3 ms·
That's not a fair characterization. There are patterns that emerge in complexity given certain basic things hold true. It doesn't matter whether it's neurons
by CuriouslyC 3y ago
That's not a fair characterization. There are patterns that emerge in complexity given certain basic things hold true. It doesn't matter whether it's neurons or code, if the system has those property, it will also have those dynamics. This is a lot easier to understand in the abstract, whereas a neuroscientist might ask "why does the brain do XYZ" because they don't understand system dynamics.
- BaseballPhysics 3y agoI'd suggest paying closer attention to conversations about ChatGPT and purported sentience before claiming my comments are a mischaracterization. I can't count the number of times I've seen people argue that LLMs are proof that the human mind is just a statistical model. Meanwhile, any neuroscientists will be the first to tell you that we know surprisingly little about how neurons actually work together within the human brain, and certainly don't understand how consciousness emerges.
- mandmandam 3y agoSeconded. I even got called arrogant for very politely pointing out that this was wrong once, because the arguer had been in a computer science class, and so "knew what they were talking about". Neurons are complex. It's arrogant to think we fully understand them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago>> There are patterns that emerge in complexity given certain basic things hold true. Do you mean that in the abstract sense, or do you know what patterns are those, and when they "emerge"? Could you describe them? For example, can you give a mathematical formula for them?
- nh23423fefe 3y agophase transitions in scale free interactions
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y agoThat is word salad.
- nh23423fefe 3y agoremain ignorant
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y agoYou're an idiot.
- nh23423fefe 3y ago*your