161–170 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shortened: Modeling how the brain works is not synonymous with how humans work. We just need to maintain our awareness of that difference. The good news is, it makes replacing humans - trait for trait - far more more complicated.
Why is it good news?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you will reach human intelligence by just modeling the brain I'm not so sure. I mean obviously this is very complicated and we still know very little of the brain. Just one example (from what I understand) you can't really separate intelligence from emotions. There are researchers in emotions that explain our whole system of affect/feeling/emotion/mood/etc. as a very effective abstraction of all the inputs from our…
You won't have a working human brain emulation, but that doesn't preclude some other form of general intelligence with different emotional drivers being developed.
Those are two very different goals and I don't think one is necessary to achieve the other.
I like to say "the gut is the first brain". There's a reason we perform "gut checks" and "go with our gut" -- it's the first instinct, while the second is the rational systems overlaid on the initial reaction that serve to verify or correct them. Compare with Kahnemann's System 1 and System 2.
We do not have "gut checks" and "going with our guts" because of some ancient wisdom about physiology that only left remnant traces as idioms in English. Also, Kahnemann talked about conscious and unconscious thought, not about "gut thought" and "brain thought." You can teach yourself to behave in certain ways, to just react. That doesn't mean you have a smarter stomach than the next person!
Just to pursue this thread: the Online Etymology Dictionary says
> The notion of the intestines as a seat of emotions is ancient (see bowel) and probably explains expressions such as gut reaction (1963), gut feeling (by 1970), and compare guts. Gut check attested by 1976.
where "guts" says:
> The idea of the bowels as the seat of the spirit goes back to at least mid-14c. (compare bowel).
and "bowel" says:
> The transferred sense of "the viscera as the seat of emotions" is from late 14c.; especially "inner parts as the seat of pity or kindness," hence "tenderness, compassion." Greek splankhnon (from the same PIE root as spleen) was a word for the principal internal organs, which also were felt in ancient times to be the seat of various emotions. Greek poets, from Aeschylus down, regarded the bowels as the seat of the more violent passions such as anger and love, but by the Hebrews they were seen as the seat of tender affections, especially kindness, benevolence, and compassion. Splankhnon was used in Septuagint to translate a Hebrew word, and from thence early Bibles in English rendered it in its literal sense as bowels, which thus acquired in English a secondary meaning of "pity, compassion" (late 14c.). But in later editions the word often was translated as heart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should get into weightlifting.
I do and I do get stuff like OP, overeating for weightlifters that aren't professionals is stupid really long term strategy, you just expose your body to much more toxins in food and degrade whole body faster (without even going into supplements part). Ie today I skipped breakfast since I was too busy with work and kids, no ill effect mentally. But if for example my wife would do the same, her sugar levels would drop…
I’ve recently moved to a meat heavy diet, and that pretty much fixed my ibs completely. I still get flare ups if I eat too many oranges or bananas, but eating meat on every meal is absolutely essential.
This is why the reductionist argument of "your brain is reducible to a computer with inputs/outputs like any other, all we have to do is reimplement it" of AGI proponents always fell flat to me. It's now becoming clear that we can't just take the brain in isolation, treating the spinal nerve like a PCI-E lane - the gut has to come with it. And if the gut comes with it, all the other organs (skin top of the list) prob…
"your brain is reducible to a computer with inputs/outputs like any other, all we have to do is reimplement it" It still is though, you will reach human intelligence by just modeling the brain. The problem is that you probably won't reach an emotionally stable human since you'll be missing all the emotional/hormonal signaling that comes from the rest of the body, but we can emulate that without having to model the fu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. I can see the human body as a system that comprises many input/output mechanisms. (And of course it's possible to emulate such a system given enough compute.) But how can you reduce it to a single "input/output mechanism"? Can you give an example input/output pair for this mechanism?
“The human body” is the single I/O mechanism. Everything deeper than that is an implementation detail
Given the size of my gut, I have at least three other brains