|
So what the article is saying is that... the brain is better than computers? Well, yeah. The argument that we a signal based computing system is ludicrous in terms of current hardware.
His main argument is that current, algorithm based programming doesn't work correctly in terms of timing; we have to wait for the processor to do its job. That argument holds true for signal based programming, too, unless we radically redesign our current hardware to, in essence, emulate our brains. If we could do that, don't you think we already would have? It's being worked on right now, but it's a long way from being implemented.
I agree that his intentions are noble, and if it was workable it would increase speed and reliability of computers; however, the logic seems circular to me. In order to increase effeciency, we must develop a more efficient means of computing, in order to develop a more efficient means of programming.
First, we have to have the hardware. Then this way of looking at the problem might work.
|