6 ms·

Nerds are good at pretending they understand everything by way of reductionist metaphors.

satvikpendem 2y ago
They don't pretend they understand everything though, just as we do not "understand" everything about LLMs even though we know they run on electronic computer systems; some properties are simply emergent via structure, and the same properties can emerge via biological computers too, but again, to notice that fact does not mean we "pretend to understand."
- keybored 2y ago
  All of the assumptions (and the metaphor) contained in that response of yours seems to contradict the statement itself. By using “just” you’ve already asserted that there is nothing more of relative importance to figure out—it’s done, figured out.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    These days "just" is a huge red flag for me. It's saying "my thinking stops here, yours should too".
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Yes, by using "just," it is a thought terminating word. However, again, I do believe we have it figured out, based on how we understand the rest of the universe to be physically-based as well. It is, in my experience, human arrogance that leads us to believe that we are somehow more than physical structures. It makes people feel uneasy to believe that so they invent something to solve that cognitive dissonance.
    - keybored 2y ago
      The relevant comparison isn’t to people who think we are “more than physical structures”. It is to people who are a bit humbled by the complexity of the world and how when you seem to learn something new about it, ten more questions pop up. Which must be a forced attitude that some scientists have. Contrast that with the arrogance of creating a neural network in your garage and thinking to yourself: “well I guess as a side-effect of this all of existence makes sense now.”
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism! I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant.
        keybored 2y ago
        > None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, If they do research and this viewpoint works for them then who am I to judge. I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about). > Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism! I don’t understand what physicalism is supposed to be about[1] beyond explicitly denying God-of-the-gaps. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90 > I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant. Just like no one identified themselves as being arrogant because they believe that they are more than physical structures. Or even claimed that they believe that they are more than physical structures. (The reductionists will often barge in an identify anyone who disagrees with their opinion as someone who believes in the supra-physical, based on nothing.)
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        > I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about). Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here.
        keybored 2y ago
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.” The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.
        mistermann 2y ago
        You have superb skills in leveraging often hard to spot ambiguity the English language offers, I think you would excel in sales of most any product, truth included.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Thanks, indeed I do do sales, for SaaS specifically, my own as well as for others.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Got it, yeah I think we're in the same boat here. It's clearly physical, and yet that ought to be the beginning, not the end of inquiry. Dualism is probably one of the most intellectually destructive ideas we've managed to come up with.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Yes, and I really think it stems from religious biases, of wanting to think ourselves as being a soul inhabiting a body instead of being the body in itself. There's a reason why Descartes was one of the prime motivators of dualism.
- paganel 2y ago
  > biological computers Using that as a metaphor is telling in itself, as we're far from being (just) "biological computers".
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    > as we're far from being (just) "biological computers". What part is? Or rather, how can you show that we are not? Note that I use "computer" in the general sense, that which computes, by taking in input and emitting output.
    - walterbell 2y ago
      Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory > The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloch and the Macy Conferences, as well as many other thinkers in the field of cybernetics. 1969 zine from BCL students, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34825918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34825918 2003 essay collection, "Understanding Understanding", http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf In the late 1940s a group of people had begun meeting every year in New York under the auspices of the Josiah Macy Foundation to discuss “circular causal and feedback mechanisms” .. The group included Norbert Wiener, who had coined the term “cybernetics”; Claude Shannon, the inventor of information theory; Warren McCullough, one of the leading neuropsychiatrists—he called himself an “experimental epistemologist”; Gregory Bateson, the philosopher and anthropologist; his wife Margaret Mead, the anthropologist who made Samoa famous; John von Neuman, one of the people who started the computer revolution..
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
I prefer mimicry of understanding attempts to defensive aggression against anything new and "threatening". One has the chance to develop into actually understanding, given time
- keybored 2y ago
  I don’t even know what you are talking about. Both of our comments are equally aggressive since I mimicked the delivery. > to defensive aggression against anything new and "threatening". What’s new. You can take this back to Cartesian Dualism (or further) where animals where just “machines”. Same thing: oh we have these levers that we’ve made and understand, huh I guess rabbits and storks work the same because why not?
jalapenos 2y ago
He's above us because he could reduce human life beneath his sophisticated sentence. Maybe nerd is a type of narcissism.
- skummetmaelk 2y ago
  Do you feel attacked? Nobody is above anyone. Seems like that's your defensiveness reading something between the lines which isn't implied.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    Could just say "yeah what I said was nerdy" and call it a day.
    - skummetmaelk 2y ago
      You expect the person whom you just called an arrogant narcissist to agree with you? Good luck with that.
      - jalapenos 2y ago
        Fair point haha

