5 ms·
> This paradox may be used by researchers to explain why complete models of the human brain and thinking processes have not been created and will undoubtedly re
by mannykannot 7y ago
> This paradox may be used by researchers to explain why complete models of the human brain and thinking processes have not been created and will undoubtedly remain difficult for years to come.
This assertion would only be justified if we knew enough to create complex models that we do not understand. The reality is that we don't know enough yet to create any sort of working model of the whole human brain and its thinking processes.
- hprotagonist 7y agoEssential nonlinearities are rife in the little of neurophysiology that we've encountered. I am more or less sold on (possibly deterministic) chaotic models for things like tinnitus. That's close enough to "a complex model we cannot understand" for me.
- mannykannot 7y agoMy point is not that Bonini's paradox is false; it is that it is being used incorrectly, in the quoted passage, to 'explain' something that has a different explanation. The paradox itself seems to me to be almost certainly true, but rather trivially so, without adding much at all to our understanding of complex systems. There are a lot of incomplete models that are useful and add to our understanding of the thing being modeled.
- hhs 7y agoInteresting view. You write: “The reality is that we don't know enough yet to create any sort of working model of the whole human brain and its thinking processes.” To me, this sentence seems to mean that it may be possible some time down the road to “know enough” and create a complex model of the human brain that’s understandable. There are also some in philosophy who argue that humans may be cognitively closed off to understanding things like the human brain [0]. They note that humans have biological limits to understanding certain things just like an animal might. For instance, an ant, may have biological limits to its understanding of how certain things work. What do you think of philosophers who argue of cognitive closure? [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure_(philosophy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure_(philosoph....
- ddingus 7y agoWe may actually get something similar, perhaps even empirically. And maybe we understand it. Worse, we think we do.
- anonthrowaway2 7y agoIt's possible and extraordinarily unlikely. I think any philosopher who argues that it's _likely_ humans have a biological limitation preventing us from ever understanding the human brain is going to be making some obvious errors. Got any examples to check?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mannykannot 7y agoI actually phrased that statement that way to avoid and speculation about what might be possible, as it would be a distraction from the point I am making. As it happens, I think it is probable that such a model is possible in principle, and also that a complete model would not be understandable (in which case, Bonnini's paradox would apply, but it is not the reason why we currently don't have such a model). With regard to cognitive closure, I think the first sentence of the article you link to is trivially true, but I have yet to find a good argument against physicalism in matters of the mind, and philosophers cannot agree among themselves. I think it is interesting how little attention is said about biology in these arguments (Paul Churchland is one exception.)
- simonh 7y agoI think that's just a restatement of the point. In order to understand, and therefore create a model, you need to have a complete and thorough understanding of the original, so in terms of comprehension of the problem domain the model doesn't help much.
- PeterisP 7y agoHow about one of the classic examples of 'wrong but useful' models that is Newtonian physics / 'billiard ball' mechanics? Newton didn't have to have a complete and thorough understanding of how physics actually work, the model is not an intentional simplification but subtly wrong because noone know better at the time; however, the Newtonian model still is really helpful in comprehension of the problem domain so we still teach it to students and use it in practice.
- simonh 7y agoThe discussion is about systems that are too complex for us to understand in their original form. For such highly complex systems, accurate models also sometimes have to be so complex we can't understand them either. For simple systems, obviously this is not as much of a problem, or not a problem at all.
- mannykannot 7y agoMy point is that the quoted passage claims, as a fact, something that is merely a hypothesis, and not a well-supported one at that. For example, we have useful models of the weather and climate, despite the intractability of fluid dynamics.