Live data from Hacker News

Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

opentheory.net

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#21
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are good reasons that most of academia moved on from philosophy. There are philosophy departments in almost every reputable University I know... Everything that is non-STEM is underfunded, it doesn't matter if it is philosophy, anthropology, sociology, history, etc. This has nothing to do with academia itself, but with the managerial society we live in, where MBA-types decide on the value of everything with s…

To see the difference between science and philosophy, compare this article to a reputable scientific paper. You will see that science includes a testable hypothesis, experiments and/or analysis, and conclusions derived from the data. This essay contains none of that.

Philosophy encompasses science. Testable hypothesis are a philosophical idea, justified on philosophical grounds. You can't justify the very idea of "testable hypothesis and experiments" by using testable hypothesis and experiments. There is a branch of philosophy devoted to this type of question, called "philosophy of science".

One very famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, gave us the idea that for something to be considered a scientific theory, it must be possible to devise and experiment that could, in principle, falsify the theory. Still, the issue is not settled and there are alternative positions. These are deep questions.

One interesting thing to retain here is that science provides empirical knowledge, but there are other forms of knowledge. You alluded to "testable hypothesis", and so you in fact deployed non-empirical knowledge.

The scientific method gave birth to a branch of philosophy, first known as "natural philosophy", and modernly known as "science".

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#22
post #17

I do not like the lack of actual support in the data for this idea. Not in developmental science, not in neuroscience. Not in how we understand cellular mechanics to work. Neurons and glial cells are born, grow, die and chemically change all the time. Psychedelic therapy is in the infancy. Go and run trials before building sand castles of theory. Most importantly, the testable assumption is what, adding energy would…

Right. There is no testable assumption. This article is philosophy, which was the precursor to science. They are using an entirely outdated paradigm.

You may want to see discussion here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zcYJBTGYtcftxefz9/neural-ann...

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#23

Paradigm-shifting ideas. Thanks for posting. Sounds like this could be A New Kind of Science.

For those who don't know, A New Kind of Science is when Stephen Wolfram of Mathematica fame wrote something like 1000 pages in layman's terms to convince you of his pet theory that the universe is a cellular automaton. I didn't the hate the book but it was pretty weird and not super scientific.

I regret being so cynical about this post and the book I mentioned.

It's a really nice book. Lots of beautiful illustrations and interesting ideas with code snippets for generating those illustrations. I found it fascinating as a kid. The message wasn't too important for me, and I didn't really have the background to draw my own conclusions from it anyway.

Someone on IRC, who was a big fan, introduced it to me.

I actually started programming with this very book, copying the examples from it into Python and then Scheme (introduced to me by that same guy) and Common Lisp. I respect Wolfram's dedication. It's the type of dedication that brings us things like Mathematica and TempleOS.

The guy who introduced me to this book and then Scheme had contacts at Wolfram Research and later sorted me out with a free copy of Mathematica. I could never have afforded that with my pocket money, and I wasn't at university yet. He was a big underdog in the community and had his own problems too. What a great guy.

He's still going strong today: http://xahlee.org/

There's something to be taken even from book like this. It would be good to revisit and re-evaluate the book as someone who now has a semblance of an education in the area. I wish I didn't sell it.

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#24
post #4

> But we’ve also mostly been doing it wrong, trying to explain the brain using methods that couldn’t possibly generate insight about the things we care about. Wow, it must suck to work in neuroscience and find out that your entire field is pointless because this guy says so.

This comment is inflammatory, how is it at the top? Statements saying we're doing it wrong are either revolutionary or misinformed, and I don't see that it's obvious either way

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#25

To hold a concept of certain complexity within the brain the brain itself must have greater complexity than the concept. Thus humans can never understand the brain because the brain has equal complexity to itself and for the brain to understand the brain then it must have greater complexity than itself which is impossible. Like many other things in life, we can only hope to understand a simplified and symbolic repres…

The problem with your line of reasoning, is that you are thinking in technological progress only through individual achievement. This is what technological iterations, through generations of human beings, give us all. Humans achieve super-human level of technological achievements because we iterate over what others have left for us. Knowledge is like a stair, made from the hard work of many great human beings, and ev…

Yes. You might find interesting some very rated ideas as this article - Bayesian Brain. In this view, the brain is a complex system that learns to adapt to and predict its environment, similar to other complex systems like even companies.

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#26
post #24
post #4

> But we’ve also mostly been doing it wrong, trying to explain the brain using methods that couldn’t possibly generate insight about the things we care about. Wow, it must suck to work in neuroscience and find out that your entire field is pointless because this guy says so.

This comment is inflammatory, how is it at the top? Statements saying we're doing it wrong are either revolutionary or misinformed, and I don't see that it's obvious either way

I thought it was a reasonable response to an inflammatory position. If you think you've discovered a new approach that works better than the current ones, you can announce it without dismissing an entire discipline as hopelessly ineffective.

