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

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#91

Post by satvikpendem »

keybored wrote: post #88
satvikpendem wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No? It is exactly what is being argued in this thread. If you have a different point to make, I'm not sure why you engaged in this specific thread, as there are many others that talk about the specifics of the article itself.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#92

Post by satvikpendem »

keybored wrote: post #87
satvikpendem wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a counter argument, it is a perspective from the other position while offering evidence towards the main argument that one should examine where they are getting their beliefs from.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#93

Post by satvikpendem »

keybored wrote: post #86
satvikpendem wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Not really. Most people do not even believe this to be the case, hence my comments. They are thoroughly convinced that they are not machines like stated above whatsoever.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#94

Post by isk517 »

keybored wrote: post #18
mijustin wrote: post #2

These were the crucial bits for me: > "Sundays are for listing everything that went wrong during the week on the blackboard we painted on the wall of my study, so we can figure out what needs to change." and > "I liked to think about our life as a piece of software. We had our routines and our principles, this was the code. We ran the code by living it. The list on the blackboard was the bug log, a record of the ways…

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...

As both a programmer and a marathoner my life is a program in which I'm constantly either in or preparing for a great long race. I wish this was a joke.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#95

Post by 1659447091 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #25
1659447091 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was an inherent personality that came out because of precisely the opposite, they simply didn't give a shit what anyone else thought. A possible missing step here. While maybe true for some, many of (the few) eccentric types I know grew up bullied or ostracized in some small ways and after repeated failings to "fit in" or please others expectations said f-this and embraced themselves. It still came about from ot…

Hence > unless they've been socially (or perhaps even physically) repressed

I took repressed to mean a far greater extent than typical school yard bullying I meant to convey

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#96

Post by nonrandomstring »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #65
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…

I think it is interesting that you are imposing a value judgment on the humanist spiritual belief being better than the "reductionist" one through your adjective usage. It is perfectly possible to live well and enjoy life knowing that you are fundamentally not different than any other object in nature. No higher divinity required.

Could we not say that if science is exploration a scientist is kinda honour-bound to investigate everything that "is the case" [0], every corner of life, and incorporate that into his/her model of whatever they're working on?

What makes life enjoyable for me is exploring it so I've not found a dichotomy between a "humanist spiritual belief" and a "reductionist one". That's a smouldering flame war that started half a millennium back between Copernicus, Galileo and the church. May I suggest a cool read is "The Two Cultures." by C. P. Snow [1]. Snow thinks, as I do, that this artificial split holds humanity back. Albert Einstein is also a great study to get into this groove.

If I am objecting to anything (not sure if I am really) it is the strident certainty with which some who have explored part of the territory declare that there is nothing more to see. That applies to either side. Maybe there's stuff that would make the material facts of physics and biology that much more wonderful and enjoyable to behold.

[0] "The world is all that is the case" - Wittgenstein

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#97

Post by atoav »

satvikpendem wrote: post #93
keybored wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If input-output is the only message here then it’s a boring and obvious one. Not really. Most people do not even believe this to be the case, hence my comments. They are thoroughly convinced that they are not machines like stated above whatsoever.

See, now we are getting to the interesting core of the whole thing, a core argument which was masked by a somewhat trendy metaphor.

Which is precisely why I dislike them.

The core argument is one about the non-existence of free will and one many people reject as you were right to point out. The reasons vary from personal discomfort with the idea of not being in control, over religious ideas of souls, to basically falling for the illusion and defending it.

The more interesting question about determinism is in which way it is deterministic? Like the movement of the planets? Like the weather? Or like brownian motion? Probably a mix of all of those, but what mix?

And if everything is an input and output and any slight variation throws of the long term development of the system, there would be no way to test that theory with two separate human entities and no way to make accurate predictions on long time scales, which makes the whole point kinda moot.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#98

Post by atoav »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #72
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.

The terms used to describe the modern technology are derived from early neuroscience going back to the late 19th century. Our understanding of how biological neural networks operate lead to this conclusion. Not the other way around.

A fact which hopefully most people are aware of. I did not question that.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#99

Post by walterbell »

satvikpendem wrote: post #53
walterbell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory > The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloc…

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.

> This seems

If you're going to casually dismiss twenty years of funded research on the topic you asked about, then this is a self-regulating thread.

https://constructivist.info/riegler/pub/riegler05foerster.ht...

> Artificial neural networks were one of the “hot” topics at the BCL. They combine engineering.. and empirical science.. As early as in 1960, the BCL developed a neural network prototype called “Numa-Rete,” which could count objects irrespective of their shape and size.

https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=12098476

  The reductionist eventually comes to know everything about nothing (by way of distinction) - the wholist eventually comes to know nothing about everything (by way of generalization).

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#100

Post by satvikpendem »

atoav wrote: post #97
satvikpendem wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If input-output is the only message here then it’s a boring and obvious one. Not really. Most people do not even believe this to be the case, hence my comments. They are thoroughly convinced that they are not machines like stated above whatsoever.

See, now we are getting to the interesting core of the whole thing, a core argument which was masked by a somewhat trendy metaphor. Which is precisely why I dislike them. The core argument is one about the non-existence of free will and one many people reject as you were right to point out. The reasons vary from personal discomfort with the idea of not being in control, over religious ideas of souls, to basically fal…

> The more interesting question about determinism is in which way it is deterministic? Like the movement of the planets? Like the weather? Or like brownian motion? Probably a mix of all of those, but what mix?

Yes, as I stated, if you follow philosophers of the mind, they cover all of these aspects and more. It is hard for me to go in depth without rehashing their arguments so I will invite you to study them.

> there would be no way to test that theory with two separate human entities and no way to make accurate predictions on long time scales, which makes the whole point kinda moot.

Just because this is the case does not make it untrue. There are lots of things we cannot fully test with certainty (in the Locke epistemology sense) that we nevertheless assume to be true. This may or may not be one of these cases, but it does not make it "moot."

Post reply on HN