4 ms·

> My naïve hunch tells me that this could be related to rationality in some way, that weakening the ion pump signals could make it easier for cells to learn and

by Garlef 5y ago

> My naïve hunch tells me that this could be related to rationality in some way, that weakening the ion pump signals could make it easier for cells to learn and make alternate computations, creating humans strong rationality that is capable of overriding our natural urges. That's quite a conclusion you're jumping to... "rationality" is a word denoting a very complex concept obtaining its meaning only through a specific historic background including a lot of assumptions that are not as universal as you might think. I would always be very careful when trying to bridge between 1) A physical phenomenon. 2) Concepts derived through a complex cultural discourse. These are two very separate worlds.

netcan 5y ago
Quite, but I don't think GP is jumping to a conclusion. More like proposing an interesting hypothesis.
- Garlef 5y ago
  To say it less politely: To me it seems more like stoner talk. "Quantum entanglement, ... blablabla, ... collective subconscious, ... blablabla, ... everything is connected, man!"
  - astrange 5y ago
    It seems like early modernism, where they discovered something called radiation existed, and immediately decided it must have superpowered positive effects (curing all diseases) rather than being bad or useless.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    I don't think you understand how science works. The aim isn't to be correct, the aim is to find potential areas of progress. Is my hypothesis here most likely incorrect? Yes, of course it is, but that doesn't matter since if it is correct it would be huge and therefore it is worth exploring. But thanks for your comment, now I understand better how luddites thinks. So in the future when I make comments like above I'll say "this hypothesis is unlikely to be true but...", so that even luddites can understand it.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > I don't think you understand how science works I have some understanding of how science works. The purpose remains to find plausible explanations to phenomena, explanations that show some solidity. The same value - linked to grounds - remains valid for statements in general. This is why we refine them, in the internal "lab", where they are tried under duress of criticism. Which is scientific process.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        And how is "weakening the electric signals between cells makes it easier for cells to alter the message and therefore might give rise to stronger forms of learning" not a plausible link? It costs more energy to ignore a stronger signal, making it harder for cells to learn to change input signals. Humans having weaker signals could therefore be related to our ability to learn, while animals could have stronger signals making them worse at learning but better at following instincts. Of course I could be wrong, but can you really say there is no way my hypothesis could be right?
        Garlef 5y ago
        The learning part might be right. I'm put off by the "rationality" part.
        Jensson 5y ago
        At least to me rationality is the same thing as ability to learn complex things and have those new learnings override your intuitive responses. If you have some other definition of rationality then maybe that is why you thought my post was strange.
        Garlef 5y ago
        > rationality is the same thing as ability to learn complex things I think this covers only a part of what the word means. There's a strong connection to (and to some even identity with) the term "reason". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason "Reason" as a concept is deeply rooted in the enlightenment era and comes with a lot of metaphysical and historical baggage.
nandhinianand 5y ago
yeah.. my first hypothesis i was jumping to was that reducing the ion channels reduces specialization and can work on improving distributed(across) neurons decisions/calls... It would be interesting to see a cognitive behavioural task both primates and humans can do and see if the blood flow/electromagnetic activity is more spread across the brain vs more localized in parts of the brain.
Jensson 5y ago
> That's quite a conclusion you're jumping to... It isn't a conclusion, it is a hypothesis. Human rationality is what makes us unique among animals, so anything that sets our brain apart from animals could be related to it and therefore warrants further study to see if it is relevant to human intelligence. > "rationality" is a word denoting a very complex concept obtaining its meaning only through a specific historic background including a lot of assumptions that are not as universal as you might think. > I would always be very careful when trying to bridge between In what way am I not careful here? It would be great if we could make a connection so we should explore any potential connection further, why are you against that? Is your point that this is a hard problem to solve and therefore we shouldn't look for solutions? The link I posited here is very far out, yes, but it is still possible that there is a link and if there actually is one it would be a huge discovery.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > Human rationality is what makes us unique among animals Are you sure? It seems to us that reasoning, to some degree, is a distributed gift - in fact, all brains are there to take decisions. See for example https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/11012017Buckner-Animal-Cognition.php https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/1101201...
  - Jensson 5y ago
    The levels to which humans can learn rationality is in a completely different league from animals, so yes I'll say I'm pretty sure about that. It is like the difference between merge sort and bogo sort, sure they solve the same problem but bogo sorting doesn't work for anything but datasets with a few elements. Animals reasoning chains breaks down extremely quickly, they can do a few steps, but humans can do hundreds or thousands of steps and the reasoning can still be solid and useful even after that many steps.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      That is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. And it is probably related to a synergy of functions.
mdp2021 5y ago
The poster could have meant "maybe a reduction in the density of ion channels does much more than change the mechanism: it also forces the function to adapt in different directions (say, towards the basis for more distinctive abilities)".

by Garlef 5y ago

netcan 5y ago

Quite, but I don't think GP is jumping to a conclusion. More like proposing an interesting hypothesis.

