5 ms·

But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer. For example, look at cellular reproduction. Just imagine if your

by skohan 4y ago

But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer. For example, look at cellular reproduction. Just imagine if your phone could produce a smaller phone, which would develop into a fully functional phone. And imagine if it could do that using energy which was converted from breaking down fruits and vegetables. These are things that every living thing can do, but it's way beyond the scope of what our technology can accomplish. There are many such miracles of biology. For instance, a gecko's feet act as an adhesive in a way that artificial imitations have not been able to match. Wheels are also great unless they aren't. If we had evolved in an environment where we had lots of smooth roads to roll around on, maybe some animals would have evolved wheels, but instead we evolved legs which are much better for getting around uneven and unpredictable terrain. > Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities". It's possible, but what evidence do you actually have that this is the case? How do you know the brain hasn't been subject to selection pressures forcing it to have evolved in an extremely efficient fashion? > Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical. Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? Or is your brain maybe incredibly powerful and capable, enough to create abstract and complicated emergent phenomena like intuition, which are so far impossible to understand analytically, or indeed to reproduce artificially? > What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain. This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise!

deltaonefour 4y ago
>This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise! YOu need to explain how it's a leap of faith. That means low probability. So you need to explain the sample space and the numerator. For me I explained. The sample space is ALL models for physical processes. Given that most of these models are elegant with efficient and simple primitives. It follows via probability that modeling intelligence by probability will most likely be the same way. See what I did there? I actually logically explained why it's not a leap of faith. >Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? First off being inefficient is different from being correct. The brain can be correct AND inefficient at the same time. It can also be correct about some things and incorrect about other things. This is obvious if you look at the world around you. People are often wrong. They are also often right. Evidence is everywhere and obvious. > But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer. Sure it does. But I talk in terms of probabilities and possibilities. I am addressing the "leap of faith." I am saying because such and such is extremely possible... my statement is not a leap of faith. In this case I am saying inefficiencies are very possible. Thus my statement is highly realistic. I never made a statement about anything absolute. I never said that absolutely the brain is inefficient. I simply said my statement is categorically not a leap of faith because it is VERY possible. And i provided logical evidence supporting this.
- skohan 4y ago
  Ok let me present the following evidence: 1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient. 2. Human intellect and consciousness is one of the most complex nuanced phenomena we are aware of in the universe. 3. The human brain is one of the most complex things we know about in the universe. 4. We know very many things about how the brain processes information. We know structure and function are heavily intertwined. We know that the brain uses virtually every aspect of neural biology, from macro structures down to intracellular mechanisms, to facilitate information processing. So we know the biology of the brain is incredibly complex. We know the output of the brain is incredibly complex. We know of many instances where the complexity of the biology contributes meaningfully to how the brain processes information. That is all evidence to support the belief that the complexity of the brain is meaningful with respect to the production of human intelligence. It seems that you want to believe that most of that complexity is not meaningful, and your only evidence is "you had a feeling" and "biology is inefficient sometimes". If you want to prove it's not a leap of faith, you have to present examples in which the information processing of the brain is actually inefficient, or how it can be replaced by a much simpler system. Otherwise it's all just a guess.
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient. By your second sentence it follows that such structures aren't a leap of faith. It is very possible. 2. Human intellect and consciousness is one of the most complex nuanced phenomena we are aware of in the universe. complexity isn't indicative of efficiency. 3. The human brain is one of the most complex things we know about in the universe. Same as above. 4. We know very many things about how the brain processes information. We know structure and function are heavily intertwined. We know that the brain uses virtually every aspect of neural biology, from macro structures down to intracellular mechanisms, to facilitate information processing. But we don't know whether the entire structure is efficient. >That is all evidence to support the belief that the complexity of the brain is meaningful with respect to the production of human intelligence. But it is not evidence supporting the thesis that the brain being inefficient is a leap of faith. >It seems that you want to believe that most of that complexity is not meaningful, and your only evidence is "you had a feeling" and "biology is inefficient sometimes". The feeling has been rationalized. I explained the logic, it is now backed up. The criterion here is not absolutist. The criterion is just stating whether or not such a scenario is likely. IS it a leap of faith or is it not? I've sufficiently proved that the brain being inefficient is clearly NOT a leap of faith. >If you want to prove it's not a leap of faith, you have to present examples in which the information processing of the brain is actually inefficient, or how it can be replaced by a much simpler system. Otherwise it's all just a guess. Easy we have many ML models that already beat humans at certain tasks.. Those models use much less neurons then the entire brain itself and follows a much simpler model. See spam filters. It shows that a simpler model is already possible for certain aspects of intelligence. I disagree with you. I believe I've shown enough evidence to move the probability out of "leap of faith" territory. I just threw in the example up above because you requested it.

