3 ms·

/2. Most of the brain's computation is not involved in cognition. That may be true. We don't really know./ I thought this at least was fairly well understood:

/2. Most of the brain's computation is not involved in cognition. That may be true. We don't really know./ I thought this at least was fairly well understood: We do in fact use our whole brains, as anything less would be a fantastic waste of resources, which evolution would have taken care of long ago. We have numerous human-specific adaptations to deal with the relatively massive brains we're carrying around.

causi 5y ago
When you're building an AI you may not need the neurons involved with, for example, breathing. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist so I don't know for sure whether all the neurons we use for muscle and organ control do double-duty to help us cogitate.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  Depending on what you think about the AGI-ness of other mammals, this could be helpful to meditate upon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio "In animals, it is thought that the larger the brain, the more brain weight will be available for more complex cognitive tasks. However, large animals need more neurons to represent their own bodies and control specific muscles;[clarification needed][citation needed] thus, relative rather than absolute brain size makes for a ranking of animals that better coincides with the observed complexity of animal behaviour. The relationship between brain-to-body mass ratio and complexity of behaviour is not perfect as other factors also influence intelligence, like the evolution of the recent cerebral cortex and different degrees of brain folding,[5] which increase the surface of the cortex, which is positively correlated in humans to intelligence."
gragundier 5y ago
Not necessarily. If a brain provides enough of a evolutionary advantage, it might still be a wondrously unoptimal hacky piece of sphagetti.

causi 5y ago

When you're building an AI you may not need the neurons involved with, for example, breathing. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not a neuroscientist so I don't know for sure whether all the neurons we use for muscle and organ control do double-duty to help us cogitate.

sdenton4 5y ago
Depending on what you think about the AGI-ness of other mammals, this could be helpful to meditate upon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio "In animals, it is thought that the larger the brain, the more brain weight will be available for more complex cognitive tasks. However, large animals need more neurons to represent their own bodies and control specific muscles;[clarification needed][citation needed] thus, relative rather than absolute brain size makes for a ranking of animals that better coincides with the observed complexity of animal behaviour. The relationship between brain-to-body mass ratio and complexity of behaviour is not perfect as other factors also influence intelligence, like the evolution of the recent cerebral cortex and different degrees of brain folding,[5] which increase the surface of the cortex, which is positively correlated in humans to intelligence."

gragundier 5y ago

Not necessarily. If a brain provides enough of a evolutionary advantage, it might still be a wondrously unoptimal hacky piece of sphagetti.