What if Humans Could Process Like Computers ?

What if Humans Could Process Like Computers ?

If computers can't handle the object graph, then humans can't handle the data sets and dynamic object graphs. Over-generalization on both parts, but largely true.

What does this statement mean and why is it important to me ?  It means to me that, as humans, I am being a bit silly even trying to do some things myself because it just isn't something I am going to be able to do successfully. So if I can figure out a way to farm out the processing to computers, that might yeild me better results. This would be, for example in comparison to what was appropriate 200 years ago - going to a social event and coming home with charming generalizations to over-apply to relevant situations in my life.

Similarly, this deficiency (me as a human doing things computers could do better) challenges me as a programmer to address software's biggest deficiency, which is where software just can't do very much compared to humans because it is such a challenge to maintain anything reasonable in terms of an object graph.

So what are human's most obvious deficiencies compared to computers ?

1. Data Set Size
2. Rule of 7

Data Set Size is the most obvious thing about computers, most people might easily recognize that you can just park a huge array of data on a computer and just make it grind ( seconds, hours, even days ) until it gets and answer. Humans can't even begin to approach anything like that, so if it's a problem that has a solution that is only knowable after grinding through a bunch of data, then you just aren't going to get a reasonable answer without a computer.

I'll push this a bit by providing an example that not so brilliant, but at least understanable. Should I go ski-ing this year ? Being human, I just want to come up with a yes or no, but if I really wanted to know, then maybe I would want to grind through a bunch of data about expenses and income to come up with how much extra I was going to have at the end of the year, then figure out if I would have enough if I ski in February. Oh heck with it, too much work I'll just go anyway and worry about my finances at the end of the year.

But really there are much more important decisions that we make every day that would be a lot better if we ground through the data first. We don't even think about it because we already can't. Like what would be the best mathematical ratio for outside walls and inside space for a modern house if you wanted energy efficiency ? What is a nice math ratio for how far to drive to work and still have money left if gas goes up 40% ? Etc.

We shouldn't think about things like that because it would require too much "grinding" through data, so we just don't.

Rule of 7

The name "rule of 7" is mine, there is probably a more elegant name for it.

Howard Berg, world' renowned smart person taught me in sunday school one day that there is a generally acknowleged rule about 7 dynamic facts. We might have a zillion things in our head as static or unchanging facts, but if we are going to start grinding out comparisons and thoughts and really get into stuff deep, humans can handle generally between 5 and 9 ( 7 ) ideas for thinking through carefully at one time.

I am sure there is a better way to express this phenomen, feel free to send me a link if you have one.

Main thing is this. If I have to think about things, then it's going to get all muddy if I am keeping more than 7 things to think about at a time. So everything else has to be static or unchanging or not thought about, like the carpet on my floor. I can know it's there and walk on it, but it's not something I am going to think about..

Where this relates to humans is ome problems are more complex than that ! 

Hard to believe, but it's true. If we were to attack the ever popular global warming topic for example, it might be 777 things instead of 7 things to factor into the equation of how to solve the problem. So is that something a human could do well ? Maybe not.

What this means to me

is that I'm missing the point if I am too concerned about either human thought or computer programs either one. Its that marriage between the two that carries the most interest, not either one or the other. Doing philosophy without writing progams would then be silly, and doing programs without thinking somewhat philosophically about what the heck I was trying to do would be just a silly.

2 Is a workable number

If there were zillions of things that computers could do that humans could not, might be too much to tackle. But if it's only two, then it's my intuition that we could bridge that gap. Ontologies are already beginning to bridge the gap on the object graph side as it relates to the rule of 7.  The data sets are already there to a much greater extent than we are using them except at the organizational level. So maybe we are close to bridging that huge gap between the power of otherwise ignorant computers and the sillier limations of human thought, which at least has some inherent understanding ?

Related Links

• Ontology
  • Ontology (Wikipedia)
    
  • OWL (Wikipedia) 
  • OWL (WC3)
• Data Sets
  • CIA Fact Book (Data Set Example)
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics
  • MySpace