3 ms·
It's not impossible, and it might even be plausible... But it's a really, really difficult question. People outside of science: don't make the mistake of think
by epgui 4y ago
It's not impossible, and it might even be plausible... But it's a really, really difficult question.
People outside of science: don't make the mistake of thinking that scientists haven't thought about this before! haha
- bejelentkezni 4y agoWhat is that supposed to mean?
- monocasa 4y agoThat it's certainly a valid thought with the information we have, and is being thought about, but requires further investigation to make an affirmative statement.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- epgui 4y ago^ This is the best explanation of what I meant.
- timfsu 4y agoGuessing that this means there are a lot of confounding variables other than gut biome (environment, diet, genetics, etc) that are very difficult to isolate to prove causation, as opposed to correlation.
- K0SM0S 4y agoGut biome being one of the most promising area of research, whose earth-shattering potential is about on par with the sheer complexity of the problem. If you thought ML was difficult, try modeling a human being's digestive tube from mouth to anus down to the cell: welcome to a category of problems where climate and gravity are the "simple" ones. On the other side of that space though, potentially the promise to increase by orders of magnitude our mastery of human condition both biologically and experientially.
- moistly 4y agoWe are a symbiote.
- deepstack 4y agoBingo, we are just bunch of bacteria walking around. Some organism become symbiotic over time like mitochondria, so it go incorporated into our cells to make energy. The whole concept that we as human-being is one organism needs to be revisited.
- epgui 4y agoThis is already understood, it's not like scientists aren't aware. The simplified concept of humans being one organism will continue to be taught nonetheless, because it's extremely useful, and not even wrong in most contexts in which it's applied. There's nothing special about this, you can say the same thing about any simple model in biology: that the brain is an organ inside the head is a simplification, any diagram of a homeostatic system or metabolic pathway that fits on a single page is a simplification, the "central dogma" of DNA -> RNA -> protein is a simplification... All of these things are well-known. They continue to be used as models, because, well... they're useful models. And there's nothing wrong with that!
- K0SM0S 4y agoEven more generally, reductionism works but with known limitations which warrant a more holistic approach, and we can't work our way out of most real-world problems without this multi-layered approach. Welcome to empiricism in complex systems.
- wizofaus 4y agoI'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the workings of the human brain are still far more complex than that of our digestive system. If the amount of effort that has been put into trying to emulate the former with software had been put instead into trying to emulate the latter, I reckon we'd pretty much have it cracked by now (as in, you could feed some tool info corresponding to all the inputs into our digestive system and it would be able to spit out exactly what outputs would be produced in the average human). But unlike AI/ML, not enough people, ahem, give a shit...