51–60 of 66 posts
First, "Theory of Mind" is something experienced at a high level directly. We do reason about our own and other's actions, (both successfully and unsuccessfully of course). We still have much to learn about how this works and is implemented, but I don't think it is controversial that each of us do develop theories about our own minds and others and use that along with other information.
Second, "Theory of Mind" does not mean "a scientific theory of the mind" it means that each of us develops internal theories of our own and other's minds. In one case "Theory" means something in our heads, in the other "theory" means a scientific body of knowledge.
This seems to have confused the author greatly.
So "Theory of Mind" has nothing to say about how neural circuits record information about locations in a maze and whether that recorded information can be considered "meaning" or not.
"Of course you could argue that what Nobel Prize winning research shows about rats is irrelevant to humans."
Wow! This really underlines that second confusion. Of course rat's brains can tell us something about >, but since we already know rat's don't model each other's internal actions with the detail we do, it would be problematic to view them as reliable sources for investigating the particular theory of human minds called "Theory of Mind".
Sigh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If instead of requiring various concepts of philosophy to be real, one simply requires them to be irreducible - not explanable as an ensemble effect of a larger system - then one winds-up with nearly the same thing. And I don't know how this requirement of irreducibility isn't a part of many philosophical views of the mind - specifically, isn't that what's important about "qualia", that they are irreducible?
Why would you require this? Concepts can either be a part meaningfully differentiated from the whole (neocortex, hypothalamus -> the whole brain) or an aggregate that while reducible to more basic parts is meaningfully differentiated from other similarly reduced aggregates (neocortex vs. hypothalamus). What seems to define the demand for the "real" or "irreducible" is wanting the nature of reality to in some sense "d…
"Assuming the experience of "qualia" is irreducible is to insist on dualism."
The Qualia does exist. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the The Qualia is. You have to see it for yourself.
I posted about fusing Neanderthal brains to spiking neural networks here once. A HN poster threatened to get the Pope to stop me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18425194 You have no idea how much more powerful neurology is over machine learning.
"Besides its economic threat, the advance of AI seems to pose a cultural threat: if physical systems can do what we do without thought to give meaning to their achievements, the conscious human mind will be displaced from its unique role in the universe as a creative, responsible, rational agent." That's a bit of an aggrandizing characterization for the gang of monkeys that climbed down the trees a couple of ice ages…
Seriously though, human's have been replaced every few years since we showed up. As long as AI's don't annihilate each other I think we should just be proud parents and stop worrying that they are going to grow up and want the car keys.
Can someone drop a TLDR for the at-work crowd? would be V grateful
Humans have this seemingly innate or nearly innate theory of mind, where the beliefs and desires of other people can be reasoned about in an effort to understand or predict their behavior. A few key neuroscience results suggest that the brain does not really work how the "theory of mind" has us think it should. The concepts of belief and desire that we use in our theory of mind, may actually just be crude heuristics…
But heuristics are real things and I have never heard any claims that "Theory of Mind" assumed some particular neural circuit implementation.
So there is a false dichotomy if the article is to be interpreted as pitting "Theory of Mind" against evidence that it isn't a simple circuit.
I don't think the article can be reduced to anything that actually makes sense.
Can someone drop a TLDR for the at-work crowd? would be V grateful
China will create designer babies with extremely high IQ (150%+). There will be no way for the rest of the world to compete using good old fashioned nature, so they either become irrelevant, serfs, or also start using in-vitro CRISPR editing. This will lead to AGI in a single generation (so about 30-40 years).
No.
In my own anecdotal experience over the past couple years, this no hypothesis has been right about 90% of the time.
The article's logic is a soup sandwich of two huge misunderstandings: First, "Theory of Mind" is something experienced at a high level directly. We do reason about our own and other's actions, (both successfully and unsuccessfully of course). We still have much to learn about how this works and is implemented, but I don't think it is controversial that each of us do develop theories about our own minds and others and…