This completely understates the gulf between what we call AI and how the human brain actually works.

Way to completely misrepresent what I was actually saying. Nowhere was I suggesting that there isn't a huge difference between the two. What I pointed out is that, while undeniably more complex, our brains appear to work on similar principles.

My only point was that the feedback loop from embodiment creates the basis for volition, and that what we call intelligence is our ability to create internal models of the world that we use for decision making. So, this is likely a prerequisite for any artificial system that has any meaningful intelligence.

Maybe try engaging with that instead of writing a wall of text arguing with a straw man.

our brains appear to work on similar principles.

Sure in the same way that a horse and a motorcycle operate on similar principles and serve the same function.

Maybe try engaging with that instead of writing a wall of text arguing with a straw man.

Where the straw man? You’ve missed my point entirely. LLMs and the human mind operate on categorically different principles. All the verbiage used to describe neural network models has little to do with how the brain actually works. That’s honestly wasn’t a problem until Tech companies started purposely misusing those terms and now far too many people seem to think “AI” is something it’s not.

LLMs and the human mind operate on categorically different principles.

A bold statement given that we don't actually understand how the brain operates exactly and what algorithms that would translate into.

Where the straw man?

The straw man is you continuing to argue against equating LLMs with the functioning of the brain, something I never said here.

All the verbiage used to describe neural network models has little to do with how the brain actually works.

You appear to be conflating the implementation details of how the brain works with the what it's doing in a semantic sense. There is zero evidence that all the complexity of the brain is inherent to the way our reasoning functions. Again, we don't have a full understanding of how the brain accomplishes tasks like reasoning. It may be a lot more complex than what LLMs do, or it may not be. We do not know.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with the point I was actually making which is regarding embodiment. You decided to ignore that to focus on braying about tech companies and LLMs instead.

The straw man is you continuing to argue against equating LLMs with the functioning of the brain, something I never said here.

I’m not claiming you ever said they functioned exactly the same way. Im simply stating that you’re way off base when you claim that they appear to operate using the same principles or that all evidence suggests the human mind is nothing more than a probability machine. That’s not a straw man. You literally said those things.

There is zero evidence that all the complexity of the brain is inherent to the way our reasoning functions.

You’re betraying your own ignorance about neuroscience. The complexity of the brain is absolutely linked with its ability to reason and we have plenty of evidence to show that. The evolutionary process does not just create needless complexity if there is a more efficient path.

Again, we don’t have a full understanding of how the brain accomplishes tasks like reasoning. It may be a lot more complex than what LLMs do, or it may not be. We do not know.

This is such a silly statement especially when you’ve been claiming that both the brain and AI appear to work using the same principles. If you truly believe the mind is such a mystery then stop making that claim.

You decided to ignore that to focus on braying about tech companies and LLMs instead.

I don’t really care about your arguments concerning embodiment because they’re so beside the point when you just blowing right by the most basic principles of neuroscience.

I bring up tech companies because they’ve had a massively distorting effect on how many computer scientists think the world works. You’re not immune to it either simply because you’re a critic of capitalism. A ruthless criticism of that exists includes the very researchers whose work you’re taking at face value.

Im simply stating that you’re way off base when you claim that they appear to operate using the same principles or that all evidence suggests the human mind is nothing more than a probability machine.

I literally said these things, and you never gave any actual counter argument to either of them.

You’re betraying your own ignorance about neuroscience. The complexity of the brain is absolutely linked with its ability to reason and we have plenty of evidence to show that. The evolutionary process does not just create needless complexity if there is a more efficient path.

You're betraying your ignorance of how biology works and illustrating that you have absolutely no business debating this subject. Efficiency is not the primary fitness function for evolution, it's survivability. And that means having a lot of redundancy baked into the system. Here's a concrete example for you of just how much of the brain isn't actually essential for normal day to day function. rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116

This is such a silly statement especially when you’ve been claiming that both the brain and AI appear to work using the same principles.

There's nothing silly in stating that the underlying principles are similar, but we don't understand a lot of the mechanics of the brain. If you truly can't understand such basic things there's little point trying to have a meaningful discussion.