They don't pretend they understand everything though, just as we do not "understand" everything about LLMs even though we know they run on electronic computer systems; some properties are simply emergent via structure, and the same properties can emerge via biological computers too, but again, to notice that fact does not mean we "pretend to understand."

keybored 2y ago
All of the assumptions (and the metaphor) contained in that response of yours seems to contradict the statement itself. By using “just” you’ve already asserted that there is nothing more of relative importance to figure out—it’s done, figured out.
- pjc50 2y ago
  These days "just" is a huge red flag for me. It's saying "my thinking stops here, yours should too".
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Yes, by using "just," it is a thought terminating word. However, again, I do believe we have it figured out, based on how we understand the rest of the universe to be physically-based as well. It is, in my experience, human arrogance that leads us to believe that we are somehow more than physical structures. It makes people feel uneasy to believe that so they invent something to solve that cognitive dissonance.
  - keybored 2y ago
    The relevant comparison isn’t to people who think we are “more than physical structures”. It is to people who are a bit humbled by the complexity of the world and how when you seem to learn something new about it, ten more questions pop up. Which must be a forced attitude that some scientists have. Contrast that with the arrogance of creating a neural network in your garage and thinking to yourself: “well I guess as a side-effect of this all of existence makes sense now.”
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism! I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant.
      - keybored 2y ago
        > None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, If they do research and this viewpoint works for them then who am I to judge. I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about). > Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism! I don’t understand what physicalism is supposed to be about[1] beyond explicitly denying God-of-the-gaps. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90 > I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant. Just like no one identified themselves as being arrogant because they believe that they are more than physical structures. Or even claimed that they believe that they are more than physical structures. (The reductionists will often barge in an identify anyone who disagrees with their opinion as someone who believes in the supra-physical, based on nothing.)
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        > I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about). Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here.
        keybored 2y ago
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.” The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        You have superb skills in leveraging often hard to spot ambiguity the English language offers, I think you would excel in sales of most any product, truth included.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Thanks, indeed I do do sales, for SaaS specifically, my own as well as for others.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Got it, yeah I think we're in the same boat here. It's clearly physical, and yet that ought to be the beginning, not the end of inquiry. Dualism is probably one of the most intellectually destructive ideas we've managed to come up with.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Yes, and I really think it stems from religious biases, of wanting to think ourselves as being a soul inhabiting a body instead of being the body in itself. There's a reason why Descartes was one of the prime motivators of dualism.
paganel 2y ago
> biological computers Using that as a metaphor is telling in itself, as we're far from being (just) "biological computers".
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  > as we're far from being (just) "biological computers". What part is? Or rather, how can you show that we are not? Note that I use "computer" in the general sense, that which computes, by taking in input and emitting output.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory > The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloch and the Macy Conferences, as well as many other thinkers in the field of cybernetics. 1969 zine from BCL students, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34825918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34825918 2003 essay collection, "Understanding Understanding", http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf In the late 1940s a group of people had begun meeting every year in New York under the auspices of the Josiah Macy Foundation to discuss “circular causal and feedback mechanisms” .. The group included Norbert Wiener, who had coined the term “cybernetics”; Claude Shannon, the inventor of information theory; Warren McCullough, one of the leading neuropsychiatrists—he called himself an “experimental epistemologist”; Gregory Bateson, the philosopher and anthropologist; his wife Margaret Mead, the anthropologist who made Samoa famous; John von Neuman, one of the people who started the computer revolution..
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago

I prefer mimicry of understanding attempts to defensive aggression against anything new and "threatening". One has the chance to develop into actually understanding, given time

keybored 2y ago
I don’t even know what you are talking about. Both of our comments are equally aggressive since I mimicked the delivery. > to defensive aggression against anything new and "threatening". What’s new. You can take this back to Cartesian Dualism (or further) where animals where just “machines”. Same thing: oh we have these levers that we’ve made and understand, huh I guess rabbits and storks work the same because why not?

jalapenos 2y ago

He's above us because he could reduce human life beneath his sophisticated sentence. Maybe nerd is a type of narcissism.

skummetmaelk 2y ago
Do you feel attacked? Nobody is above anyone. Seems like that's your defensiveness reading something between the lines which isn't implied.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Could just say "yeah what I said was nerdy" and call it a day.
  - skummetmaelk 2y ago
    You expect the person whom you just called an arrogant narcissist to agree with you? Good luck with that.
    - jalapenos 2y ago
      Fair point haha