You have no experience. You’re basing arguments off a textbook.
Bottom line: What is your pedigree to make your assertions? You’ve done basic math, but you expect me to accept your “solution” for a non-rigid body revolving around three axes at astronomical speeds with ten years’ warning using nuclear weapons that have not been vetted or tested?
Seriously?
Might as well ask me for a telepathic young man with a saber made of light to solve all of your problems.
I will ask a sixth time your pedigree before you are taken seriously by the adults.
Has it ever…occurred to you…that maybe I meant to say “computational subsystems”? A neural network built today for vision recognition is a table of thousands to millions of weights, right? But couldn’t you then treat that single network as a module? And wouldn’t you put together many of those modules if you were trying to build an artificial brain? That’s what I meant. Don’t remember the context when I made that quote, but I was trying to say that if we build artificial brains, it’ll be thousands of *subsystems *that were originally built and tested separately.
Our DNA obviously encodes for thousands of subsystems. Not millions. Not billions. Thousands. Each subsystem is an area of the brain where the rules are distinct enough that in neuro-anatomy you get a distinct functional area you can see.
There’s a reason why it’s not millions, it’s only thousands. I bet you can figure it out, you can do it! Tell me why our DNA doesn’t have enough information to specify the exact wiring layout of every single neuron. Go on, I’m waiting.
Most adult scientists are quite familiar with the following concepts. For homework, read them and learn them, you’re going to need them to be taken seriously in fields like aerospace.
Turns out, there’s been a new innovation in the field in the last few centuries. If you want to find out if an idea might be feasible, you can use a simplified model and see if the math checks out. You don’t have to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money!
Before you spend thousands of dollars paying someone for your simplified model, you can just estimate.
No simplified analysis proves an idea will work. So don’t go too far from actual empirical data!
Finally, if a person presents an argument and they aren’t a world class expert in that particular area, it’s ok to check over their work. Turns out, evennon acknowledged experts can be right sometimes, you don’t have to always wad up what they write! For some fields, nobody is an expert because the field is new!
Remember, before you come and insult someone, try not to make a fool out of yourself!
I don’t have to! The beautiful thing is that the answer to this riddle uses well accepted principles of math! I wouldn’t want to give away the answer, but I’ll give a hint. Did you know that a binary message of a given length encodes a finite amount of information! It turns out there are limits to even compression! Shocking, I know.
I mentioned it before. A bachelor’s in comp engineering and a half finished master’s in computer science/machine learning. Also I have obviously read an enormous amount. I was pointing out that arguments > “credentials”. Stranger on a train claims to be an aerospace engineer with decades of experience, yet he routinely makes serious factual errors. Maybe he simply lied about his credentials.
Tripler claims to be a formal military officer with a master’s degree. Yet all he does is blow smoke and claim any specific details are “classified”. He doesn’t appear to be able to apply the ideal rocket equation to a problem to even see if an orion drive starship passes a pencil test. He just endlessly wants to demand “my credentials” and unless I claim I’m a fellow at Rand with a PhD he’s going to claim his are better. Oh, and he recently decided to pull the “experience, not textbook knowledge” when no one alive today has built an orion drive spacecraft. Also very few people alive have even detonated a nuke. I guess Tripler’s “experience” pushing a desk for the military counts for a lot, huh.
Well, if you’re gonna make it that easy; SamuelA is a crackpot and all of his posts are nonsense. SamuelA is a crackpot, his posts are nonsense. SamuelA is a crackpot, all he posts is nonsense.
Hopefully three times is the charm . . . and I’m a grammer* Nazi!
(*Spelling is not correct, All Hail Gaudere)
Done and done!
(I will not be denied my entrance into the cool kids club . . . not this time!)
Seems like a reasonable argument. Oh, wait. Now we’re playing the “who claims more experience and degrees card”. I mean, I think you’ve established with fairly convincing evidence that maybe I have some Asperger’s.
I’d tend to agree with you, except you don’t have a phd in clinical psychology and lots of experience with patients, right? This means you can’t attempt to diagnose me, you can’t use your brain to read something and reason, you aren’t certified in that area!
I checked your post history. You actually made a reasonable point in a reply to me. Sorry, you don’t get ignored. Gotta be an ass for dozens of posts and follow me around like Darren does.
That isn’t the point, notwithstanding your attempt to backtrack on your idiotic claims, and your digression about DNA is even less on point. The point is that you claim that the brain is “thousands of physical computational circuits” and consciousness is simply “the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively”. As opposed to what, the individual activity of millions of neurons working collectively? The first statement is a typical SamuelA bloviation, oversimplified to the point of near-meaninglessness, and to the extent that it even means anything at all, it’s almost certainly wrong. And the second statement is simultaneously both a truism and completely meaningless. In short, you appear to know nothing about most things, in keeping with near-zero competence on the Dunning-Kruger curve, you can’t write, your vocabulary is shit, and you’re intensely fucking annoying.
Whether cognitive processes are computational is a very controversial area, but those who argue that many such processes can be shown on the basis of experimental evidence to be apparently computational also understand the limits of those conclusions and the contradictory evidence of other processes and the vast realm of the unknown. Computational theories of mind don’t mean even remotely what you think they do. They relate to evidence that some cognitive processes appear to act like syntactic operations on abstract symbolic representations, which is arguably a very important part of a viable theory of cognition. No one with the slightest bit of competence in the field would argue that it’s anywhere near being a complete explanation of cognition, and only a complete moron like you would describe brain function as (self-evidently) a couple of thousand fucking computational circuits.
The first statement is a typical SamuelA bloviation, oversimplified to the point of near-meaninglessness, and to the extent that it even means anything at all, it’s almost certainly wrong. And the second statement is simultaneously both a truism and completely meaningless. In short, you appear to know nothing about most things, in keeping with near-zero competence on the Dunning-Kruger curve, you can’t write, your vocabulary is shit, and you’re intensely fucking annoying.
”