4 ms·

> Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how it works to understand its algorithm? There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the brain is an algo

> Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how it works to understand its algorithm? There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the brain is an algorithm at all. This is just you searching for something where it is easiest to look. Note: not everything is an algorithm.

bermanoid 7y ago
There is absolutely no reason to think the brain is non-algorithmic in any way, to the extent that you can even define such a nonsense statement without waving your hands about quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable, not the opposite: you don't get to invert the burden of proof on that front just because it would make your point (intelligence involves non-algorithmic woo) easier to make. Even neuroscientists, who are more pessimistic about the prospect of AGI than anyone else, generally agree that the brain is ultimately not doing anything involving woo (with the exception of a few notably crazy religious ones), and is effectively just a computer. Neuroscientists think it's doing more involved computations than AI researchers hope, but it's still just crunching data.
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. FWIW, Penrose first posited the idea of QM having some role in consciousness about 30 years ago. I don't remember much about his argument but it seemed plausible and not easily dismissed. BTW Penrose was also a guest on the Rogan experience. Whatever the case, we are still very very very far from understanding the brain when it comes to consciousness. There's room for people to explore possibilities.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  > The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable Two points: a) Not everything is explainable and predictable, and thus under the domain of science. b) There's a huge (maybe infinite?) class of things that are explainable and predictable and yet aren't algorithms. An 'algorithm' is a very specific mathematical concept with a very specific definition. It is quite possible that the brain is explainable and predictable and yet isn't an algorithm. > ...but it's still just crunching data. Only if you expand 'data' to mean every possible physical phenomenon under the sun, which is disingenuous. (Are hormones 'data'? Is electromagnetic radiation? Etc., etc.)
  - bermanoid 7y ago
    I'm saying that the inputs to the brain are data, and the outputs are data. The brain transforms that data in some way, and we have mathematical theorems that say yep, most of the ways data can be transformed can be expressed as an algorithm in any Turing-complete language. If your argument is that the brain leaps past normal computation into hypercomputation or something like that, then you're making an extremely bold claim that doesn't match what we know about the physical universe (there is a long history of arguments about the physical possibility of hypercomputation, and most people don't think it's possible even in theory). I know it sounds expansive to say that everything in the physical world (at least the bits accessible to our experimentation) can be modeled by an algorithm, but that really is the mainstream scientific view, and the edges where people argue about the fringe possibilities most definitely do not apply to the energy/time scales involved with the brain.
quickthrower2 7y ago
I upvoted you because I believe there is a case for the brain not being an 'algorithm' per se. (like ... here is the code:... ) i.e. can be run on any turing-complete computer. And that is it probably requires on timing and architecture too - lots of algorithms running at the same time and being in sync with themselves, the body, the environment. Also algorithm implies something we can understand and make a complete mental model of. Maybe the brain is more like the big ball of mud software we all hate to work on and want to refactor, except in the brain case, "refactoring" would de-optimise the timing I was referring to earlier and perhaps make the brain not work at all. Let alone we all have a different brain! And the brain is self-modifying hardware/software. I think it taking centuries to understand might be correct!
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Even so it would be able to be simulated on a Turing complete computer. Albeit a lot slower.

bermanoid 7y ago

There is absolutely no reason to think the brain is non-algorithmic in any way, to the extent that you can even define such a nonsense statement without waving your hands about quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable, not the opposite: you don't get to invert the burden of proof on that front just because it would make your point (intelligence involves non-algorithmic woo) easier to make. Even neuroscientists, who are more pessimistic about the prospect of AGI than anyone else, generally agree that the brain is ultimately not doing anything involving woo (with the exception of a few notably crazy religious ones), and is effectively just a computer. Neuroscientists think it's doing more involved computations than AI researchers hope, but it's still just crunching data.

crispyambulance 7y ago
> quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. FWIW, Penrose first posited the idea of QM having some role in consciousness about 30 years ago. I don't remember much about his argument but it seemed plausible and not easily dismissed. BTW Penrose was also a guest on the Rogan experience. Whatever the case, we are still very very very far from understanding the brain when it comes to consciousness. There's room for people to explore possibilities.
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable Two points: a) Not everything is explainable and predictable, and thus under the domain of science. b) There's a huge (maybe infinite?) class of things that are explainable and predictable and yet aren't algorithms. An 'algorithm' is a very specific mathematical concept with a very specific definition. It is quite possible that the brain is explainable and predictable and yet isn't an algorithm. > ...but it's still just crunching data. Only if you expand 'data' to mean every possible physical phenomenon under the sun, which is disingenuous. (Are hormones 'data'? Is electromagnetic radiation? Etc., etc.)
- bermanoid 7y ago
  I'm saying that the inputs to the brain are data, and the outputs are data. The brain transforms that data in some way, and we have mathematical theorems that say yep, most of the ways data can be transformed can be expressed as an algorithm in any Turing-complete language. If your argument is that the brain leaps past normal computation into hypercomputation or something like that, then you're making an extremely bold claim that doesn't match what we know about the physical universe (there is a long history of arguments about the physical possibility of hypercomputation, and most people don't think it's possible even in theory). I know it sounds expansive to say that everything in the physical world (at least the bits accessible to our experimentation) can be modeled by an algorithm, but that really is the mainstream scientific view, and the edges where people argue about the fringe possibilities most definitely do not apply to the energy/time scales involved with the brain.

quickthrower2 7y ago

I upvoted you because I believe there is a case for the brain not being an 'algorithm' per se. (like ... here is the code:... ) i.e. can be run on any turing-complete computer. And that is it probably requires on timing and architecture too - lots of algorithms running at the same time and being in sync with themselves, the body, the environment. Also algorithm implies something we can understand and make a complete mental model of. Maybe the brain is more like the big ball of mud software we all hate to work on and want to refactor, except in the brain case, "refactoring" would de-optimise the timing I was referring to earlier and perhaps make the brain not work at all. Let alone we all have a different brain! And the brain is self-modifying hardware/software. I think it taking centuries to understand might be correct!

mrfusion 7y ago
Even so it would be able to be simulated on a Turing complete computer. Albeit a lot slower.