if you're tired of bait threads but still want to tell other people your opinion on something here's your opportunity
lets compare and contrast the human brain and a potential digital representation of the human brain. we have artificial neural networks but obviously we havent replicated the brain yet since we still don't know a lot about it in the first place
take memory: the way the brain stores memory is through connections rather than raw data like most computers. that can be emulated in a way such as a multidimensional array of "items," such as ["car", "race", "walk", and "sit"], and they're all connected further such that "car" has a subarray of ["race", "walk", and "sit"]. You might hear a lot about car races, so "race" is moved up within the "car" subarray and likewise "car" is moved up in the "race" subarray, so when you hear either "car" or "race" your first thought is "race" or "car" respectively. You probably associate walking with racing more than sitting, so "walk" would be in front of "sit" in the "race" subarray.
so, to a degree and with a ton of memory, computers can replicate biological memory (and consequently thought). however, this isn't exactly how the brain necessarily works. you might notice the redundancy in my example which biological likely has a more ingenious implementation of.
post your opinion on this and other stuff and whether we beat nature with hard data storage and we just haven't yet utilized it to its fullest extent or the gooey squash trades a higher capacity for the countless risks involved and whether you'd trade your brain for a stable computer with a lower capacity for thought or prefer your bug riddled degrading brain for a higher capacity for thought.
i only watch videos if links are posted and its under 10 minutes
i dont doubt someone else thought about connections in the brain and extrapolated a bunch of nonsense from it and made a video of it, especially from a programmer's perspective since we're working on what could be considered primitive, closed system computer brains
especially if you define and format data, since it's similar in that you have references and even recursive references like a={}; a.b=b={a: a}; a.b.a.b.a.b and other such crap
deletedalmost 8 years
you have definitely already watched that hofstadter video foxie
deletedalmost 8 years
i mean i doubt it.
deletedalmost 8 years
this is also interesting.
deletedalmost 8 years
i'm aware. that was just my appreciation of it. i don't think there's anywhere better to see what the mind is doing than with words and their make-up. the mechanics of it are really laid bare for you. there is a scandalous sort of artsiness to it, ambiguity to it, dealing in anything else.
what i understand is that everything is based on connections, but what i dont understand is exactly how that connection is made
say you have a, b, and c
those would have the subsets a(b, c), b(a, c), c(a, b)
you encounter a problem immediately when accessing a: you recursively access a again within b
so the logic behind those connections is a bit baffling and more so when you have multiple chains of items like a->c->b and you're back where you started. how the brain sorts that out is the hard part but the idea that it does isn't that hard to grasp
what i find funniest about this post is that you're outlining racial and class biases but within a context where they make rational sense so nobody's going to argue, but if you just drew some conclusion from trends or admitted your own biases you'd get all kinds of pseudoscientific backlash
letters are just like other concepts to be associated with eachother
when i said items instead of words i meant concepts specifically; it isn't that the words "car" and "race" might become associated but rather the concepts of either. language is just binding words to those concepts, but language is a concept itself that's associated with each word in addition to the concepts and their respective associations
so yeah words that contain the exact same letters will come to mind, that's why we can read the rubbish children type these days even though it's not english. there are enough letters to form an association to a word and from that word onto the most relevant concepts.
same with music, same with everything
it's perfectly logical and mostly ordered, it's just an incomprehensible amount of information
i feel like your posts are like karma for my long posts
deletedalmost 8 years
AI is possible :O
deletedalmost 8 years
math is a model of reality. it's definitely weird that we should be modelling reality, or perhaps more marvellous than weird, math knowing itself sort of, but i mean yeah math accurately describes things in nature. either that or this is all a dream you're having, and i'm not real, and your computer's not real, and your dog's not real, and so on. and even still the math would model some possible reality. a lot of the time mathematicians create sort of abstract math just for the lulz and it turns out some part of the world actually adheres to it. string theory for example is just pure math, no actual evidence of what it proposes, but it's got potential just in the math.
