7 ms·

The idea of comparing evolved structures to the current height of technology is usually an oversimplification. It's amusing to think back to when the switchboar

The idea of comparing evolved structures to the current height of technology is usually an oversimplification. It's amusing to think back to when the switchboard was compared to the brain, for example. It wasn't that long ago that we considered the brain and a computer to also be quite similar, but we know it's only in certain aspects.

exe34 2y ago
it's called a model. all models are wrong but some are useful. the plugboard model of the brain was useful in the sense it suggested pieces working together and functional connections varying for different activities. nobody is suggesting the brain runs an instruction set or a compiler - but it does compute in a general sense.
- soloist11 2y ago
  Everything computes in a general sense, even atoms. But one could just as easily say everything is "just" mathematics because all models of reality are mathematical. In general I think it's important to be wary of totalizing ontologies and metaphysics of reality that reduce everything to a single universal substance (monadology) or activity like computation (computationalism).
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It doesn't seem that important, unless you can say why in this case it's important. This seems to be saying "mitochondria aren't only the powerhouse of the cell - they also do computation." What's to be wary of in this case?
    - soloist11 2y ago
      It's a vacuous statement. All physical systems are computers because the logic of computationalism is circular. Everything is a computer so there is no meaning in the statement and the danger is that as more people start believing in the circular logic of computationalism they'll be more willing to delegate their cognition to computers even in cases where they should not, e.g. social media and algorithmic feeds designed to increase engagement and profits for advertisers.
- sublinear 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    Those people still exist alongside all those idiots who think we have free will and that the universe is the embodiment of existence ;)
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      ?"universe is the embodiment of existence" Curious what this is referring to. I've never heard someone arguing for free will use this phrase.
      - edmundsauto 2y ago
        Oh it was just an off the cuff comment. I was trying to be clever by finding a phrase that is the opposite of "the universe is a simulation". IE, the universe is "real".
  - setopt 2y ago
    The “no free will” argument just relies on the brain strictly following the laws of physics.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Is it though? I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that.
      - thrance 2y ago
        Quantum phenomenons appear non-deterministic, but there is no definitive proof that they are not. But I think this is irrelevant to the question of free will: having quantum states randomly collapse insinde my brain would have nothing to do with freedom.
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  It's an analogy, not a model. It's useless for making predictions or testing hypotheses. Even pretty useless for conveying understanding.
  - Teever 2y ago
    An analogy is a way of expressing a model in a highly compressed verbal state.
  - mathgeek 2y ago
    The term we're looking for is likely "analogical model" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_models
    - poochkoishi728 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Tomato/Potato. One mans analogy is another mans model. Do you have some solution to this age old conundrum? How are we to use language to describe new things without using any existing words? Of course, just make up new words is one solution. But for a lot of things, that gets to also be confusing, and not help communicate an idea.
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      > Do you have some solution to this age old conundrum? Well, as it happens, the person you are replying to did have at least an outline of a solution in this case, which could be stated thus: analogies may be regarded as models to the extent that they are useful for making predictions or testing hypotheses. it probably needs some refinement (for example, analogies carefully-crafted to "predict" the outcome in very narrow cases, but which diverge significantly with modest changes, probably don't count), but it is about as good as you can get in pinning down the semantics of ordinary language. For example, a hydraulic analogy to electric circuits may be useful in simple cases, but once reactive elements are introduced, it is probably time to abandon it. Similarly, the 'bowling-ball on a mattress' analogy for general relativity cannot even predict the precession of Mercury, while some hydraulic and acoustic models have, apparently, been useful for better understanding black holes (even though they also spawned ridiculous headlines like "Scientists Close in on Creating Black Hole in Lab."[1]) In the case of TFA, I personally feel that the analogy being pushed is at best useless and probably misleading for any purpose. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-close-in-on-creating-black-hole-in-lab/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-close-...
- stefan_ 2y ago
  Except sometimes you lose control and you grifters pretending your model is the real deal and the singularity is near.
com2kid 2y ago
I remember reading a kids science section in the Sunday newspaper that explained the internet like our circulatory system, but instead of moving blood around it moved information around. (This was mid 90s) A decade+ later I randomly picked up a Sunday paper and they were explaining the circulatory system "as if it was a computer network, but instead of moving data around, it moves blood around". I thought it was funny that going from 95 to 2005, the expectation for innate understanding of biology vs digital technology had flipped.
- xyzzy123 2y ago
  It's also interesting because there are so many analogies you could use, off the top of my head I would say the cooling loop in car would be a much less "strained" analogy even if it's still very reductive.
kweingar 2y ago
> It wasn't that long ago that we considered the brain and a computer to also be quite similar Many people in tech still think this. It will take a while to dislodge the idea that if you squint enough, cells, brains, etc. are all basically computers, because it flatters the egos of computer programmers. There are genuine connections between specific biological systems and certain ideas in computer science, but most of the casual analogies you hear from tech people only serve to inflate their own perceived authority ("I know a lot about computers, and cells/brains are like computers, so here is my take about cells/brains...")
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > are all basically computers, because it flatters the egos of computer programmers And here you are thinking tech people are all basically egomaniacs. I wonder why.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Metaphors help communicate ideas. I think everyone knows they are imperfect. Nobody thinks because we say the brain is a 'computer' that there are chips in there. On other hand, scientist/philosophers that attempt to makeup 'new' words just to avoid this, sometimes make it worse and their ideas become even more obfuscated.

