I don't see where I ever disputed that specialized hardware is better than general purpose hardware at the task for which it is specialized; in fact, I specifically made note of that. Is there a reason you think it refutes a part of the thesis I was presenting?
The claim under contention is that there's some root deficiency of the vNA at computing in general, that perhaps could be surpassed by some ingenious FP-inspired model. If the only "limit" or "inefficiency" of vNA is that it doesn't achieve ASIC level efficient on every task, that's not much of a criticism. Even applied "horribly" to hosting discussion forums, the vNA is light years beyond all other general hardware.
I was under the assumption that a more substantial criticism of vNA was being offered. But the above criticism makes no sense unless it were somehow economical to rearchitect a computer for every distinct problem you plan to work on.
I was disputing your claim that brains are less efficient than vNA based computers. My point is that for vast majority of tasks we face on a daily basis, our brains are vastly more efficient than our computers. Note that a brain is a general purpose, non vNA based hardware.
My conclusion: we should try to build a brain-like hardware out of silicon, as soon as we learn enough about how brains work.
The claim under contention is that there's some root deficiency of the vNA at computing in general, that perhaps could be surpassed by some ingenious FP-inspired model. If the only "limit" or "inefficiency" of vNA is that it doesn't achieve ASIC level efficient on every task, that's not much of a criticism. Even applied "horribly" to hosting discussion forums, the vNA is light years beyond all other general hardware.
I was under the assumption that a more substantial criticism of vNA was being offered. But the above criticism makes no sense unless it were somehow economical to rearchitect a computer for every distinct problem you plan to work on.