Live data from Hacker News

Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

thetransmitter.org

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#101
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument a million times, but I am very skeptical: where would the reliable data on infant mortality in ancient times come from? (so that it would allow us to compute precise values of average lifespan). All we have from those times are a few bone samples and a few anecdotes preserved in fragments. I'm not saying anything for or against the ~33 years claim, just that I doubt that it comes from a preci…

In a Gresham College video lecture about microbial disease (if only I remembered the title...) the lecturing professor briefly mentions that in Victorian Britain life expectancy was actually "higher than today" when you exclude children and women (who had a great risk of death during pregnancy and birth). https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/return-microbes-how-infe... The video has a text with the words. Look for > S…

If we kill everyone with chronic diseases the result is that the people left will live longer.

Congratulations, you just rediscovered the health policy of the Third Reich.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#102
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this just an anti-science term adopted by religious people and postmodernists? Not at all, as a scientist, I find scientism to be very common and the biggest obstacle to the general public understanding science- more so than religious people and postmodernists which are at least openly anti-science, rather than just confused about what it is. It is a fanatical religious like belief in the correctness, complet…

Oh okay, thanks for the response. I see more where you're coming from. I don't think I'd describe what you're talking about as "scientism", it's more just a confusion about what science is. There are a lot of critiques of so-called "scientism" but they focus on the assertion that there are ways of "knowing" things that are inaccessible to the scientific process. This more or less directly implies the supernatural (si…

Scientism isn’t just a misunderstanding of science- but idolization and worship of it without practicing it… turning it into a sort of religion replacement, which serves some of the same psychological roles- giving them absolute confidence/faith, freedom from anxiety, etc.

I sympathize with the postmodernists and religious people here… and think we’re talking about the same thing- and literally to the same people. Someone is arrogantly dismissing something they’ve spent a lot of time on as nonsense, without really understanding what it is.

The “scientism-ist” says anything they don’t understand is nonsense or a lie, unless it comes from a “scientific authority.”

When I hear about a religious “truth” or similar idea, I don’t dismiss it, but try to understand what it means to them, and what its functional purpose might be. Religious truths are usually literally false- but they are not really factual claims about physical reality in the first place, but methods or psychological tools that are “true” if they work for the intended purpose. If you visualize God for prayer or meditation - you get to a certain internal state… arguing about if you can find physical evidence of this God misses the point entirely. The more intelligent religious people understand this, but don’t talk about it, because doing so makes it not work anymore for the people not able to understand it in a more nuanced way.

I don’t agree that what they are talking about cannot be understood scientifically in principle- but I may agree our current understanding is too primitive, and not yet able to do so in a useful way… whereas with scientism it is either already understood by an authority- or else there is nothing of value to be understood- anything new or different is just false. Scientism admits no limits to our current understanding, nor to any possibility of future discovery other than a hypocritical lip service to supporting “research funding” or whatever.

On a personal level I can accept that regular obnoxious religious zealots exist and just avoid them… but it really irks me when they are telling me that they are the real scientists and I am not, when it is what I have decided my life to.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this conversation is a good illustration of the damage that Bayesian statistics have done to the "educated" populace. Not that they're inherently bad--it's just a different statistical approach, and it's generally good not to assume a universal background, that everything is normal, etc.--but by telling people it's fine to question statistical conclusions because the distribution might be different, it libera…

Yes, bunch of ignorant beasts we are. It’s totally reasonable and statistically sound to use statistics from Victorian England as the sole proxy for the pre-modern human race. /s

[deleted]

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the latest LLM models have almost as many parameters as we have neurons I often see this take, but the apt comparison is between parameter and synapse count, not neuron count. You should be counting hidden units rather than weights if you want to compare to neuron counts.

I think you should compare synapse and weight counts if you want a measure of the network's state/capacity. If you want something closer to its compute power, compare neurons and hidden units.

> I think you should compare synapse and weight counts if you want a measure of the network's state/capacity. If you want something closer to its compute power, compare neurons and hidden units.

Even this is far too simple.

1-Astrocytes have processes (extensions) with localized calcium wave signaling as well as global cell calcium wave signaling that is involved in computation of some types of sensory inputs

2-Astrocytes detect and produce neuro-transmitters as well as glial-transmitters (and generally control/influence the synapses between neurons)

3-Neurons have tunneling nanotubes that dynamically connect cells together (on short time scales) and can transfer proteins, calcium (action potentials), etc.

4-Some types of neurons have natural resonance properties which impacts their function and processing of inputs

5-Some types of neurons learn input patterns in isolation (purkinje cells), meaning one single neuron can learn a time series of input and respond appropriately when pattern detected

etc.

There is a long list of interesting and unknown capabilities, it's pretty difficult to compare neurons+cells to an ANN at this point, too much unknown.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#105

There are even bigger problems. For example, the common “this region lights up more if this is done” type of fMRI studies are suspect because what the fMRI tool does may have no bearing to actual brain function. I read a book by a neuroscientist lamenting the abuses of fMRI in papers a while ago. Unfortunately, unable to locate the reference.

Is the book titled "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience"? The writers are apparently not neuroscientists.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#106
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An elephant brain has 3 times as many neurons as a human. They are pretty smart animals but so are dogs who have way less neurons. The point here being that the number of neurons is just one of the many factors that determines intelligence (general or not)

80% of human neurons are actually in the cerebellum and are not related to consciousness at all

we're talking about general intelligence and not about consciousness at all.

it's unclear how much of what we call intelligence is involving the cerebellum as well, but it may be quite relevant.

Of course the main reason why it's hard to have these kinds of conversations is that we don't all use the same definition of what "intelligence" means.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#107
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a Gresham College video lecture about microbial disease (if only I remembered the title...) the lecturing professor briefly mentions that in Victorian Britain life expectancy was actually "higher than today" when you exclude children and women (who had a great risk of death during pregnancy and birth). https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/return-microbes-how-infe... The video has a text with the words. Look for > S…

If we kill everyone with chronic diseases the result is that the people left will live longer. Congratulations, you just rediscovered the health policy of the Third Reich.

Your comment makes no sense as response to what I wrote. People who die already do show up in those numbers.

You should also consider that those are not my words, you are arguing against that professor.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#109

There are even bigger problems. For example, the common “this region lights up more if this is done” type of fMRI studies are suspect because what the fMRI tool does may have no bearing to actual brain function. I read a book by a neuroscientist lamenting the abuses of fMRI in papers a while ago. Unfortunately, unable to locate the reference.

Is the book titled "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience"? The writers are apparently not neuroscientists.

No this was written by a neuroscientist.

Re: Averaging is a convenient fiction of neuroscience

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% of human neurons are actually in the cerebellum and are not related to consciousness at all

we're talking about general intelligence and not about consciousness at all. it's unclear how much of what we call intelligence is involving the cerebellum as well, but it may be quite relevant. Of course the main reason why it's hard to have these kinds of conversations is that we don't all use the same definition of what "intelligence" means.

The cerebellum is not, afaik, relevant to intelligence in any way shape or form. There are case studies of people with more or less complete agenesia (=lack) of the cerebellum who didn't know about it until they went into an MRI for unrelated reasons. Iirc they mostly had below average motor skills but that's it.
Post reply on HN