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#27
post #17

I do not like the lack of actual support in the data for this idea. Not in developmental science, not in neuroscience. Not in how we understand cellular mechanics to work. Neurons and glial cells are born, grow, die and chemically change all the time. Psychedelic therapy is in the infancy. Go and run trials before building sand castles of theory. Most importantly, the testable assumption is what, adding energy would…

Right. There is no testable assumption. This article is philosophy, which was the precursor to science. They are using an entirely outdated paradigm.

Philosophy is an 'entirely outdated paradigm'..? This is news.

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#28

I do not like the lack of actual support in the data for this idea. Not in developmental science, not in neuroscience. Not in how we understand cellular mechanics to work. Neurons and glial cells are born, grow, die and chemically change all the time. Psychedelic therapy is in the infancy. Go and run trials before building sand castles of theory. Most importantly, the testable assumption is what, adding energy would…

Hi AstralStorm, You may want to check out some of the background research to get a sense of what this piece is trying to do-- I can recommend: - Atasoy's YouTube talk on CSHW (as linked and transcribed here: https://qualiacomputing.com/2017/06/18/connectome-specific-h... ) - Carhart-Harris and Friston's REBUS model: http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/71/3/316/tab-artic... - More recently, Friston's Waves of Pr…

A definition of how the aggregate would look, and explanation on why lesions have predictable results in every brain, as pure annealing based process would produce amorphous results. Why brains are similar in structure?

This model just does not deal well with lesions. After all, a lesion would be even stronger of a change than normal processes or psychedelics, causing the annealing to revert locally while it is healing. We do not observe this "untraining" behavior caused by healed neural lesions as per experiments on quadriplegic rats that get spinal therapy. They need next to no rehabilitation to run again.

Likewise, existence of phantom pain phenomenon is counterevidence - and why it just cannot be simply untrained.

Yes, I literally poked a hole through this idea. If it actually ever produces working results, then it should be able to fix phantom pain.

Likewise, single seizures would cause permanent changes in personality or skill as aftereffects, which is not observed. Whereas repeated ones do, but still not exactly with permanent effects. How does this model explain the difference? The applied "energy" is the same... However epileptics rarely show similar effects, even if they also suffer Grand Mal seizures. Why the difference?

Why do mood disorders show up most often in adolescence and say not later? How does this model explain age related dementia? Why only certain anesthetics cause mental problems? (Or sometimes cure, e.g. ketamine.) Etc.

The model perhaps works partially in a normally functioning brain, but does not help us understand at all how memory is formed or why is it located mostly in hippocampus. Why cerebellum handles balance and movement, why there is another cortical movement handling? "An attractor forms" begs the question of "why" or "why in this form", which this theory cannot answer. (Especially why these structures are mostly already formed in utero, but still need additional training.)

Whereas developmental neuroscience based on proper hormonal basis can. (Up to a point, it's quite new.)

The whole thing is a logical (as in high level) explanation based on no biological basis. It lacks the complete causation chain for how psychedelics operate and why every one of them produces different results. Most importantly, an underlying chemical based model would produce identical results as the neurons themselves change permanently in response. (See: neuronal memory allocation mechanisms.) We just do not understand all the neurochemistry related to specific chemicals. Likewise how psychedelics and induced seizures are related. They are, but not entirely and any useful model would explain the difference rather than cover it up.

Neuroplasticity is being studied, a simplistic model of "annealing" is not helping in understanding - whereas results relating to say biology of cell given specific inputs are. (E.g. LTP and its relation to CREB and thus other neurochemistry. Synaptogenesis and axonal chemotaxis. More... That get activated during normal and abnormal operation.)

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#29
post #26
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is inflammatory, how is it at the top? Statements saying we're doing it wrong are either revolutionary or misinformed, and I don't see that it's obvious either way

I thought it was a reasonable response to an inflammatory position. If you think you've discovered a new approach that works better than the current ones, you can announce it without dismissing an entire discipline as hopelessly ineffective.

I read the article (once) and didn’t encounter this passage nor much criticism in general.

Most of the article outlines in a positive way the annealing idea and it’s related extents.

Inflammatory ‘comment’, sure, but hardly a main theme for the article.

Re: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who don't know, A New Kind of Science is when Stephen Wolfram of Mathematica fame wrote something like 1000 pages in layman's terms to convince you of his pet theory that the universe is a cellular automaton. I didn't the hate the book but it was pretty weird and not super scientific.

I regret being so cynical about this post and the book I mentioned. It's a really nice book. Lots of beautiful illustrations and interesting ideas with code snippets for generating those illustrations. I found it fascinating as a kid. The message wasn't too important for me, and I didn't really have the background to draw my own conclusions from it anyway. Someone on IRC, who was a big fan, introduced it to me. I act…

I share your views. TempleOS and Mathematica are monuments to what the human creative spirit can achieve.

Let's not be too fast to pass judgement on their authors while having done 1/100000 of what they did

Post reply on HN