersuasive.
E.g.:
This would feel right at home in r/sneerclub, which is odd to me because your posts usually have a very humble vibe. And yea I guess I don’t understand what your theory of mind is for how something good will result from anyone reading this.
But yea feel free not to reply, and can not express similar things in the future if you want.