alt Hacker NewsThe brain does not have the Von Neumann bottleneck. Unlike most current digital systems, the brain doesn’t have a separate memory registry it needs to pull from.
Engrams, that is, the physical trace of a memory, are not stable through life. They start out in the hippocampus, but as the stimulus recedes in time without reinforcement, it moves away.
No evidence exists though that the memory is encoded in one set of cells. This spatial segregation of memory is the worst hangover from the “brain is a computer” analogy. Even if it is, why in the world would it be like our digital devices which specifically have the Von Neumann bottleneck? In biology, memory and processing are not segregated.
There’s growing evidence the memory is much more distributed over the network, and is recomposed based on salience overlap with a new stimulus.
Another factor to keep in mind is circadian rhythms. There’s growing evidence for how much the memory system and timekeeping system overlap, at a molecular level. Every neuron (and other cell) has an intrinsic clock that ticks at roughly 24 hours, and continues to do so even in total darkness.
When you encode the memory has a lot to say, based on your chronotype, on how and how well you will remember it. Same with learning: there’s a time of day based variation.
Sleep, and dreaming, is when these memories seem to get replayed and critical features and connections are incorporated into the system and its regime, awaiting the right triggers to access a state similar to when the memory formed.
I’m stitching across a lot of different research, and I want to be clear many aspects of this system are not yet fully worked out.
But what we do know points to a system that works with different physical and algorithmic priors, and the dynamics are sharply distinct from current digital computers.
Replies
> The brain does not have the Von Neumann bottleneck
Obviously not, which is why I didn't say it did!
However, if you want to identify where long-term memories are stored, then that is in the cortex, but it should go without saying that this doesn't make the cortex the storage component of a von-Neumann architecture!
> No evidence exists though that the memory is encoded in one set of cells
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Memories are presumably stored as embeddings - a distributed representation, and an episodic memory may well be stored as "chained together" episodic "scenes/chunks" where each chunk recalls the next.
However, a distributed representation isn't the same as a holographic one, and any redundancy may well still be localized within given cortical columns, so I think you may be wrong if you are saying that individual memories/chunks are not confined to one set of cells (some localized neural assembly such as a cortical column).
None of that changes whether there is a physical capacity, which I think was the larger point? There is no reason to believe distributed memory doesn't suffer from the capacity component of the bottleneck. In fact iirc there was some late 80s/early 90s papers on the memory capacity of NN. Btw I would advise against the absolute statement that there's absolute segregation of memory and processing.
I guess my point is the brain not being "von Neumann" in architecture or digital is not proof that isn't a "computer" of some sort.
Does this mean we have unlimited memory storage?
This is really fascinating. The actual mechanisms of the human mind are distinct from computer systems, yet there are some parallels.
There are some hints that increased memory access times scale with the amount of information the brain has stored vs the more typical narrative that aging decreases the capabilities of the brain.
> Our results indicate that older adults'; performance on cognitive tests reflects the predictable consequences of learning on information-processing, and not cognitive decline. We consider the implications of this for our scientific and cultural understanding of aging.
Hijacking your post with a dubious segue because I’m itching to bounce these thoughts off somebody:
I’ve been consuming a lot of talks / writing recently about “enactive” pictures of how our brains function. From what I gather, recent studies have called into question the entire idea of real world concepts being “represented” by an area of the brain at all. While it’s true that atandard fMRI-style snapshots of brain activity are semi-stable over the course of a short experiment, it’s not true over longer timeframes. The response to the same stimulus will change over time. They refer to this as “representational drift” in the literature, and some people are using this to bolster theories of mind that they consider non-representational. They instead emphasize the brain as a kind of dynamical system that learns to “resonate” with the world to pull itself back into homeostasis. The focus shifts away from facts and memories as data, and sees neuronal plasticity more as a mechanism for tuning the brain’s resonant frequencies. This obviously places high importance on the spiking, recurrent nature of actual neurons, as opposed to the neurons-as-functions / back-propagation / ML approach.
My mind’s not made up on how interesting and revolutionary this approach is / isn’t. The distinction seems to be about whether learning is more like “writing to disk” or “tuning a PID controller” - but in either case, the world is leaving a stateful imprint on your brain that will impact how it processes future data. Is that important to understanding how brains work, or is it just semantics?