I don’t really care about your arguments concerning embodiment because they’re so beside the point when you just blowing right by the most basic principles of neuroscience.

That's literally the whole context for this thread, it just doesn't fit with the straw man you want to argue about.

A ruthless criticism of that exists includes the very researchers whose work you’re taking at face value.

Whose work am I taking at face value specifically? You're just spewing nonsense here without engaging with anything I'm saying.

You’re betraying your ignorance of how biology works and illustrating that you have absolutely no business debating this subject.

Have some humility and willingness to learn.

Efficiency is not the primary fitness function for evolution, it’s survivability.

I didn’t say it was the primary function. I guess all that talk about straw men was just projection. You don’t trust me, fine. Then what about Darwin who literally said, “Natural selection is continually trying to economize every part of the organization.” Now please go and read some introductory texts on biology before trying to explain to me why Darwin is wrong. There’s so much going on when it comes to the thermodynamics of living systems and you’re clearly not ready to have a conversation about it.

Here’s a concrete example for you of just how much of the brain isn’t actually essential for normal day to day function.

You’re baseless assuming that hydrocephalus causes the brain to lose a substantial amount of its complexity. Where is the evidence for that? In most of these cases it seems much of the outer layers of the cerebral cortex are in tact. It’s also really telling that your citation’s first source is an article titled “Is Your Brain Really Necessary” which is followed in the Journal by another article entitled “Math and Sex: Are Girls Born with Less Ability?”. But hey neuroscience hasn’t really advanced at all since 1980 right? The brain is totally redundant right? There’s no possible way a critical and discerning person such as yourself could have been taken in by junk science, right?!!

That’s literally the whole context for this thread, it just doesn’t fit with the straw man you want to argue about.

I took issue with specific statements you made that stand apart from the rest of your comment. That’s not a straw man. Although honestly this is on me. What can I expect from someone who thinks LLMs and the Human Brain are operating on similar principles? You’re so wound up in a pseudoscientific fiction there’s nothing I can do. You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just an over confident tech bro.

Have some humility and willingness to learn.

I have plenty of willingness to learn from people who have a clue on the subject.

I didn’t say it was the primary function.

You literally tried to argue that evolution doesn't create complexity if there's a more efficient path.th.

Then what about Darwin who literally said, “Natural selection is continually trying to economize every part of the organization.” Now please go and read some introductory texts on biology before trying to explain to me why Darwin is wrong. There’s so much going on when it comes to the thermodynamics of living systems and you’re clearly not ready to have a conversation about it.

Again, you're showing a superficial understanding of the subject here. Natural selection selects for overall fitness, and efficiency is only a small part of equation. For example, plants don't use the most efficient wavelength for producing energy, they use the one that's most reliably available. Similarly, living organisms have all kinds of redundancies that allow them to continue to function when they're damaged. Evolution optimizes for survival over efficiency.

You’re baseless assuming that hydrocephalus causes the brain to lose a substantial amount of its complexity.

Maybe read the actual paper linked there?

But hey neuroscience hasn’t really advanced at all since 1980 right? The brain is totally redundant right? There’s no possible way a critical and discerning person such as yourself could have been taken in by junk science, right?!!

What I linked you is a case study of an actual living person who was missing large parts of their brain and had a relatively normal life. But hey why focus on the actual facts when you can just write more word salad right?

I took issue with specific statements you made that stand apart from the rest of your comment.

You took issue with made up straw man arguments that you yourself made and have fuck all with what I actually said. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you don't actually understand the subject you're debating. You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just a sad debate bro.

For example, plants don’t use the most efficient wavelength for producing energy, they use the one that’s most reliably available.

You're missing the point entirely. Biological systems are governed by the laws thermodynamics. The reason why complex structures are even possible in a universe where entropy is king is because biological systems offer the most direct path towards a total increase in the amount of entropy in our little corner of the universe. Natural selection is governed by those principles. The brain has a disproportionately high metabolism relative to other organs in the human body. To argue it's largely a redundant structure like the kidneys or liver you need real evidence.

Maybe read the actual paper linked there?

You linked a fucking blog post written by a science fiction author not a peer reviewed scientific paper. And yes I did read it. Is your ego so large that you can't possible conceive of someone coming to a different conclusion when faced with the same "evidence"?