deletedalmost 8 years
i mean, you might break down what’s going on there and come away with some fairly confident idea of how the brain works. and i might also throw in feeling there as a sort of bridge between experiences, everything really with reference to pain, which is the death or decay of the organism. so you’ve got this wonderfully complex web of memory, and this amazing capacity for mapping reality onto that web of memory. and it’s all to find an action, and one which moves away from pain. you might say pain is the synchronisation of inputs, that all the rest isn’t really real, you might even say it’s all pain, evolution doesn’t care that you’re happy, it has only built you to survive. and i’m not going to go that road of feeling as an *utter* mystery; honestly I think it only sensible we should feel. it seems to me it was the most efficient means of giving life to life. that is, otherwise there was to be a billion billion limits and alarms set and prioritised to deal with every input, and it would be different for every iteration of the organism, it would take enormous reworking in adaptation, and so on—it was simply better that the organism should learn, create itself, and for that we needed pain, to feel, to have some special spark within us, which was our drive, which was some brother to evolution and its drive for fitness, which was us. i mean it’s no great mystery that we should feel, not to me. but how in the name of fck do you build that? i mean i think you could build all the rest given enough computing power, but that’s something apart. i mean it’s a soul, basically. a lot of the AI crew don’t give it enough credit i don’t think. they think it’s illusion, but i don’t. i think the whole thing falls to pieces without it, that it was absolutely essential for us to have gotten to where we are. but I really don’t know what it is.
deletedalmost 8 years
then there’s the creation of this web. hofstadter has a good video on this foxie, if you’re interested. “analogy as the core of cognition” (though it almost sounds like you might have seen it already). but say for example you’re an adopted child and your adoptive parents aren’t so hot, this family is broken, well it’s not unlikely that you’re going to be anti-immigration for it. the movie serpico does a little take on this in the reverse. serpico comes home from work one day mad with all the corruption, then snaps at his wife over their disorderly home. or on here i’ve seen zovea (black dude) get real irrationally mad that tay (black girl) was doing a higher percentage of reports than other mods, and that was pretty fcking hilarious. but that’s what it was. it was a pattern. that’s how we assess every single situation. it’s like how they scan fingerprints, you’re not really seeing the whole thing, you’re picking out some few certain points, fingerprint nodes I think they’re called, then searching your database for them. sometimes it works, sometimes you get lost in nonsense, one match for the pattern is heavily weighted, and you deal with it by those terms. déjà vu, sort of the same note, I think, is a sort of overload when it comes to that matching things to memory. it’s a disorientation because you’ve actually fallen into that memory. the brain is looking for a way to react, and there’s a whole other you standing right there, having already dealt with this exact thing.
deletedalmost 8 years
memory is weird, but yeah, there’s something amazing to it in connections. i love the way the brain chooses words myself, it’s as if each word flows directly from the last, it’s as if there’s this dictionary inside your head that catalogues not just alphabetically, but by word length, sound, it’ll pick words out of words and make more words out of those words, ‘every’ to ‘eve’, ‘eve’ to ‘even’, ‘steven’, ‘evening’, and so on. fck, I can’t do it justice. but it’s like magic. i think that’s what the innate appeal of rhyme is too, that it sort of creates itself in the listener, there’s no effort required, it maps onto the web that is memory very easily. or even music; i mean what is music? why are some series of tones pleasing to us but others aren’t? why is the sound of nails scratching a chalkboard, or a yard brush brushing a yard, so unpleasant? because it’s pure chaos, i think. because it is uncontrolled.
saying bee brain reminds me of a good point which is that the human brain is actually the highest standard for a neural network, whereas modeling the brain of animals without self recognition or very primitive eyes that only see the difference between light and dark as some organisms still do would be much easier and we may have actually passed that point while striving for this higher goal
deletedalmost 8 years
As I recall when you factor in everything a brain does, visual and auditory processing as well as the other senses, storing of data, controlling movement, etc, then present neural networks and the like can't even accurately model something as simple as a bee brain.
Perhaps that's out of date though.
I would say at the moment wet ware technically surpasses hardware.
deletedalmost 8 years
stuff like this messes me up so much to think about. it's interesting how the most complicated concepts in math and science are literally found in us, and it makes you wonder about the fact that we invented the terms to describe them, and whether we invented these concepts or not? and if they can really accurately describe things in nature?
sorry i rambled a bit here and this isn't exactly on topic but this is just kind of where my mind went and i can't even fully explain my train of thought here bc i'm a useless theatre major. :^)
