3 ms·
Where is the reasoning in synaptic transmission?
by danielbln 2mo ago
Where is the reasoning in synaptic transmission?
- necovek 2mo agoThere isn't, which is exactly the point: we do not yet understand the fundamentals behind reasoning.
- anon48293 2mo agoDon’t we? We can build something which has all the output associated with reasoning. I’d say we’ve figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning.
- chrisjj 2mo ago> We can build something which has all the output associated with reasoning. Sure. A photocopier fed with a maths paper.
- anon48293 2mo agoI’m willing to bet it still proved more novel mathematical theorems than you did. What does this say about your reasoning?
- slopinthebag 2mo agoExcavator can dig a ditch better than I can, thus it must be more capable than me in every physical dimension.
- anon48293 2mo agoNo. But it is a better digger, and it can in fact dig, evident by the fact that it digs. It doesn’t merely simulate digging just because it’s a machine.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- slopinthebag 2mo agoFirst of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning. But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So it's not a sufficient criterion. Claiming we've figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning is hopelessly naive.
- nsingh2 2mo agoYou are making two different claims, and then treating them as one. 1. Mimicking a process may not prove that the system is truly preforming the same process. In this case, a "reasoning" process. 2. A system that simulates a process cannot, by definition, be doing the process. The first claim can be defended, but the second doesn't follow from the first. Calling it a "simulation" is assuming the conclusion. What makes it a simulation rather than some implementation of reasoning on a different substrate? I.e. transistors rather than neurons.
- slopinthebag 2mo agoWhat makes GTA a simulation and not just a different implementation of the laws of nature and downtown LA?
- anon48293 2mo agoIf the output was identical it wouldn’t just be simulating. You invoke some magic qualia which is intangible.
- slopinthebag 2mo agoThis is just pure unbridled reductionism. "Show me a single atom in the human body that is 'alive'. You can't? Therefore we're all zombies...." Reasoning is an emergent property of complex systems. Prediction is not. Thus you cannot claim reasoning drives prediction.
- danielbln 2mo agoWhy can't an emergent capability arise in service of a predictive objective?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- slopinthebag 2mo agoHow would it?
- hsn915 1mo agoYour comment was reductionist > Where is the reasoning in linear regression? The comment you are replying to was meant to expose you to your own reductionism.