--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv3yWsdQKOPpLCLZLJ7DAxPxz3_pT_5Dm_3%3Dz7S0kFjfqA%40mail.gmail.com.
> This is intelligence in the same way "intelligent design" is intelligence.
> it's a tautological design principle
> based on following a simple rule.
> I would say that both this process and natural selection count as intelligence and consciousness, but probably not in the way you would consider it.
> Suffice to say, this algorithm does not seem to think or experience in any remotely similar way to the way you and I do, at least not what we would imagine when we use the word 'think'.
> this is just brute force. There's nothing really magical about it,
> I'm yet to be convinced either way as to whether what humans do is just a more advanced version of this, or something completely different.
> Sorry future AI overlords, please spare me. Though if you're as smart as you say, you probably agree with me anyway. Hopefully you haven't evolved spitefulness yet. ;)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv1LpNQt1nK2kyeKNgn2UnBeRFZaErLs381smktYz_FJUg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyEeOE31c1j4znOeQBmJGxb%2BFMNm3Cg9hBQPHF-dD8sYrQ%40mail.gmail.com.
> John I don't think you are allowing for combinations. And such things as: a neuron can be excitatory or inhibitory and it can change.
> A gene can be fully expressed, partially expressed, or not expressed
> and that can change rapidly depending on the environment.
> Also, single gene effects are fairly rare and combinations of many of them are common.By comparison, a computer byte can be only one of two states.
> David S Moore has written an epigenetics book that is extremely clear while being a high level book. It is obvious from that book that we are just beginning to understand how genes (however defined) work.
> I don't think you can put a number on how complicated they are
> 'Programmed' is totally the wrong word to use in genetics,
> To add to this, I do have one response to John in the same vain. He says "the basic physical processes that operate both you and me...are already well understood." (I have removed the quote chain for the rest of the email because John has an issue with quote chains). Anyway, that one specific thing that I just quoted John saying is fucking nuts. We don't understand how the human mind works at all, not physically, chemically, biologically, informationally. It is largely a mystery.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv27r6hFQ3J2BY6M2Th_wBSyZR6OKVJnTtxQBfoYjLk%3Djg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> What I said was "the basic physical processes that operate both you and me and MuZero are already well understood", and I stand by that remark. Despite brilliant people looking for many years nobody has ever found any evidence there is some fundamental physical process going on in the brain that is not going on in things that are not brains, not even the slightest hint of such a thing. And unless you have a neutrino detector, a 500 inch telescope, or a Black Hole in your backyard, the basic physical processes that produce everything you encounter in your everyday life can be explained by the standard model of particle physics.
> I didn't say any of that,
> what I said is that we have no idea how the the brain and mind work and we really DON'T know the basic processes.
> Every neuron is different. Every membrane bound protein is fluid and essentially unique.
> I am saying that we have only an iota of understanding of the actual biology that underlies the mind,
I didn't say any of that, what I said is that we have no idea how the the brain and mind work and we really DON'T know the basic processes. They would have said the same thing in the 50s when they were just discovering neurons.Every neuron is different. Every membrane bound protein is fluid and essentially unique. Our current understanding of neuroscience is evolving daily, and I'm not talking about some quantum physics strawman that you're making. I am saying that we have only an iota of understanding of the actual biology that underlies the mind, and if you disagree, you only prove to me that you are talking out your ass, and any neuroscientist of merit would tell you the same.
--On Sat, Feb 12, 2022, 2:44 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:--On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 1:28 PM Will Steinberg <steinbe...@gmail.com> wrote:> To add to this, I do have one response to John in the same vain. He says "the basic physical processes that operate both you and me...are already well understood." (I have removed the quote chain for the rest of the email because John has an issue with quote chains). Anyway, that one specific thing that I just quoted John saying is fucking nuts. We don't understand how the human mind works at all, not physically, chemically, biologically, informationally. It is largely a mystery.What I said was "the basic physical processes that operate both you and me and MuZero are already well understood", and I stand by that remark. Despite brilliant people looking for many years nobody has ever found any evidence there is some fundamental physical process going on in the brain that is not going on in things that are not brains, not even the slightest hint of such a thing. And unless you have a neutrino detector, a 500 inch telescope, or a Black Hole in your backyard, the basic physical processes that produce everything you encounter in your everyday life can be explained by the standard model of particle physics.John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv27r6hFQ3J2BY6M2Th_wBSyZR6OKVJnTtxQBfoYjLk%3Djg%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyEZFct4Ak49mBLYBAtZEFi_ZNUqYKCfv0dAQWTFQkTifQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAH%3D2ypVAdckiREO%3DcsmMXdqiOeNcRFx8LstAKBXzQ4FFWFcLFw%40mail.gmail.com.
