Print

Print


On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:25 AM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Garth Wallace, On 26/09/2011 20:42:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM, And Rosta<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I am too ignorant to be able to understand "for an element on a stack,
>>> you
>>> just need the content of the element and a pointer to the memory address
>>> where the next element is found", tho I encourage you to explain it
>>> further
>>> if you think I'm missing something important. My understanding of stacks
>>> in
>>> human parsing (but also in Fith) is it proceeds left to right using a
>>> last-in-first-out 'stack' (i.e. a kind of list) where only the item on
>>> the
>>> top of the stack, i.e. the last item added to the list, is accessible to
>>> processing.
>>
>> That's how the abstraction works (though I think a vertical metaphor
>> makes more sense for a "stack"; left to right makes more sense for a
>> queue, but that's just me), and that's how you'd usually draw a
>> diagram of it, but there's no left or right on a memory chip. Instead,
>> your program keeps the memory address of the topmost element of the
>> stack. If it needs the data in that topmost element, it can access it
>> directly by reading from that memory address. The topmost element in
>> turn contains the address of the element below it, that element
>> contains the address of the element below it, and so on. It's pretty
>> simple for computers because memory is compartmentalized and
>> enumerable.
>>
>> But, from what I understand (and I'm not a cognitive scientist),
>> current models of short-term memory don't look anything like that.
>
> So you think there is no plausible way of implementing the
> stack/shift-reduce algorithm in wetware? That wetware does somehow manage to
> implement the algorithm does have empirical support, because processing
> difficulty correlates with the number of items on the putative stack and
> with the number of operations during which an item remains on it. I have no
> idea what's going on at the neurological level, tho the phenomenon of
> gradual fading from short-term memory looks to the layperson like me like it
> has to do with neural activation levels. In sum, we have a hypothesis that
> gives good predictions about processing difficulty but, you tentatively
> suggest?, lacks any obvious way of being implemented in wetware.

I didn't say there was no plausible way (I don't know enough about
neurology to say that; I don't think neurologists know enough about
neurology to say that!), just that there's no reason to assume that
it's simple in wetware just because it's simple in silicon.