Garlef 5y ago
To say it less politely: To me it seems more like stoner talk. "Quantum entanglement, ... blablabla, ... collective subconscious, ... blablabla, ... everything is connected, man!"
- astrange 5y ago
  It seems like early modernism, where they discovered something called radiation existed, and immediately decided it must have superpowered positive effects (curing all diseases) rather than being bad or useless.
- Jensson 5y ago
  I don't think you understand how science works. The aim isn't to be correct, the aim is to find potential areas of progress. Is my hypothesis here most likely incorrect? Yes, of course it is, but that doesn't matter since if it is correct it would be huge and therefore it is worth exploring. But thanks for your comment, now I understand better how luddites thinks. So in the future when I make comments like above I'll say "this hypothesis is unlikely to be true but...", so that even luddites can understand it.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > I don't think you understand how science works I have some understanding of how science works. The purpose remains to find plausible explanations to phenomena, explanations that show some solidity. The same value - linked to grounds - remains valid for statements in general. This is why we refine them, in the internal "lab", where they are tried under duress of criticism. Which is scientific process.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      And how is "weakening the electric signals between cells makes it easier for cells to alter the message and therefore might give rise to stronger forms of learning" not a plausible link? It costs more energy to ignore a stronger signal, making it harder for cells to learn to change input signals. Humans having weaker signals could therefore be related to our ability to learn, while animals could have stronger signals making them worse at learning but better at following instincts. Of course I could be wrong, but can you really say there is no way my hypothesis could be right?
      - Garlef 5y ago
        The learning part might be right. I'm put off by the "rationality" part.
        Jensson 5y ago
        At least to me rationality is the same thing as ability to learn complex things and have those new learnings override your intuitive responses. If you have some other definition of rationality then maybe that is why you thought my post was strange.
        Garlef 5y ago
        > rationality is the same thing as ability to learn complex things I think this covers only a part of what the word means. There's a strong connection to (and to some even identity with) the term "reason". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason "Reason" as a concept is deeply rooted in the enlightenment era and comes with a lot of metaphysical and historical baggage.

nandhinianand 5y ago

yeah.. my first hypothesis i was jumping to was that reducing the ion channels reduces specialization and can work on improving distributed(across) neurons decisions/calls... It would be interesting to see a cognitive behavioural task both primates and humans can do and see if the blood flow/electromagnetic activity is more spread across the brain vs more localized in parts of the brain.

Jensson 5y ago

> That's quite a conclusion you're jumping to... It isn't a conclusion, it is a hypothesis. Human rationality is what makes us unique among animals, so anything that sets our brain apart from animals could be related to it and therefore warrants further study to see if it is relevant to human intelligence. > "rationality" is a word denoting a very complex concept obtaining its meaning only through a specific historic background including a lot of assumptions that are not as universal as you might think. > I would always be very careful when trying to bridge between In what way am I not careful here? It would be great if we could make a connection so we should explore any potential connection further, why are you against that? Is your point that this is a hard problem to solve and therefore we shouldn't look for solutions? The link I posited here is very far out, yes, but it is still possible that there is a link and if there actually is one it would be a huge discovery.

mdp2021 5y ago
> Human rationality is what makes us unique among animals Are you sure? It seems to us that reasoning, to some degree, is a distributed gift - in fact, all brains are there to take decisions. See for example https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/11012017Buckner-Animal-Cognition.php https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/1101201...
- Jensson 5y ago
  The levels to which humans can learn rationality is in a completely different league from animals, so yes I'll say I'm pretty sure about that. It is like the difference between merge sort and bogo sort, sure they solve the same problem but bogo sorting doesn't work for anything but datasets with a few elements. Animals reasoning chains breaks down extremely quickly, they can do a few steps, but humans can do hundreds or thousands of steps and the reasoning can still be solid and useful even after that many steps.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    That is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. And it is probably related to a synergy of functions.

mdp2021 5y ago

The poster could have meant "maybe a reduction in the density of ion channels does much more than change the mechanism: it also forces the function to adapt in different directions (say, towards the basis for more distinctive abilities)".