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.