That's 5D-educational chess.
That's 5D-educational chess.
@Eatsbluecrayon Another demonstration would be to bring a chessboard to class, along with extra pieces, and have the class play chess with an AI of their choosing. They’ll get to watch with their own eyes as the AI fabricates positions and pieces.
This is especially useful because computers have been beating human opponents at chess for a long time now, so people know that chess is something computers can do. That an AI can’t indicates it is worse than its predecessors.
@jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
If you don’t believe everything can be expressed in numbers then consequently you must believe there is some “magic” in which numbers are meaningless.
That simply isn’t the case. From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers.
Magic or numbers. That’s the choice.
Thus: language is math (numbers encoded).
@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
Sounds like determinism.
> From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers.
As I remember, we can't do that because:
1) we still don't know how the human brain and consciousness works
2) On MRI we can see some common (for each human being) zones in brain, firing up when some common emotion occurs, thats all.
3) https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
@evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
Regarding the brain not being a computer…
I get the articles point: but there’s some (willful?) blind spots in those arguments. Short form comments aren’t a way to have that discussion. I’ll get my thoughts together on that.
Of course I mean to say I don’t think humans can literally see or process that much info to that accuracy, if that wasn’t implicit. Laws of physics still apply.
@altruios
Reply guy here!
Neurogenomics!
There's absolutely no evidence that cognition can be ascribed to numbers, or any measurable chemical process.
Down to brass racks, if you pull that magical thinking in a neurobiology paper reviewers 1, 2, and 3 will kick you to the curb.
There just isn't any measurement to support any of that.
It might be useful as a model to thinking about cognition in machine terms. It's just not neurobiology.