4 ms·

I think this is provably false by looking at the various semi-isolated primitive tribes. They think about the world endlessly, yet many have yet to invent even

I think this is provably false by looking at the various semi-isolated primitive tribes. They think about the world endlessly, yet many have yet to invent even basic mathematics. Many lack even the concept of numbers. For instance one tribe [1] only has concepts a few, more, and a lot. And in reality that's all you would ever really need for real world usage, pre mathematics. Mathematics largely creates the problems that it's used to solve. More interesting is that these tribes also tend to lack the ability to recall even basic quantities of things if it's more than 2. You can give them 5 balls, but they will have extremely poor recollection of the number after just a few moments. There's these countless things humans need to simply invent, from nothing, over and over to advance to the next technological era. It only seems like a natural application of logic in hindsight, because it actually works! [1] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120221104037.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120221104037.h...

exe34 3y ago
Tribes who count one, one and that one, and string theory aren't the only two possibilities. There are the ancient Egyptians in between, who basically discovered fractions while dividing bread [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction
akasakahakada 3y ago
> they are really only one or two groups Of corse one in a million that some will fall into a different evolutionary path. The number on the success side is statistically way too significant so you can't revolve anything with this one.
necovek 3y ago
I am not sure this is in support of the thesis how human intelligence is superior: it actually took millions of humans to continue experimenting from what they've learned from humans who came before them. I am not saying it's not superior (I do believe it is), just that this does not really support it. Basically, a single human acting on its own during their single lifetime has almost zero chance of inventing mathematics (as evidenced by the tribed you mention, but also examples of children lost in woods and raised by animals).
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The point of the example is that math does not just logically derive from observation of the natural world. The reason we, in modern times, might intuitively think otherwise is because it so beautifully describes much of the universe around us. Yet these descriptions, or even the possibility of their existence, are impossible to even begin to imagine until you have developed math itself. And the problems we might think of it as solving aren't really problems until it's invented. As the tribes show you don't even need the ability to perform basic counting to live and thrive as a people. And yes, it's going to be a slow process. Human intelligence is not about speed. The capability to do simple arithmetic rapidly correlates with intelligence in humans, yet a calculator can perform said calculations many millions of times faster than the fastest human. Yet that of course doesn't mean said calculator is thus millions of times more intelligent. The question is how long would it take an LLM to discover mathematics starting from the same empty baseline? And, using current methods, the answer is quite simple: never.
  - akasakahakada 3y ago
    This example shown human is not a ingredient involved in invention of math concept. https://earthsky.org/earth/fish-can-do-math-cichlids-stingrays/ https://earthsky.org/earth/fish-can-do-math-cichlids-stingra...
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Mathematics is not a parlor trick. It's a purely cognitive and abstract system which can be infinitely recursed upon itself to learn ever more which, seemingly by good fortune, happens to map onto many things in the real world. Once one learns addition, the concept of multiplication comes naturally. As does subtraction, at which point you quickly end up on the eery domain of negative numbers, and so on. To see how silly these things are imagine somebody claiming to have taught mathematics to one of these numberless tribes by training them to pick a larger group of items when it's blue, and pick a smaller group of items when it's yellow. Somebody claiming that is teaching them math would obviously be looked at like an idiot. It's a circus trick - and a rather apt reflection of what passes for research now a days.

exe34 3y ago

Tribes who count one, one and that one, and string theory aren't the only two possibilities. There are the ancient Egyptians in between, who basically discovered fractions while dividing bread [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction

akasakahakada 3y ago

> they are really only one or two groups Of corse one in a million that some will fall into a different evolutionary path. The number on the success side is statistically way too significant so you can't revolve anything with this one.

necovek 3y ago

I am not sure this is in support of the thesis how human intelligence is superior: it actually took millions of humans to continue experimenting from what they've learned from humans who came before them. I am not saying it's not superior (I do believe it is), just that this does not really support it. Basically, a single human acting on its own during their single lifetime has almost zero chance of inventing mathematics (as evidenced by the tribed you mention, but also examples of children lost in woods and raised by animals).

somenameforme 3y ago
The point of the example is that math does not just logically derive from observation of the natural world. The reason we, in modern times, might intuitively think otherwise is because it so beautifully describes much of the universe around us. Yet these descriptions, or even the possibility of their existence, are impossible to even begin to imagine until you have developed math itself. And the problems we might think of it as solving aren't really problems until it's invented. As the tribes show you don't even need the ability to perform basic counting to live and thrive as a people. And yes, it's going to be a slow process. Human intelligence is not about speed. The capability to do simple arithmetic rapidly correlates with intelligence in humans, yet a calculator can perform said calculations many millions of times faster than the fastest human. Yet that of course doesn't mean said calculator is thus millions of times more intelligent. The question is how long would it take an LLM to discover mathematics starting from the same empty baseline? And, using current methods, the answer is quite simple: never.
- akasakahakada 3y ago
  This example shown human is not a ingredient involved in invention of math concept. https://earthsky.org/earth/fish-can-do-math-cichlids-stingrays/ https://earthsky.org/earth/fish-can-do-math-cichlids-stingra...
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Mathematics is not a parlor trick. It's a purely cognitive and abstract system which can be infinitely recursed upon itself to learn ever more which, seemingly by good fortune, happens to map onto many things in the real world. Once one learns addition, the concept of multiplication comes naturally. As does subtraction, at which point you quickly end up on the eery domain of negative numbers, and so on. To see how silly these things are imagine somebody claiming to have taught mathematics to one of these numberless tribes by training them to pick a larger group of items when it's blue, and pick a smaller group of items when it's yellow. Somebody claiming that is teaching them math would obviously be looked at like an idiot. It's a circus trick - and a rather apt reflection of what passes for research now a days.