4 ms·
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
by 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 agoEverything 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 agoIt 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 agoIt'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 agoThose 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 agoOh 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 agoThe “no free will” argument just relies on the brain strictly following the laws of physics.
- lukan 2y agoIs it though? I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that.
- thrance 2y agoQuantum 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.
- lupire 2y agoIt depends on what the RNG is.
- EnigmaFlare 2y agoIt's an analogy, not a model. It's useless for making predictions or testing hypotheses. Even pretty useless for conveying understanding.
- Teever 2y agoAn analogy is a way of expressing a model in a highly compressed verbal state.
- mathgeek 2y agoThe 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 agoTomato/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 agoExcept sometimes you lose control and you grifters pretending your model is the real deal and the singularity is near.