What I linked you is a case study of an actual living person who was missing large parts of their brain and had a relatively normal life. But hey why focus on the actual facts when you can just write more word salad right?

Word Salad? Is this word salad, "In most of these cases it seems much of the outer layers of the cerebral cortex are in tact."? Do you not have an argument against that or do you know so little about the human brain that "cerebral cortex" sounds like gibberish to you? If you're not convinced how about you try taking a lobe out of someone whose brain hasn't been forced to adapt to extreme conditions and tell me how that experiment works out. Maybe then you'll understand how "redundant" the brain really is.

You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just a sad debate bro.

Big "I know you are but what am I" energy. lol

You’re missing the point entirely. Biological systems are governed by the laws thermodynamics.

I'm not missing anything. I'm simply explaining to you that the fitness function for living organisms is far more complex than simply striving for efficiency. I understand perfectly well how entropy and thermodynamics work.

The brain has a disproportionately high metabolism relative to other organs in the human body. To argue it’s largely a redundant structure like the kidneys or liver you need real evidence.

There is plenty of real evidence. I've literally provided you evidence of a person with most of their brain missing who has led a normal life. Another obvious example is people who lose half their brain in accidents and can continue to live normal lives with a single hemisphere. More evidence comes from birds like corvids who exhibit high levels of intelligence and problem solving that's comparable to primates. Since they have an additional requirement of being able to fly, there is a selection pressure to optimize the system further. Just because you're completely ignorant on the topic you're attempting to debate here doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

You linked a fucking blog post written by a science fiction author not a peer reviewed scientific paper. And yes I did read it. Is your ego so large that you can’t possible conceive of someone coming to a different conclusion when faced with the same “evidence”?

I linked you a blog post by a biologist discussing a paper. This is a very well known case that's in no way controversial. The fact that you're acting as if it just just further shows that you have no business having this discussion. cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it…

Big “I know you are but what am I” energy. lol

about the level of discourse I've come to expect from you lol

Patients Missing One Brain Hemisphere Show Surprisingly Intact Neural Connections

A study on patients who have had half their brains removed to treat seizures reveals new insights into how human brains can adapt to dramatic changes.

^{California Institute of Technology}

I’m not missing anything. I’m simply explaining to you that the fitness function for living organisms is far more complex than simply striving for efficiency. I understand perfectly well how entropy and thermodynamics work.

You're being deeply uncharitable here. I never said redundancy in biological systems is something that is never selected for. I was simply stating that the selection for such redundancy is bound by thermodynamic processes that govern natural selection in the first place. Physicists that have ventured into the field of biology have suggested that this is the case for decades. However it's only in the past 15 or so years that the field has advanced to the point where these hypotheses are testable. Honestly it's fascinating and outside of this dumb argument you should look into it because it aligns surprisingly well with Marx's observations about economic development. If you are genuinely interested I'll share some papers.

There is plenty of real evidence.

No there isn't. You've just made some foolish assumptions and you've ignored me yet again. I won't dox myself but this isn't some casual interest for me. To give you some idea of where I'm coming from, I've seen a hemispherectomy before. I've literally stared into a persons skull as half of their brain tissue was either removed or surgically disconnected. I then saw that person wake of up from anesthesia with some complications but less than someone unfamiliar with the procedure would expect. None of this is new to me.

In all of the cases you've referenced so far, the patients have cognitive deficiencies. It's not at all the same as a person losing a kidney or donating a lobe of their liver where a they can got on to be perfectly healthy with what remains. It's also key to realize that in the cases you're referencing the problem starts very early in development. That gives the brain time to develop in a unique way which allows it to retain much of its intended function. What you're seeing is not proof of redundancy but rather proof of compensatory reorganization in the remaining tissue. It's likely the brain in these patients have, on average, a higher degree of interconnectivity than what you might find in a normal healthy brain. In which case, some complexity is lost but maybe not as much as you've assumed. If you tried to remove pieces of a fully healthy brain you will mostly likely see a severe loss of function, think traumatic brain injuries and stroke victims. This is amazing stuff but you're making assumptions that just don't align modern neuroscience.

