Sunday, November 01, 2015

Neuroscience: Uncovering the "secrets of consciousness"?

An actual neuroscientist (at least one in training) is honest about where things stand. The findings:
We have no f*%king clue how to simulate a brain.

We have no f*%king clue how to wire up a brain.

We have no f*%king clue what makes human brains work so well.

We have no f*%king clue what the parameters are.

We have no f*%king clue what the important thing to simulate is.
So, we are just about there, hey?

And note that this person is still a materialist, and still thinks we are dealing with a "machine" that thinks. S/he is just honest enough to admit that we have no clue how that "machine" operates.


  1. That's either a non-standard usage of "no f---ing clue", or wrong. You're saying we're no better today than Aristotle's "brain as blood refrigerator"? No progress on neural nets? On knowing under what conditions the brain will perform better or worse (what makes human brains work so well, parameters)?

    1. Silas, did you actually read the original piece? By an actual neuroscientist, and a materialist one at that?

      No one is saying "We don't know more about the brain than we did 2400 years ago"!

  2. Yes, I got that part. "No ****ing clue" is still ridiculous hyperbole that would encompass "we never learned anything relative to some historic baseline". So you are, it seems, saying that, or don't appreciate what complete ignorance would actually look like.

    1. What he is saying is that we have not learned anything *on these topics* relative to any baseline. Of course we know much more about the brain than did Aristotle. I think the writer is very clear on just what we have "no effing clue" about.


Zeno for the computer age

If you wish to better understand Zeno's worry about the continuum, you could do worse than to consider loops in software. Case 1: You...