by skohan 4y ago

deltaonefour 4y ago

>This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise! YOu need to explain how it's a leap of faith. That means low probability. So you need to explain the sample space and the numerator. For me I explained. The sample space is ALL models for physical processes. Given that most of these models are elegant with efficient and simple primitives. It follows via probability that modeling intelligence by probability will most likely be the same way. See what I did there? I actually logically explained why it's not a leap of faith. >Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? First off being inefficient is different from being correct. The brain can be correct AND inefficient at the same time. It can also be correct about some things and incorrect about other things. This is obvious if you look at the world around you. People are often wrong. They are also often right. Evidence is everywhere and obvious. > But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer. Sure it does. But I talk in terms of probabilities and possibilities. I am addressing the "leap of faith." I am saying because such and such is extremely possible... my statement is not a leap of faith. In this case I am saying inefficiencies are very possible. Thus my statement is highly realistic. I never made a statement about anything absolute. I never said that absolutely the brain is inefficient. I simply said my statement is categorically not a leap of faith because it is VERY possible. And i provided logical evidence supporting this.

skohan 4y ago
Ok let me present the following evidence: 1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient. 2. Human intellect and consciousness is one of the most complex nuanced phenomena we are aware of in the universe. 3. The human brain is one of the most complex things we know about in the universe. 4. We know very many things about how the brain processes information. We know structure and function are heavily intertwined. We know that the brain uses virtually every aspect of neural biology, from macro structures down to intracellular mechanisms, to facilitate information processing. So we know the biology of the brain is incredibly complex. We know the output of the brain is incredibly complex. We know of many instances where the complexity of the biology contributes meaningfully to how the brain processes information. That is all evidence to support the belief that the complexity of the brain is meaningful with respect to the production of human intelligence. It seems that you want to believe that most of that complexity is not meaningful, and your only evidence is "you had a feeling" and "biology is inefficient sometimes". If you want to prove it's not a leap of faith, you have to present examples in which the information processing of the brain is actually inefficient, or how it can be replaced by a much simpler system. Otherwise it's all just a guess.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient. By your second sentence it follows that such structures aren't a leap of faith. It is very possible. 2. Human intellect and consciousness is one of the most complex nuanced phenomena we are aware of in the universe. complexity isn't indicative of efficiency. 3. The human brain is one of the most complex things we know about in the universe. Same as above. 4. We know very many things about how the brain processes information. We know structure and function are heavily intertwined. We know that the brain uses virtually every aspect of neural biology, from macro structures down to intracellular mechanisms, to facilitate information processing. But we don't know whether the entire structure is efficient. >That is all evidence to support the belief that the complexity of the brain is meaningful with respect to the production of human intelligence. But it is not evidence supporting the thesis that the brain being inefficient is a leap of faith. >It seems that you want to believe that most of that complexity is not meaningful, and your only evidence is "you had a feeling" and "biology is inefficient sometimes". The feeling has been rationalized. I explained the logic, it is now backed up. The criterion here is not absolutist. The criterion is just stating whether or not such a scenario is likely. IS it a leap of faith or is it not? I've sufficiently proved that the brain being inefficient is clearly NOT a leap of faith. >If you want to prove it's not a leap of faith, you have to present examples in which the information processing of the brain is actually inefficient, or how it can be replaced by a much simpler system. Otherwise it's all just a guess. Easy we have many ML models that already beat humans at certain tasks.. Those models use much less neurons then the entire brain itself and follows a much simpler model. See spam filters. It shows that a simpler model is already possible for certain aspects of intelligence. I disagree with you. I believe I've shown enough evidence to move the probability out of "leap of faith" territory. I just threw in the example up above because you requested it.