7 ms·

You are right that relevant memories and analogous experiences come up and are used as building blocks in our evaluation/exploration of a problem, but it doesn'

You are right that relevant memories and analogous experiences come up and are used as building blocks in our evaluation/exploration of a problem, but it doesn't seem to me an algorithmic procedure at all. You can trace out your journey in solving a problem, in retrospect, but could you encode it into a "solving-a-problem" algorithm? I think you could extract some kind of generic template for problem solving: you come up with an idea, you evaluate whether it is the solution, you adjust the idea if not. But this is a template, not an algorithm. Coming up with an idea has to do with filtering the old and new memories/perceptions that come to mind: does this one seem right? or this one? Evaluating whether it is right is also an active process of asking questions. It involves memory (of the problem to be solved), attention (to the potential solution), judgement (do they fit together?), etc. None of these are a predetermined sequence of steps you apply mechanically, such as the child "solving an integral" above.* *Of course, the child is problem-solving in the sense that it's trying its best to follow your instructions. "Did I cut it right?" "Are the scales even?" But this is not the problem of "solving an integral" to which it is completely oblivious to.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
I think it can be an algorithm, it just that the algorithm will be a very complex one compromised of many different algorithms. It's not an algorithm anyone could practically follow in their lifetime. But there's plenty of algorithms people can't follow in real life.
- tananan 2y ago
  If all one has is hammers, one can start seeing nails everywhere. A screw? That's just a nail which will damage the wood. A tomato? That's just a soft screw which splatters. Etc. What purpose does seeing everything through the lens of an algorithm serve? Is the movement of an electron an algorithm? Is a polar planimeter an algorithm? [0] We design algorithms to solve certain problems. It's part of our problem solving activity. But for what purpose would we go around, assuming things that don't look like algorithms are actually algorithms that are just outside of our reach? This doesn't solve a practical problem, so of what use is that, and where does it lead? My long-winded answer is: We derive satisfaction from being in principle powerful. Our mechanistic/computational knowledge of nature allows us to bend certain parts of it to our will. If there are parts we cannot control, it's at least consoling that we in principle could know/control them. So we stretch computational/algorithmic terms as far as we possibly can. In the end, it envelops us as subjects. We end up in a rather cliche epiphenomenalism + causal determinism worldview: - "Yeah, we have experiences, but they're just inefficacious artifacts of underlying chemistry." - "You - the person who is reasoning - don't actually know what reasoning is like, it's really a very complex algorithm which we could never know or follow." The only way such an uninspiring outlook can subsist is because it jives well with some modern dreams: - "We only need X more compute and Y more years to bend Z part of nature to our will and bring utopia." (cue all the AI hype, see relevant frontpage entry [1]) - "If we're just a machine then maybe we can hack-reward-centers/optimize-drug-concoction/upload-to-mainframe-for-immortality" (cue quasi-immortality pitches and externally-enforced-happines pipe-dreams) - "If I'm just a machine then I'm not responsible for my shortcomings - they're just the outcome of my wiring I cannot influence." (a nice supplement for absolving oneself from responsibility - to oneself) - "If all is mechanical, then I'm just a temporarily embarrassed sovereign over everything. After all, if I just knew the mechanism behind things, then I could bend it to my will." - "I have to believe this because it is obviously true." (maybe the saddest of them all, since it promises nothing except the joy of being right and having others be wrong. it also seeds the others) [0] http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-have-to-be-computers-purple.html http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-ha... