3 ms·
I find it a bit naive that scientists assume that their field can explain everything there is to know about a certain topic. We should weight every assumption
by bezout 6y ago
I find it a bit naive that scientists assume that their field can explain everything there is to know about a certain topic. We should weight every assumption very carefully - especially when dealing with complex biological entities such as the brain.
- chr1 6y agoWhat are the alternatives to explaining everything about the brain? As far as i can tell the possibilities are that it is equivalent to a 1. computation that can be performed on reasonably sized Turing Machine 2. computation that requires too large Turing machine, (in which case we still most likely can build an alternative implementation of a brain using some other physical phenomena) 3. the function that appears to be performed by brain is not performed by brain, so we do not have a way to recreate that function by studying the brain. Whichever of these you assume to be true, the job of the scientist remains the same: poke at the problem until you build a good model of the brain and see if it works or not. And since there is no difference, and there is a huge amount of indirect evidence for the first hypothesis there's nothing wrong with using it as the main working hypothesis.
- jdhendrickson 6y agoSo if not scientists methodically studying a field, who would you turn to for answers? I'm struggling to understand the point of your statement.
- bezout 6y agoJust don’t assume that your field is the only one key to the holy grail. Be open to the other scientific fields
- eevilspock 6y agohttps://xkcd.com/55/ https://xkcd.com/55/
- antattack 6y agoFor one, scientists make observations, form hypothesis, test predictions and repeat. As to the brain, evolution created it - we can replicate and improve it, eventually.