3 ms·

> 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 w

> 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
    > 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. I didn't mean that in a way physicists at the turn of XIX century meant, i.e. "we've discovered everything that is to be discovered, what remains is just refining results to more fractional digits". My point is that whether we stumble upon a new scientific revolution behind that nth digit or whether it hits us suddenly out of a blue, it all has to add to normality. The world didn't start to behave any different when we discovered quantum physics. > 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. Oh I have a pretty strong view of science, namely that 90% of "soft sciences" developed in the last few decades is utter crap, and so is most of the recent medicine. Physics has it little better, because things are easier to empirically verify; you can't bullshit your way through it so easily because someone will notice, at the latest when they try to build a device based on your research and realize electrons don't give a damn about p-values. I just think - and that again is my determination based on the things I've read and learned - that we have enough direct, physics-rooted evidence to prefer "brain computes everything" over "brain is just an antenna" as a theory. Probably not enough to reject the latter, but enough to prefer the former.
- dTal 11y ago
  >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 You might enjoy the web serial "Fine Structure" by qntm (Sam Hughes).

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
  > 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. I didn't mean that in a way physicists at the turn of XIX century meant, i.e. "we've discovered everything that is to be discovered, what remains is just refining results to more fractional digits". My point is that whether we stumble upon a new scientific revolution behind that nth digit or whether it hits us suddenly out of a blue, it all has to add to normality. The world didn't start to behave any different when we discovered quantum physics. > 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. Oh I have a pretty strong view of science, namely that 90% of "soft sciences" developed in the last few decades is utter crap, and so is most of the recent medicine. Physics has it little better, because things are easier to empirically verify; you can't bullshit your way through it so easily because someone will notice, at the latest when they try to build a device based on your research and realize electrons don't give a damn about p-values. I just think - and that again is my determination based on the things I've read and learned - that we have enough direct, physics-rooted evidence to prefer "brain computes everything" over "brain is just an antenna" as a theory. Probably not enough to reject the latter, but enough to prefer the former.
dTal 11y ago
>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 You might enjoy the web serial "Fine Structure" by qntm (Sam Hughes).