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    > What purpose does seeing everything through the lens of an algorithm serve? To me at least it helps me understand how things work. What is an alternative? Because alternative seems like some sort of magic I wouldn't understand. > Is the movement of an electron an algorithm? I think there's a lot of argument and complexity to what an electron exactly is or does, and what its properties actually mean, but I would imagine in general from particle and other levels whole universe can be just a deterministic algorithm, and so anything can be an algorithm. Universe has certain laws and rules which could in theory be simulated, but the simulation must have more capacity than the universe itself has so we inside the universe likely can not do it unless we find a mechanism to somehow bypass this. > But for what purpose would we go around, assuming things that don't look like algorithms are actually algorithms that are just outside of our reach? This doesn't solve a practical problem, so of what use is that, and where does it lead? If I try to think of what is the algorithm behind something, it helps me understand it better. Intuitively I think there's a complex algorithm behind everything, and it's just a matter of spending time and effort to figure out what it exactly is. It's unrealistic to get close to the real detail and nuance of the algorithm, but already trying to figure out the algorithm brings me closer to understanding. > We end up in a rather cliche epiphenomenalism + causal determinism worldview Wait -- what is wrong with that? And also I don't think it's cliche, I think it is likely to be the case? > - "You - the person who is reasoning - don't actually know what reasoning is like, it's really a very complex algorithm which we could never know or follow." I mean writing it down on the algorithmic level is not something we can consciously follow easily. However our brain within us is following those algorithms in the level of efficiency that we cannot consciously follow at that speed step by step, just following the instructions. > The only way such an uninspiring outlook can subsist is because it jives well with some modern dreams: I think my outlook is at least inspiring to me. > - "If we're just a machine then maybe we can hack-reward-centers/optimize-drug-concoction/upload-to-mainframe-for-immortality" (cue quasi-immortality pitches and externally-enforced-happines pipe-dreams) I do think theoretically it would be possible to hack humans to have constant "heroin like euphoria". I'm not sure I exactly care for it, but I do think these things could be done, I just don't know when, is it 50 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Of course while I say right now that I don't exactly care for it, if I tried it for once I would be hooked on it forever, assuming it has no tolerance build up or other negative effects making me consider to quit it. But even real heroin is terribly hard to quit while it has tolerance build up and side effects. > - "If I'm just a machine then I'm not responsible for my shortcomings - they're just the outcome of my wiring I cannot influence." (a nice supplement for absolving oneself from responsibility - to oneself) I'm inclined to think that the World is deterministic, yet I happen to also think that I have reward mechanisms that make me ambitious in a sense that I want to achieve certain goals to feel rewarded and in order to achieve those goals I have to overcome many challenges and improve certain shortcomings because it's needed to achieve those goals. If someone is using those as an excuse they would likely be the type of person to find an excuse in anything anyway. And if they do have goals they want to reach they will be affected by that, because there's certain behaviour that will get you to your desired goals and certain behaviour that is not. Taking responsibility and ownership is rewarded and if you do that, you will reach your goals with higher probability. I don't buy into the sort of thing where "something is bad because some people might use it as an excuse". Because finding an excuse is usually about the mindset, not about what kind of excuses are possible to select from. An AI bot with good goals and reward system, despite it being very obvious that they are programmed and deterministic wouldn't go about to make those excuses. But an AI bot trained to make excuses and be rewarded for it, would keep making excuses no matter what.

