Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

henrikkarlsson.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#81

Post by satvikpendem »

paganel wrote: post #56
satvikpendem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.

In that vein you can also ask lots of similar things, as in, why we're not refrigerators, or washing machines, or any other inanimate objects which carry out some mechanical-related stuff. Trying to come up with a compelling reason for why we're not "biological computers" (and this "trying" in itself is half-giving away of one's point in this types of discussions) would involve long discussions going all the way back…

Sure, those all compute as well, hence are computers and therefore fall within my question. Just because one is only familiar with silicon based computers does not mean that that which takes in input and emits output by other means is not itself a sort of computer. That is in fact part of my question, as, why biological systems are not given the same scrutiny.

This is part of why I don't see any compelling evidence why we are not biological computers, much as it pains people to admit so.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#82

Post by satvikpendem »

mistermann wrote: post #62
satvikpendem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.

You can say it (and if you use language persuasively, and repeat it often enough, you can even cause it to appear to be true [1], the effects of which can usually be seen in any thread like this), but you cannot say it soundly (known to be necessarily conclusive): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency Plus, there are identifiable differences (disproving t…

Your links do not support your conclusions (actually, I don't believe there are any in your comment). Yes, while you can repeat something often enough for it to appear true, it may not actually be true; this is a vacuous statement that does not need to be stated. My comment about LLMs are generally analogistic, they are not meant to be taken concretely on current implementations.

You have not actually answered my question however, your comment is a deflection of what I'm asking, so I will ask again, why are biological beings not considered computational? They do the same thing a general computer can do. And again, by "computer," I do not necessarily mean silicon-based, Von Neumann architecture computers.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#83

Post by satvikpendem »

atoav wrote: post #68
skummetmaelk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you believe it is wrong? Can you construct an argument which does not require the existence of a supernatural "divine"? If you presuppose such things exist, of course we reach different conclusions.

No. I just don't think using the current hot technology as a metaphor for human behavior is as smart of an idea as some think it is. In fact I think it displays the opposite of what is necessary to reach actual artificial intelligence.

You are arguing different points. Just because we use different metaphors over time does not mean the core analogy does not hold. Mainly, systems that intake input and emit output, whether they be in the form of silicon based computers, steam powered machines, etc, seem quite similar to biological machines that also take in input and emit output. Unless you can show that there is some outside process between the intaking of input and emitting of output, physicalism is the most definite and empirically supported conclusion; when I remove part of someone's brain, I can predict with high accuracy how they will behave.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#85

Post by satvikpendem »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #35
pjc50 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could believe that, and it might even be true, but it's no way to live your life.

I'm not sure deflationary statements like this are "beliefs", rather defence mechanisms to truncate further difficult thought. The article has some extraordinary demands; radical openness, reflective practice, co-evolution, mentalisation... all things you'd associate with high emotional intelligence and hard inner work. Some people just aren't up to that. Maybe we need to be able to say "that's okay". Humanists need…

Actually it's quite the opposite, I've seen people who cannot accept that they are biological machines start inventing new and novel reasons for their existence, such as beliefs and religions, even though empirically physicalism is the logical conclusion. This really has nothing to do with the article though, it could've been about any topic regarding humans and their beliefs and we would've likely still had a comment like the grandparent.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#86

Post by keybored »

satvikpendem wrote: post #83
atoav wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I just don't think using the current hot technology as a metaphor for human behavior is as smart of an idea as some think it is. In fact I think it displays the opposite of what is necessary to reach actual artificial intelligence.

You are arguing different points. Just because we use different metaphors over time does not mean the core analogy does not hold. Mainly, systems that intake input and emit output, whether they be in the form of silicon based computers, steam powered machines, etc, seem quite similar to biological machines that also take in input and emit output. Unless you can show that there is some outside process between the inta…

> You are arguing different points. Just because we use different metaphors over time does not mean the core analogy does not hold. Mainly, systems that intake input and emit output, whether they be in the form of silicon based computers, steam powered machines, etc, seem quite similar to biological machines that also take in input and emit output.

And what part of that do people like to pretend is not the case (see OP)? That we have senses and that we act on sense information?

If input-output is the only message here then it’s a boring and obvious one.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#87

Post by keybored »

satvikpendem wrote: post #85
nonrandomstring wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure deflationary statements like this are "beliefs", rather defence mechanisms to truncate further difficult thought. The article has some extraordinary demands; radical openness, reflective practice, co-evolution, mentalisation... all things you'd associate with high emotional intelligence and hard inner work. Some people just aren't up to that. Maybe we need to be able to say "that's okay". Humanists need…

Actually it's quite the opposite, I've seen people who cannot accept that they are biological machines start inventing new and novel reasons for their existence, such as beliefs and religions, even though empirically physicalism is the logical conclusion. This really has nothing to do with the article though, it could've been about any topic regarding humans and their beliefs and we would've likely still had a commen…

The discourse marker “actually” seems to signal a counter-argument, but your reply does not counter that speculation/claim; that people in the other camp—there are of course two camps, we’re good dualists after all—act with deflection using religion or whatever says nothing about what the motivations for the other camp are. They could both have twisted motivations.

Of course the downvoted comment is just speculation about people’s inner life and motivation. Just like the claim that it might

> [pain] people to admit

to your viewpoint is. Or “I really think it stems from religious biases”.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#88

Post by keybored »

satvikpendem wrote: post #79
keybored wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. Again I urge the reductionists[1] to look in the mirror. > No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here. Unless the original poster is a relevant expert like a biologist[2] the point stands. You already agreed that it is thought-terminating—and justifia…

No, they don't need to be a biologist to understand the current situation of physicalism versus dualism. Physicalism is extremely well established in the literature as compared to dualism, of which there is barely if any evidence. You are looking for a philosopher of the mind, not actually a biologist, who can speak on these issues, as biologists and indeed scientists in general are not philosophers, while the debate…

This physicalism/dualism obsession is besides the point.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#89

Post by theonemind »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #15
wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

Humans are very good at pretending we are more than just biological machines acting according to genetically imposed network structure refined by lifetime history of training inputs.

That's too reductionist to be an useful model. Humans are extremely complex systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system . You're describing them more like a complicated system.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#90

Post by keybored »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #60
keybored wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing more boring than someone who explains everything according to their passion-hobby or work. - Programmer: my life is a program - Marathoner: you know, life is like a great long race...

Not introspecting at all might be more boring. Besides, I enjoy a good metaphor like a pitbull enjoys mauling

> Not introspecting at all might be more boring.

Because that’s the relevant takeaway.

Post reply on HN