AMA with Nate Soares. Wednesday 2/4 at 10am CT
Author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies answers questions about why superhuman AI would kill us all.
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
Is having children selfish or selfless? Controversial question/interesting discussion time!
Is having children a selfish or a selfless act?
I'll put my thoughts in comments - would love to hear yours :)
Is having children selfish or selfless? Controversial question/interesting discussion time!
Is having children a selfish or a selfless act?
I'll put my thoughts in comments - would love to hear yours :)
I don’t fully understand what sexual attraction really is. In one occasion I was able to pierce through a feeling of arousal and I found a big wound from my childhood. Something totally non sexual.
I wonder whether a lot of sexual attraction just points to unmet needs and is “designed” to help us meet those needs by bringing closer to specific people (with certain characteristics).
But I don’t understand the whole picture here. Is it always like this? There is some clear use for sexual arousal in reproduction, I can’t believe that’s always a sexualized childhood wound. Where’s the border between a sexualization and a genuine, irreducible sexual thing?? What do you think?
Experiment: How is whatever's happening serving the greater good? If we zoom out long enough, we can often see that massive setbacks created foundations for evolution. Eg:
What’s a thing in the world that you don’t like right now, and think is a huge step backward, that might also be a step forward? How so?
By design, this is an unverifiable experiment from a third person perspective. Since we can keep zooming out + everything is interconnected, we’ll probably never know for sure, even if we live for thousands of years.
But by design, this is verifiable from a first person perspective: Does your experience improve or change in any way by the experiment? How so?
(note that this doesn't ask you to deny any suffering—such as the horror of the oxygenation event's great extinction, or stop trying to make things better. Like everything, this perspective can be misused. "Everything happens for a reason" is usually dismissive, "if there were a reason for this in the long run, what might it be?" is additive. Like allowing versus expressing, it's not about bypassing the difficulty but rather creating a larger container for it. Freedom comes through acceptance rather than resistance.)
#TTT