mewpmewp2 2y ago

I think it can be an algorithm, it just that the algorithm will be a very complex one compromised of many different algorithms. It's not an algorithm anyone could practically follow in their lifetime. But there's plenty of algorithms people can't follow in real life.

tananan 2y ago
If all one has is hammers, one can start seeing nails everywhere. A screw? That's just a nail which will damage the wood. A tomato? That's just a soft screw which splatters. Etc. What purpose does seeing everything through the lens of an algorithm serve? Is the movement of an electron an algorithm? Is a polar planimeter an algorithm? [0] We design algorithms to solve certain problems. It's part of our problem solving activity. But for what purpose would we go around, assuming things that don't look like algorithms are actually algorithms that are just outside of our reach? This doesn't solve a practical problem, so of what use is that, and where does it lead? My long-winded answer is: We derive satisfaction from being in principle powerful. Our mechanistic/computational knowledge of nature allows us to bend certain parts of it to our will. If there are parts we cannot control, it's at least consoling that we in principle could know/control them. So we stretch computational/algorithmic terms as far as we possibly can. In the end, it envelops us as subjects. We end up in a rather cliche epiphenomenalism + causal determinism worldview: - "Yeah, we have experiences, but they're just inefficacious artifacts of underlying chemistry." - "You - the person who is reasoning - don't actually know what reasoning is like, it's really a very complex algorithm which we could never know or follow." The only way such an uninspiring outlook can subsist is because it jives well with some modern dreams: - "We only need X more compute and Y more years to bend Z part of nature to our will and bring utopia." (cue all the AI hype, see relevant frontpage entry [1]) - "If we're just a machine then maybe we can hack-reward-centers/optimize-drug-concoction/upload-to-mainframe-for-immortality" (cue quasi-immortality pitches and externally-enforced-happines pipe-dreams) - "If I'm just a machine then I'm not responsible for my shortcomings - they're just the outcome of my wiring I cannot influence." (a nice supplement for absolving oneself from responsibility - to oneself) - "If all is mechanical, then I'm just a temporarily embarrassed sovereign over everything. After all, if I just knew the mechanism behind things, then I could bend it to my will." - "I have to believe this because it is obviously true." (maybe the saddest of them all, since it promises nothing except the joy of being right and having others be wrong. it also seeds the others) [0] http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-have-to-be-computers-purple.html http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-ha... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  > What purpose does seeing everything through the lens of an algorithm serve? To me at least it helps me understand how things work. What is an alternative? Because alternative seems like some sort of magic I wouldn't understand. > Is the movement of an electron an algorithm? I think there's a lot of argument and complexity to what an electron exactly is or does, and what its properties actually mean, but I would imagine in general from particle and other levels whole universe can be just a deterministic algorithm, and so anything can be an algorithm. Universe has certain laws and rules which could in theory be simulated, but the simulation must have more capacity than the universe itself has so we inside the universe likely can not do it unless we find a mechanism to somehow bypass this. > But for what purpose would we go around, assuming things that don't look like algorithms are actually algorithms that are just outside of our reach? This doesn't solve a practical problem, so of what use is that, and where does it lead? If I try to think of what is the algorithm behind something, it helps me understand it better. Intuitively I think there's a complex algorithm behind everything, and it's just a matter of spending time and effort to figure out what it exactly is. It's unrealistic to get close to the real detail and nuance of the algorithm, but already trying to figure out the algorithm brings me closer to understanding. > We end up in a rather cliche epiphenomenalism + causal determinism worldview Wait -- what is wrong with that? And also I don't think it's cliche, I think it is likely to be the case? > - "You - the person who is reasoning - don't actually know what reasoning is like, it's really a very complex algorithm which we could never know or follow." I mean writing it down on the algorithmic level is not something we can consciously follow easily. However our brain within us is following those algorithms in the level of efficiency that we cannot consciously follow at that speed step by step, just following the instructions. > The only way such an uninspiring outlook can subsist is because it jives well with some modern dreams: I think my outlook is at least inspiring to me. > - "If we're just a machine then maybe we can hack-reward-centers/optimize-drug-concoction/upload-to-mainframe-for-immortality" (cue quasi-immortality pitches and externally-enforced-happines pipe-dreams) I do think theoretically it would be possible to hack humans to have constant "heroin like euphoria". I'm not sure I exactly care for it, but I do think these things could be done, I just don't know when, is it 50 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Of course while I say right now that I don't exactly care for it, if I tried it for once I would be hooked on it forever, assuming it has no tolerance build up or other negative effects making me consider to quit it. But even real heroin is terribly hard to quit while it has tolerance build up and side effects. > - "If I'm just a machine then I'm not responsible for my shortcomings - they're just the outcome of my wiring I cannot influence." (a nice supplement for absolving oneself from responsibility - to oneself) I'm inclined to think that the World is deterministic, yet I happen to also think that I have reward mechanisms that make me ambitious in a sense that I want to achieve certain goals to feel rewarded and in order to achieve those goals I have to overcome many challenges and improve certain shortcomings because it's needed to achieve those goals. If someone is using those as an excuse they would likely be the type of person to find an excuse in anything anyway. And if they do have goals they want to reach they will be affected by that, because there's certain behaviour that will get you to your desired goals and certain behaviour that is not. Taking responsibility and ownership is rewarded and if you do that, you will reach your goals with higher probability. I don't buy into the sort of thing where "something is bad because some people might use it as an excuse". Because finding an excuse is usually about the mindset, not about what kind of excuses are possible to select from. An AI bot with good goals and reward system, despite it being very obvious that they are programmed and deterministic wouldn't go about to make those excuses. But an AI bot trained to make excuses and be rewarded for it, would keep making excuses no matter what.