4 ms·

I think there is a valid counter argument to what you say here. Just because we hear sound come out of the radio does not mean that this sound is created by the

I think there is a valid counter argument to what you say here. Just because we hear sound come out of the radio does not mean that this sound is created by the radio. Disabling various regions inside the radio will also cause various malfunctions. > I think we know enough about brains of living things to be pretty sure... Did you read the article? Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's why I wrote that it must be at least orchestrated, in a way that a radio orchestrates the sound by tuning in on correct frequency, amplifying and decoding (digital) or doing FM->AM conversion. I'm not saying that the original comment is for sure 100% wrong. > Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain. Yes and no. Our understanding is very selective; we definitely lack the details on everything, but we know the general picture and details of some parts - which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works. We know for instance that if brain is in fact just an antenna, it's not for anything that goes over EM spectrum, and most likely neither by any particle known to us. Otherwise we'd have figured it out already by accident - people would drop dead underground or close to (shielded) nuclear reactors. On the other hand, we can pull things that look like intermediate computation results out of brains via fMRI. This does not discard original comment's hypothesis, but lets us classify it as "extremely, extremely unlikely".
- mathgenius 11y ago
  > which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). At the other bottom (and this is perhaps a more orthodox concern) is "chaoplexology", emergent phenomena and all of that. If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? (btw i'm not suggesting this is literally how we evolved, but just to give a different perspective on evolution as we currently conceive it.)
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). No matter how many more levels are down there, everything has to add up to normality. When we discovered relativity, apples didn't suddenly start to fall up. We may discover new ways of looking at the world, or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit, but the world will work in the same way the day after such discovery as it worked the day before. Unless the fundamental laws of the universe have conditionals that branch on cognitive state of human beings, at which point all bets are off and you can assume anything can happen. We have hovewer no evidence that would suggest that hypothesis over the usual one, that the world works the way it works whether we know how or not. > If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? I would be able to work something out. For starters, that I'm dealing with a computational device. It's hard to imagine what would be the level of technology four billion years old aliens, nor what problems would they be trying to solve - but I'm pretty sure that if you travelled back in time and dropped Isaac Newton a PC with a nuclear battery (and infinite supply of spare parts) he'd figure out some basics of how it works and why it does the thing it does. The very process by which humans do that is called "science". I guess my point is - we definitely don't know everything, but that doesn't allow us to assume "shit's magic" and every point of view is equally valid. There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others.
    - mathgenius 11y ago
      > or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit Indeed, this is where we disagree: you think brain science is at the n-th fractional digit (for some decent value of n) and I see little evidence of this. > There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others. This relies on having good priors and is therefore at the subjective side of science. Perhaps I have a less optimistic view of science than you: as a quite fallible human activity, often deceived, lacking in humility, corrupted by money, and basically chasing after whatever is in fashion at the moment. All of this gets us back to the issues discussed in the original article.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

That's why I wrote that it must be at least orchestrated, in a way that a radio orchestrates the sound by tuning in on correct frequency, amplifying and decoding (digital) or doing FM->AM conversion. I'm not saying that the original comment is for sure 100% wrong. > Seems like we have only a very feeble understanding of the brain. Yes and no. Our understanding is very selective; we definitely lack the details on everything, but we know the general picture and details of some parts - which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works. We know for instance that if brain is in fact just an antenna, it's not for anything that goes over EM spectrum, and most likely neither by any particle known to us. Otherwise we'd have figured it out already by accident - people would drop dead underground or close to (shielded) nuclear reactors. On the other hand, we can pull things that look like intermediate computation results out of brains via fMRI. This does not discard original comment's hypothesis, but lets us classify it as "extremely, extremely unlikely".

mathgenius 11y ago
> which lets us have some confidence about how the thing works I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). At the other bottom (and this is perhaps a more orthodox concern) is "chaoplexology", emergent phenomena and all of that. If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? (btw i'm not suggesting this is literally how we evolved, but just to give a different perspective on evolution as we currently conceive it.)
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > I don't buy this at all. Without understanding root causes, this is just stamp collecting, and we have no clue how far we are from those root causes. At the very bottom (we think) is quantum field theory, which we only really understand in simple situations (eg. single particle interactions). No matter how many more levels are down there, everything has to add up to normality. When we discovered relativity, apples didn't suddenly start to fall up. We may discover new ways of looking at the world, or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit, but the world will work in the same way the day after such discovery as it worked the day before. Unless the fundamental laws of the universe have conditionals that branch on cognitive state of human beings, at which point all bets are off and you can assume anything can happen. We have hovewer no evidence that would suggest that hypothesis over the usual one, that the world works the way it works whether we know how or not. > If a four billion old intelligent alien race handed you one of their computers, do you think you would be able to work it out any time soon? I would be able to work something out. For starters, that I'm dealing with a computational device. It's hard to imagine what would be the level of technology four billion years old aliens, nor what problems would they be trying to solve - but I'm pretty sure that if you travelled back in time and dropped Isaac Newton a PC with a nuclear battery (and infinite supply of spare parts) he'd figure out some basics of how it works and why it does the thing it does. The very process by which humans do that is called "science". I guess my point is - we definitely don't know everything, but that doesn't allow us to assume "shit's magic" and every point of view is equally valid. There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others.
  - mathgenius 11y ago
    > or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit Indeed, this is where we disagree: you think brain science is at the n-th fractional digit (for some decent value of n) and I see little evidence of this. > There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others. This relies on having good priors and is therefore at the subjective side of science. Perhaps I have a less optimistic view of science than you: as a quite fallible human activity, often deceived, lacking in humility, corrupted by money, and basically chasing after whatever is in fashion at the moment. All of this gets us back to the issues discussed in the original article.