I don't know why anyone thinks I'm suggesting some kind of unexplained physical phenomenon.We know less than just the connections. The idea of static neurons is some bullshit from the 50s. Neurons are constantly morphing their structure, particularly in what receptors and other membrane bound proteins are on the surface versus in vesicles, as well as the essentially unknown per-cell genome transcription, which is different for every neuron, as well as lots of other cells like glue and astrocytes which we barely understand, and not only that, but we barely even understand gene expression in those cells given recent advances in epigenetics considering histones, methylation, general location of genes within the actual DNA molecule, "junk" DNA which is often not considered junk anymore (duh), repetitive nucleotide sequences that aren't even genes, etc, etc, etc. And still without even talking about connections, there is plenty of intracellular signaling we don't understand, including signals that go the opposite direction of how we thought everythinf went for decades. No, we don't understand even the cellular biology very well. The idea that neurons are solved is ancient. And yeah, talking about connections just opens up another can of worms.But saying we know exactly how neurons and other neural cells work just makes you look ignorant. We are literally on the cutting edge of cellular and molecular neuroscience right now, full of people who work every day to figure out what are currently mysteries. Acting like it's solved belittled the amount of work being done on it as we speak.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyF023_4DGui%2BCLJ%2B3WD2bSJre9vtrZu_5Lb2W%2BXT5DLcA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAH%3D2ypUiuqLOt%3DucRiYq3y%2B%3D0tC%2BHnEwi2iN7At2DfBvhbL8bw%40mail.gmail.com.
> The idea of static neurons is some bullshit from the 50s.
> Neurons are constantly morphing their structure, particularly in what receptors and other membrane bound proteins are on the surface versus in vesicles, as well as the essentially unknown per-cell genome transcription, which is different for every neuron, as well as lots of other cells like glue and astrocytes which we barely understand, and not only that, but we barely even understand gene expression in those cells given recent advances in epigenetics considering histones, methylation, general location of genes within the actual DNA molecule,
> "junk" DNA which is often not considered junk anymore (duh), repetitive nucleotide sequences that aren't even genes, etc, etc, etc.
> we don't understand even the cellular biology very well.
> But saying we know exactly how neurons and other neural cells work just makes you look ignorant.
Idk, I directly disagree with that statement. Discovering a new signaling mechanism is akin to discovering a new function in a programming language or general logic system. It's not much of a leap to believe the discovery of a new logical functionality in the brain could be responsible for some process we don't understand the workings of yet.And really, it's beyond just discovering a new function in a programming language. It's like discovering the brain can use an entirely different programming language. Or even a completely different mode of programming, like a language that was dynamically typed or object oriented when the old ones weren't.Idk if we're on the same page here. We are in the midst of discovering new and vastly different ways that the brain can process information.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKrqSyH-bmGZtkpsXnGt3WLPWBUk7SA%3D%3Dr_Ob-XHFg%2BCm1UKxQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0q%2BK9qt%2BZZWPvxn6o%2BQW2eSZ0_WHL%3D3TZ5QLY-4EOzAg%40mail.gmail.com.
> Is there something about 750 megabytes that limits the number of connections our brains can make?
> At this time the only thing impressive about supercomputers is that they are fast.
> Thus I don't think we can count much on just counting the genes and estimating intelligence.
I don't care if neurons are static or not, either way it doesn't change the fact that the human genome contains at most 750 megabytes, a pitifully small number.
> I honestly don't know if I have have a conversation with you if this is the level you're thinking on. [...] the idea of using the bit count of the basic quaternary-digital representation of the human genomes is just...so, so ignorant,
> Yeah, 750 mb if you just imagine it is some overly simplified base-4 system of nucleotides. But you ignore so many things. For one, that's the kernel,
> try raising a human without any inputs
> you won't get something intelligent. You will get a drooling feral child that can't do anything for itself.
> And again, this ignores epigenetics
> You act as if your 750 mb quip is some kind of 'gotcha!'
> methylation/histones/etc are entirely separate layers on top of the basic genome.
> Not to mention that we also have symbioses with other organisms,
> methylation/histones/etc are entirely separate layers on top of the basic genome.Bullshit
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0G14g4mTmBCCP6df%3Dhr750nn_a1j5WugWqKfJ%3DcZqQbw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0G14g4mTmBCCP6df%3Dhr750nn_a1j5WugWqKfJ%3DcZqQbw%40mail.gmail.com.
> Well yeah, but at that point what does the 750mb even signify?
> Clearly it's not a great measure of potential complexity
> given the richness of human experience.
> I only mean to say that I think it's really tough to apply a data measurement to humanity and have it make any real sense, to a point where I think it's kind of useless to try
>> the recipe for building the cell's entire epigenetic system, and that's why I said epigenetics does not add anything to that 750 megabyte figure that I've been mentioning.
> Perhaps so, but the changes in the epigenetic system are controlled by the environment, not the genes, and could change several times in one's lifetime.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0j5vW1benYFz8yBb0sM%3DKJDT9xpMsH3cV3K4yMMLuceQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> I was talking about nucleotide base pairs not genes because that places an upper limit on the complexity of the entire human body, or at least the human body at birth before it has learned anything.
> I would like to know more about that. Can you send me a link showing how those pairs limit connections? No one has ever run out of memory space, so learning after birthing seems unlimited.
> As for complexity, we have genes that can operate by themselves, as two, three, thousands.
> The number of combinations is essentially infinite,
> not even counting epigenetic effects. bill w
> One error: the baby comes with learning already in place as a result of experiences in the womb.
> John, I could not finish The Extended Phenotype. But I did learn a lot from The Selfish Gene. bill w
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0NWujSz50%2Bg%3DoJS2qxzxZ1PobTMiOXQj0Tvc4DFBTLRA%40mail.gmail.com.
> Finally I understand what you mean by the 750 megabytes. I thought we were talking about the intelligence capacity of computers and people.
> I guess I was just reacting to the idea of limits on thinking and you weren't at all.
> I can see where computers will keep getting faster and faster, but I doubt that programmers can put together a program making a computer much smarter.
> We really don't know what 'smarter' means in this context.
> I'll give the Dawkins book another try after I finish the epigenetics book.