orthonormal comments on Richard Dawkins TV - Baloney Detection Kit video - Less Wrong

1 [deleted] 25 June 2009 12:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 25 June 2009 09:26:42PM *  1 point [-]

But that's not how Richard responded. He literally restated the problem in different terminology, replacing the problems with black boxes that have the solution inside

I was being flippant. I mean, what were you expecting? Imagine that the person who first had the idea that thinking is done by neurons has just published it, and you ask them what you asked me. What can he tell you about finding a girlfriend? Only that it's done by neurons. The leg work to discover just how those neurons are organised to do it is the problem, and finding a mate isn't the place to start, experiments like Hubel and Wiesel's on cat vision are the place to start, or mapping the nervous system of C. elegans.

Likewise, I'm not passing off "it's done by control systems" as the solution of a problem, but as a basic insight that gives the beginning of a way to study living organisms. The place to begin that study and establish exactly what control systems are present and how they work is in studies like the one that you dismissed as a trivial game.

That's what real work looks like. Have a spade. A start has been made at the various PCT links I've posted. Maybe in 50 years you'll get an answer. But don't be downhearted -- it's been more than a century so far for "it's made of neurons".

Comment author: orthonormal 25 June 2009 09:33:49PM *  2 points [-]

In that case, why do you keep insinuating that control theory is useful as a high-level model of intelligence? That seems analogous to deriding computational neuroscientists for not using neurons in their models.

ETA: By comparison, evolutionary psychologists can't do the math yet on the selective advantage of genes coding for variations in mental traits, but their derived models of human psychology allow them to make significant predictions that weren't thought of without the model, and which often check out in experiments. Does PCT have any novel experimental consequences that have been verified?