More evidence comes from birds like corvids who exhibit high levels of intelligence and problem solving that’s comparable to primates.

You're assuming size and complexity are the same thing! They aren't. Corvids have a way higher neural density than the brains of primates. It's fascinating but it does not back up the idea that much of the brains complexity is redundant. In fact it would suggest the opposite because under a selective pressure to reduce the size of a brain it still seems that complexity must be preserved in order to achieve similar cognitive capacities.

I linked you a blog post by a biologist discussing a paper.

Maybe at one time he was. Now he's just a science fiction author. Also what does having a degree in biology prove? I can link you to blog posts written by biologists that claim Covid 19 is a weapon created by China's evil communist scientists. Would you trust them too? Academic rigor requires more than just the musings of any individual scientist.

This is a very well known case that’s in no way controversial.

I'm not saying the case itself is controversial. However, the assumptions you've made and the conclusions you're trying to draw from such cases is! At least it would be amongst neuroscientists.

about the level of discourse I’ve come to expect from you lol

I mean you're right here in the mud with me lol.

Also, I've engaged with you as much as I have because I generally agree with most of what you post on this site. I've generally appreciated your presence. However, that makes it all the more maddening when you go on to spew such ignorance about the human brain and AI. You make bold claims and then won't even cite a real peer reviewed publication. I get that kind of behavior flies in online marxist circles especially since some of the best Marxist theoretical papers these days aren't even translated into English. However, when discussing things like neuroscience I expect better. Throw the science out and what you're left with is pure idealism.

You’re being deeply uncharitable here. I never said redundancy in biological systems is something that is never selected for. I was simply stating that the selection for such redundancy is bound by thermodynamic processes that govern natural selection in the first place.

We're in complete agreement here. Thermodynamics are the fundamental reason anything happens, and life exists within resolving energy gradients. The selection process favors organisms that use energy efficiently. This point is not being debated. What I've been saying here is that that's only part of the picture, and efficient use of energy competes with other factors such as robustness, error recovery, and so on. Living organisms need to be able to survive in a complex and dangerous environment which creates a pressure for redundancy.

Honestly it’s fascinating and outside of this dumb argument you should look into it because it aligns surprisingly well with Marx’s observations about economic development. If you are genuinely interested I’ll share some papers.

I've read a number of papers, and even reference a few here theunconductedchorus.com/

However, I'm always interested to read more on the subject. So by all means link the papers you've read.

In all of the cases you’ve referenced so far, the patients have cognitive deficiencies.

Sure, and I'm not arguing that removing large portions of the brain is not going to cause cognitive deficiencies. The point being made is that they're still able to function and retain much of the cognitive ability. It's quite clear that the brain is able to route around the damage and compensate for it in many cases.

The original point we were debating here is what is the size and complexity of a biological neural network that starts exhibiting interesting properties that we would care about implementing in an artificial one. It's clear that is smaller than the entire brain of a healthy human adult.

Corvids have a way higher neural density than the brains of primates. It’s fascinating but it does not back up the idea that much of the brains complexity is redundant.

The total number of neurons and connections is significantly lower than primates, yet they are able to solve problems of similar complexity. In fact, crows exhibit abilities such as transfer learning which chimps do not.

In fact it would suggest the opposite because under a selective pressure to reduce the size of a brain it still seems that complexity must be preserved in order to achieve similar cognitive capacities.

Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean by complexity instead of just throwing the term around. I'm using it to mean the combination of the number of neurons and the connections between them.

Maybe at one time he was. Now he’s just a science fiction author. Also what does having a degree in biology prove?

You continue to attack his credentials, but you have yet to address what he says or what the original study of the patient suggests. You're dismissing the results using an argument from authority here. Clearly, he's qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

I’m not saying the case itself is controversial. However, the assumptions you’ve made and the conclusions you’re trying to draw from such cases is! At least it would be amongst neuroscientists.

Make an actual argument to substantiate your position.

However, that makes it all the more maddening when you go on to spew such ignorance about the human brain and AI.

What ignorance have I spewed regarding human brain and AI. Please quote specific things I said that you're referring to.