Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less complicated systems successfully reason about more complicated systems all the time. Ditto for self-reasoning. See: bootloaders, update systems, and package managers. In order to prove that some kind of meta-cognition is inherently beyond our grasp, you don't just have to prove that the system we are attempting to reason about is more complex than ourselves, you also have to prove that the problem isn't meaningf…
> "a ruler can only measure less precisely than itself" That's actually super interesting. How do you bootstrap (as it were) a ruler? Like, assume you don't have any machine that is itself created by using a ruler (so no screws or gears, except hand cut ones). Obviously it's possible, since we did it. But how do you do it?
Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
151–160 of 173 posts
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you even define accuracy for an analog process which solves for unknown formulations? Not saying you can't, but afaik there's no ground to call them accurate. It's certaintly chucking a lot of data in functional ways.
Reaction time and the physical operation of the body are things that seem obvious to me. Try to design a control system for a machine that could replicate a gymnast, for example.
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less complicated systems successfully reason about more complicated systems all the time. Ditto for self-reasoning. See: bootloaders, update systems, and package managers. In order to prove that some kind of meta-cognition is inherently beyond our grasp, you don't just have to prove that the system we are attempting to reason about is more complex than ourselves, you also have to prove that the problem isn't meaningf…
> "a ruler can only measure less precisely than itself" That's actually super interesting. How do you bootstrap (as it were) a ruler? Like, assume you don't have any machine that is itself created by using a ruler (so no screws or gears, except hand cut ones). Obviously it's possible, since we did it. But how do you do it?
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you even define accuracy for an analog process which solves for unknown formulations? Not saying you can't, but afaik there's no ground to call them accurate. It's certaintly chucking a lot of data in functional ways.
Reaction time and the physical operation of the body are things that seem obvious to me. Try to design a control system for a machine that could replicate a gymnast, for example.
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
When we say the brain has poor computational accuracy, we’re usually talking about the conscious brain we’re aware of. But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. These low-level brain computations are the thing to compare to AI, not our conscious thinking. Our conscious mind is more like low-precision software running on top of an enormously powerf…
> But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. That accuracy is more likely achieved through fast, analog feedback loops than precise calculation.
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels more to me like hardware and software in the sense of a Jacquard loom. I suppose it fits though. I was thinking more about what's going on in the brain. We have all the regions mapped to specific functions with higher and lower level parts. The low level parts seem to be like hard-wired stimulus-response mechanisms. Are the higher level systems the same at a meta level or is there a type of program running…
The stimulus response mechanisms are far from hard wired. The brain is plastic at all levels.
Anyway, that wasn't really what I was asking about. Is there any separation between the biological hardware of the brain and the instructions of software?
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less complicated systems successfully reason about more complicated systems all the time. Ditto for self-reasoning. See: bootloaders, update systems, and package managers. In order to prove that some kind of meta-cognition is inherently beyond our grasp, you don't just have to prove that the system we are attempting to reason about is more complex than ourselves, you also have to prove that the problem isn't meaningf…
> "a ruler can only measure less precisely than itself" That's actually super interesting. How do you bootstrap (as it were) a ruler? Like, assume you don't have any machine that is itself created by using a ruler (so no screws or gears, except hand cut ones). Obviously it's possible, since we did it. But how do you do it?
To make a very flat surface plate, you can grind three less-flat surface plates against each other (three because if you only have two, the common surface guaranteed by symmetry can still have curvature). To make a very precise cylinder, you can grind a less-precise cylinder in a "V" formed by two flat surfaces. To make a very regular lead screw, you can grind a less regular lead screw with a less regular reversible nut. Now you can construct a micrometer, and from there your mill/lathe and you're off to the races :)
That's how you bootstrap precision, but taking precision from a basic form and putting it into a complex form is a whole other art. These days we use numerical techniques, but historically geometric construction would have been the ticket. For instance, take a string, use a "standard twig" or something to mark 3+4+5 sections of equal length, cut & tie it into a loop, tension it into a triangle with sides of length 3, 4, and 5 using the marks, and now you've got a right angle.
Modern metrology looks a bit different because time symmetry started beating spatial symmetry. Badly. Absurdly badly. Like "you get twice the digits for the same price" badly. You get 6 digits for pennies in a quarz oscillator and I know the metrologists have chased their clock stability out to at least 19 digits, probably more by now. Also, you can just transmit the reference over the air to globally coordinate accuracy for dirt cheap, you don't even have to ship blocks of platinum-iridium in inert atmosphere. Modern metrology is basically the art of "rebasing" other types of measurement onto measurements of time because time measurements are so ridiculously great.
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. That accuracy is more likely achieved through fast, analog feedback loops than precise calculation.
We don't have analog hardware. Nerves are digital. The best we can do with them is pulse-frequency modulation.
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have analog hardware. Nerves are digital. The best we can do with them is pulse-frequency modulation.
I'm not convinced real neurons are just binary summators. But regardless of that, there's also chemical transmission involved, which is an analog thing.
Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the recent Google quantum "supremacy" experiment evidence against the extended Church-Turing thesis?
Google has not proved quantum supremacy, it is a scam. They have proved the truism that running a physical system is faster than running a simulation of a physical system...
What part of the experiment in the paper released did you feel like was inadequate?