exe34 2y ago

it's called a model. all models are wrong but some are useful. the plugboard model of the brain was useful in the sense it suggested pieces working together and functional connections varying for different activities. nobody is suggesting the brain runs an instruction set or a compiler - but it does compute in a general sense.

soloist11 2y ago
Everything computes in a general sense, even atoms. But one could just as easily say everything is "just" mathematics because all models of reality are mathematical. In general I think it's important to be wary of totalizing ontologies and metaphysics of reality that reduce everything to a single universal substance (monadology) or activity like computation (computationalism).
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It doesn't seem that important, unless you can say why in this case it's important. This seems to be saying "mitochondria aren't only the powerhouse of the cell - they also do computation." What's to be wary of in this case?
  - soloist11 2y ago
    It's a vacuous statement. All physical systems are computers because the logic of computationalism is circular. Everything is a computer so there is no meaning in the statement and the danger is that as more people start believing in the circular logic of computationalism they'll be more willing to delegate their cognition to computers even in cases where they should not, e.g. social media and algorithmic feeds designed to increase engagement and profits for advertisers.
sublinear 2y ago
[flagged]
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  Those people still exist alongside all those idiots who think we have free will and that the universe is the embodiment of existence ;)
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    ?"universe is the embodiment of existence" Curious what this is referring to. I've never heard someone arguing for free will use this phrase.
    - edmundsauto 2y ago
      Oh it was just an off the cuff comment. I was trying to be clever by finding a phrase that is the opposite of "the universe is a simulation". IE, the universe is "real".
- setopt 2y ago
  The “no free will” argument just relies on the brain strictly following the laws of physics.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Is it though? I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that.
    - thrance 2y ago
      Quantum phenomenons appear non-deterministic, but there is no definitive proof that they are not. But I think this is irrelevant to the question of free will: having quantum states randomly collapse insinde my brain would have nothing to do with freedom.
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
It's an analogy, not a model. It's useless for making predictions or testing hypotheses. Even pretty useless for conveying understanding.
- Teever 2y ago
  An analogy is a way of expressing a model in a highly compressed verbal state.
- mathgeek 2y ago
  The term we're looking for is likely "analogical model" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_models
  - poochkoishi728 2y ago
    [flagged]
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Tomato/Potato. One mans analogy is another mans model. Do you have some solution to this age old conundrum? How are we to use language to describe new things without using any existing words? Of course, just make up new words is one solution. But for a lot of things, that gets to also be confusing, and not help communicate an idea.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    > Do you have some solution to this age old conundrum? Well, as it happens, the person you are replying to did have at least an outline of a solution in this case, which could be stated thus: analogies may be regarded as models to the extent that they are useful for making predictions or testing hypotheses. it probably needs some refinement (for example, analogies carefully-crafted to "predict" the outcome in very narrow cases, but which diverge significantly with modest changes, probably don't count), but it is about as good as you can get in pinning down the semantics of ordinary language. For example, a hydraulic analogy to electric circuits may be useful in simple cases, but once reactive elements are introduced, it is probably time to abandon it. Similarly, the 'bowling-ball on a mattress' analogy for general relativity cannot even predict the precession of Mercury, while some hydraulic and acoustic models have, apparently, been useful for better understanding black holes (even though they also spawned ridiculous headlines like "Scientists Close in on Creating Black Hole in Lab."[1]) In the case of TFA, I personally feel that the analogy being pushed is at best useless and probably misleading for any purpose. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-close-in-on-creating-black-hole-in-lab/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-close-...
stefan_ 2y ago
Except sometimes you lose control and you grifters pretending your model is the real deal and the singularity is near.

com2kid 2y ago

I remember reading a kids science section in the Sunday newspaper that explained the internet like our circulatory system, but instead of moving blood around it moved information around. (This was mid 90s) A decade+ later I randomly picked up a Sunday paper and they were explaining the circulatory system "as if it was a computer network, but instead of moving data around, it moves blood around". I thought it was funny that going from 95 to 2005, the expectation for innate understanding of biology vs digital technology had flipped.

xyzzy123 2y ago
It's also interesting because there are so many analogies you could use, off the top of my head I would say the cooling loop in car would be a much less "strained" analogy even if it's still very reductive.

kweingar 2y ago

> It wasn't that long ago that we considered the brain and a computer to also be quite similar Many people in tech still think this. It will take a while to dislodge the idea that if you squint enough, cells, brains, etc. are all basically computers, because it flatters the egos of computer programmers. There are genuine connections between specific biological systems and certain ideas in computer science, but most of the casual analogies you hear from tech people only serve to inflate their own perceived authority ("I know a lot about computers, and cells/brains are like computers, so here is my take about cells/brains...")

robertlagrant 2y ago
> are all basically computers, because it flatters the egos of computer programmers And here you are thinking tech people are all basically egomaniacs. I wonder why.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Metaphors help communicate ideas. I think everyone knows they are imperfect. Nobody thinks because we say the brain is a 'computer' that there are chips in there. On other hand, scientist/philosophers that attempt to makeup 'new' words just to avoid this, sometimes make it worse and their ideas become even more obfuscated.