3 ms·

If a group of scientists in 1923 were given a working iPhone, would they have a chance at figuring out how the ChatGPT icon is able to launch something that tal

If a group of scientists in 1923 were given a working iPhone, would they have a chance at figuring out how the ChatGPT icon is able to launch something that talks or where Grand Theft Auto is in the machine? Is trying to figure out how the brain works by looking at synapses and blood flow and electric fields similar to trying to see how an iPhone works by looking at transistors and electric fields?

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Others have had similar lines of thought! * https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108%2802%2900133-2 https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108%2802%29... Can a biologist fix a radio? * https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268 https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jo... Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
0thgen 3y ago
This is a crucial point to make. Even if every natural phenomenon can be reduced to very early-level processes (e.g., physics), earlier levels of analysis have little predictive value at later levels of analysis. Does anyone have a term for this from philosophy of science literature?
- BirAdam 3y ago
  If I understand what you’re asking, the term would be emergence. In philosophy this means that that behavior, property, or attribute arises from parts or components that do not show that behavior, property, or attribute themselves either in part or in whole.
- throw4847285 3y ago
  I don't know the term for it, but it's the most common non-strawman version of the anti-reductionist argument. If you want to ruin your day, you can try and parse through the SEP page on reductionism. It's a doozy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> If a group of scientists in 1923 were given a working iPhone, would they have a chance at figuring out how the ChatGPT icon is able to launch something that talks or where Grand Theft Auto is in the machine? Would they get another iPhone if they break the first one? The task is no different than any other scientific endeavor, from biology to physics: they'll keep poking and prodding at it in different ways, making observations, accumulating and discarding hypotheses, until some kind of coherent and useful model becomes apparent. Hell, given sufficient supply of iPhones, this would be much easier than figuring out the brain - there's lot of value in short feedback loops and being able to do meaningful experiments on the cheap. > Is trying to figure out how the brain works by looking at synapses and blood flow and electric fields similar to trying to see how an iPhone works by looking at transistors and electric fields? They would be looking at that (after speed-running the relevant part of the "tech tree" to understand fields and transistors), and importantly, how it correlates with observed behavior such as ChatGPT saying something, or crashing the weird fire-breathing demon plane???! simulacra in Grand Theft Auto V. Same is the case with intelligence, except we're not free to circuit-bend people the same way the 1923 scientists would be with their iPhones, due to ethics and stuffs.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  Overanalysing this perhaps, but they might need some philosophical tools. Would it still be possible without Boolean Logic (1847)? Of course they'd have to realize that it applied. [1] Earliest possible date they'd be successful might be post-Leibniz in the 1690's. [1] Of course, there's an argument to be made that it'd not be possible before Alan Turing's work in 1935/1936-ish. On the other hand, in 1923 you'd already have most of the ideas that lead to Turing's insights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#History

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

Others have had similar lines of thought! * https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108%2802%2900133-2 https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108%2802%29... Can a biologist fix a radio? * https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268 https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jo... Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?

0thgen 3y ago

This is a crucial point to make. Even if every natural phenomenon can be reduced to very early-level processes (e.g., physics), earlier levels of analysis have little predictive value at later levels of analysis. Does anyone have a term for this from philosophy of science literature?

BirAdam 3y ago
If I understand what you’re asking, the term would be emergence. In philosophy this means that that behavior, property, or attribute arises from parts or components that do not show that behavior, property, or attribute themselves either in part or in whole.
throw4847285 3y ago
I don't know the term for it, but it's the most common non-strawman version of the anti-reductionist argument. If you want to ruin your day, you can try and parse through the SEP page on reductionism. It's a doozy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> If a group of scientists in 1923 were given a working iPhone, would they have a chance at figuring out how the ChatGPT icon is able to launch something that talks or where Grand Theft Auto is in the machine? Would they get another iPhone if they break the first one? The task is no different than any other scientific endeavor, from biology to physics: they'll keep poking and prodding at it in different ways, making observations, accumulating and discarding hypotheses, until some kind of coherent and useful model becomes apparent. Hell, given sufficient supply of iPhones, this would be much easier than figuring out the brain - there's lot of value in short feedback loops and being able to do meaningful experiments on the cheap. > Is trying to figure out how the brain works by looking at synapses and blood flow and electric fields similar to trying to see how an iPhone works by looking at transistors and electric fields? They would be looking at that (after speed-running the relevant part of the "tech tree" to understand fields and transistors), and importantly, how it correlates with observed behavior such as ChatGPT saying something, or crashing the weird fire-breathing demon plane???! simulacra in Grand Theft Auto V. Same is the case with intelligence, except we're not free to circuit-bend people the same way the 1923 scientists would be with their iPhones, due to ethics and stuffs.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Overanalysing this perhaps, but they might need some philosophical tools. Would it still be possible without Boolean Logic (1847)? Of course they'd have to realize that it applied. [1] Earliest possible date they'd be successful might be post-Leibniz in the 1690's. [1] Of course, there's an argument to be made that it'd not be possible before Alan Turing's work in 1935/1936-ish. On the other hand, in 1923 you'd already have most of the ideas that lead to Turing's insights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#History