randomImmigrant

15 ms·

91.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
The metabolic science is really cool. The conclusion that life arose twice requires you to buy that proto-cells that grew on these vents and needed those metallic surfaces to survive didn’t count as “life”. Then, free living cells, bacteria
92.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
> The Connection Machine CM-2 (1987) has a non von Neumann architecture and mixes memory and processing .. so that's been done, 40 years ago. Are you claiming that it therefore thinks? It’s a foray into a different type of computing
93.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Because “Europe” hasn’t been one thing for any length of time. And what even does “become so dominant” mean? You do know evolution isn’t some straight accumulative equation, right? Dominance means all things done are good? Dominance over wh
94.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
What about the simple fact that biology is a dynamic substrate running actively and always on, whereas silicon is passive substrate that can be indefinitely off and can never self start? Sure you can imagine nanotechnology that has simila
95.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Relax. I don’t think the OP means there’s some genetic flaw in Europeans that makes them ecologically imbalanced by nature. They’re saying that a lot of indigenous culture and practice was more sustainable. This may be for various reasons,
96.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Yes... when these things are done, we can talk. Which is why I said "I believe machines could be made that think". They can be. We just haven't done it yet.
97.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
This is neuroscience. I don't give a damn about Christianity. And nothing here says humans are special. Only that biology broadly is different than computing.
98.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Made some updates to my post but glad you brought up simulation: today when we simulate the brain, at whatever resolution, we do so in digital systems that have the Von Neumann bottleneck. Processing and memory are separated. In humans and
99.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms
100.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
You mean apart from all the biological evidence? I explained some of that in another thread in this topic.
101.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
It's very obvious actually, because it isn't just nerves in the brain. There's an equal number of glial cells, which form a continuous network, or syncitium. Their activity is in the form of calcium waves, which are both resp
102.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Yep. They also don't experience time. They can count compute steps. They can look at the wall clock and tell you the time. But give them a task at 11:59 PM, and if they get it done by 12 AM, they won't know just a minute has passe
103.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
It's pretty meaningful actually. Because biological neurons don't sit alone. There's a third player in every synapse: the astrocyte. And astrocytes form a large syncitium, a collection of cells that are "open" to ea
104.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Of course it's meaningful! It would be highly meaningful if submarines could actually swim. And we are building submersible bots that swim, they just tend to be small and made of biological matter. The problem with calling what AI do
105.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Preach. The way out is to find truly basic problems that you’re attacking at a fundamental level. That rarely gets funded. And even more rarely handed off to grad students. In a sense the failure of a bunch of grad students is priced in to
106.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Or… you could go outside? But the analysis rests on 0 ventilation, which doesn’t work at all. I think the main thing to keep in mind is plants really aren’t industrial carbon sinks. They were never evolved to be. Their biological functions
107.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
No the argument isn’t wrong. It isn’t proof of a particular civilization, but it’s not wrong about the detection threshold for such things. You can’t compare fossilization, which is very dependent on certain properties of biological tissue,
108.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Top line difference is speed. The impact of speed is deeper and gets felt over time. Traditional research publications are no angels. They gatekeep research, and also allow financial incentives to drive them to publish junk with their stamp
109.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
What the blogificafion of AI research has done is allowed all kinds of claims and terminology related to AI to be introduced and taken up in a manner replicating social media dynamics. And that is simply not healthy. We’re fast reaching a p
110.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
That’s not the Silurian hypothesis the astrophysicists put out. That’s the author extending it to fit those myths.
111.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
Actually correct. We have very very few fossils compared to the millions of species that have evolved and gone extinct over 4 billion years. The fossils we do have are of highly successful species in that geography. It’s a matter of chance,
112.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
No. The idea is they could have lived and thrived for a few thousand years a few million years ago, then gone extinct.
113.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
What the research shows and what Stephenson is alluding to also points to the way the design of digital technology has flattened human-computer interaction by prioritizing speed. It is not impossible to design digital products that achieve
114.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
Yes, the nomenclature in math is atrocious. It isn’t much better in physics or biology however. As a species, we suck at naming and classification, and keep starting new trends atop old ones. There is certainly need for the many abstractio
115.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
Why is it hard to argue lifespan has been a major factor? You speak of “prerequisite brain structures to support recursive grammars”… would they arise in short lived species, given we know these are complex brain regions that take time to d
116.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
But scale of knowledge acquisition is mediated by, at minimum, lifespan, and what knowledge there is to verbalize and pass on, no? It’s not like we got the language then built our hands based on the knowledge shared by another person with h
117.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
Simple. Energetics. Gaseous exchange has many energetic benefits that you give up if you have a mostly inert atmosphere. If all your reactive chemistry comes from water/minerals, you’re also a heck of a lot more tethered, as both these
118.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
We really don’t know this for certain at all. We do know crows can communicate information about the face of a person they dislike to their murder, including to new generations. It seems a bit of a stretch to say their cultural transmission
119.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
Are we conveniently assuming that only humans will be able to read and tweak their genomes, and do synthetic biology? An odd assumption if we’re generously granting FTL or even regular space travel to aliens. Everything from the lack of rad
120.
by randomImmigrant 3mo ago
Note: terrestrial chemistry is no different from chemistry that can occur anywhere, given the right molecules and conditions, and even then it’s a matter of degree. Nitrogen being replaced by helium would actually be fine but for the niggli

More ›