5 ms·

The author seems to use the fact that a computer's intelligence can be deconstructed to 0's and 1's as evidence that the computer can't understand what it's pro

The author seems to use the fact that a computer's intelligence can be deconstructed to 0's and 1's as evidence that the computer can't understand what it's processing. Couldn't the processing in the human brain be similarly deconstructed (albeit not to 1's and 0's)?

crooked-v 7y ago
A single cluster of neurons can be analyzed independently and certainly can't understand itself in any sense.
hackinthebochs 7y ago
Absolutely. That brains can be deconstructed into the presence and absence of ion gradients over space and time, and these ion gradients do not understand, does not demonstrate that brains cannot achieve understanding. Using an analogous argument against AI ever being more than dumb pattern matching is fallacious and a serious failure of imagination.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Aren't brains also "dumb pattern match"ers? I see people talking all the time about how machines can't be conscious, but yet, animals are just machines themselves, so what gives? It's religious I think. People just want to be special. Not only as individuals, but also as a species.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    They're apparently not. We can hypothesize without having seen a thing, using previous information. This is different from outputting random single value output. Typically people tend to use generic or vague terms rather than mismatch, which is very different from what ML does. We can also output that we're not certain. And we can use surrounding context on a way current ML cannot.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      Those all still boil down to yes or no. Have you seen it? Yes or no? More than 50% sure? yes or no? More than 90% sure? Yes or no? The neuron either reaches a threshold to fire, or it does not. On or off.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        That's not how biology works, the spiking intervals matter, and when they occur, chemical state of the neuron at many moments, its shape and composition, and myelination. In comparison, DNN are an abacus level of simplicity.
        anon1m0us 7y ago
        Just because something is more complex than we currently can mathematically model, does not mean we cannot mathematically model it. If we can mathematically model it, then we can use 1's and 0's to do so. What you are suggesting is that how we think and observe the world with our brains is not mathematically possible. If that's the case, then Math is wrong, or at best: an approximation to the universe. Implication: Consciousness exists in the gap between the universe and math.

crooked-v 7y ago

A single cluster of neurons can be analyzed independently and certainly can't understand itself in any sense.

hackinthebochs 7y ago

Absolutely. That brains can be deconstructed into the presence and absence of ion gradients over space and time, and these ion gradients do not understand, does not demonstrate that brains cannot achieve understanding. Using an analogous argument against AI ever being more than dumb pattern matching is fallacious and a serious failure of imagination.

anon1m0us 7y ago
Aren't brains also "dumb pattern match"ers? I see people talking all the time about how machines can't be conscious, but yet, animals are just machines themselves, so what gives? It's religious I think. People just want to be special. Not only as individuals, but also as a species.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  They're apparently not. We can hypothesize without having seen a thing, using previous information. This is different from outputting random single value output. Typically people tend to use generic or vague terms rather than mismatch, which is very different from what ML does. We can also output that we're not certain. And we can use surrounding context on a way current ML cannot.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    Those all still boil down to yes or no. Have you seen it? Yes or no? More than 50% sure? yes or no? More than 90% sure? Yes or no? The neuron either reaches a threshold to fire, or it does not. On or off.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      That's not how biology works, the spiking intervals matter, and when they occur, chemical state of the neuron at many moments, its shape and composition, and myelination. In comparison, DNN are an abacus level of simplicity.
      - anon1m0us 7y ago
        Just because something is more complex than we currently can mathematically model, does not mean we cannot mathematically model it. If we can mathematically model it, then we can use 1's and 0's to do so. What you are suggesting is that how we think and observe the world with our brains is not mathematically possible. If that's the case, then Math is wrong, or at best: an approximation to the universe. Implication: Consciousness exists in the gap between the universe and math.