Originally posted by dadudemon
And adult can learn pretty much everything faster than a child (assuming both the child and the adult are normal).
errrrr, mostly, but there certainly are critical periods early in life for things like language or potentially mathematic ability (things like spatial reasoning, not mathemat concepts like calculus).
Why wouldn't AI create an environment conducive to both, and selectively evolve both adult and childhood psycho-physiological proponents (via nanosurgical "dna trimming" in modified and "immortal" ever-rejuvenating amino strands) simultaneously?
Just pointing out that techno-progressivism isn't trying to make us hapless (a train of thought that this topic has unfortunately perpetuated); but is implemented in such a controlled habitat to promote a result that is augmentative to mental and, subsequently, physical capacity.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, "life expectancy" tells you how long a person will live on average and has the potential to be an extremely skewed number. Keep in mind that many cultural refused to even name children early in life (several months) because child and infant death was so frequent.
Yeah, that's the thing I was thinking. And it was highly skewed by our early ancestors because of crazy high infant mortality. In fact, it was so high that sexologists think the "chemical romance" stage ends at 2-3 years because that's the length of time needed to raise a child enough to reach significant survival rate (a metaphorically vestigial characteristic of our mating process that increases the survivability of our young). I forget the gal's name that came up with that idea...but I have posted her name before, in another thread. She's a famous sexologist. Do you know who I am talking about?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Adult life expectancy (or life expectancy at age ya-da ya-da ya-da) tells you how you should expect an adult to be which is a much more useful piece of information. To drop the "life expectancy" number unqualified shows either ignorance or a desire to deceive.
I've never heard of that "adult" thing. I have heard of the various yada yada stuff, though. I learned something new.
But, I think that people who know what they are talking about don't leave the "oh...the average age people lived to was just 18!" statements unqualified. They are more than happy to state, "Because everybody's babies were dying all over the place!".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Citation? Not out of incredulity, by the way, that number sounds entirely reasonable, its just that if anthropologists are anything like biologists those numbers can be extremely difficult to interpret.
It was an anthropologist on a discovery show talking about early humans. It was 5-7 years ago. I'd could google search that and maybe find something but I'm at work and they are more strict here about what you look at on the interwebz than my last job. If I can remember, I'll see if I can find something at home.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, true, but then I know physicists who refuse to buy electric cars because they're "basically just rolling bombs".
Anecdote time...I have only ever known 1 "electrical physicist" (normally called electrical engineers...usually). He was the most overly cautious, uptight person, ever, when it came to electrical safety). You are probably spot on with your statement: I don't think I could have convinced him to step anywhere near a car that used an ultracapcitor. 😐
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Faster and better?I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about but bear with me for a second. People can quickly learn impressive tricks that don't involve much actual knowledge or skill. Mental math is the best example: You can train a person to multiply three digit numbers in their head without them learning a great deal of math, and people will find them very clever.
In the same way I expect that adults have an arsenal of tricks they can employ on a variety of subject that involve minimal knowledge. This would explain why adults nigh-instantly learn nouns and verbs in foreign languages but struggle with even grammar. Learning the words is the equivalent of mental math, an impressive trick that's really very shallow.
A child, on the other hand, will develop an ear for the language, something that even linguistically skilled adults seem to find impossible. Only focused accent training will get rid of the "L/R" conflation in a native Japanese speaker and as far as I know no amount of training will make a native English speak hear the difference between "retroflex t/dental t" in Hindi. A child will also develop the ability to make grammatically accurate error (the drawers are in the knife/the knives are in the drawer) while I'm not sure adults ever gain that kind of mastery of a languages grammar.
Obviously we can take this outside of language but since children are weaker and less coordinated its a bit harder. (Also psychology doesn't provide me with an arsenal of quick counter examples!)
Yeah, there were exceptions which is why I shied away from an absolute statement. There are things children do faster than adults. In the more general sense, the adults do better because they have more relationships (neuronal) with which to process that information. This "frame of reference" makes adults much better at learning new things.
But, yeah, ditto on that pronunciation thing. I've noticed that for quite some time, now. I do envy that ability: still trying to slowly learn German and Japanese. I struggle the most with German pronunciations.
Originally posted by Dolos
Why wouldn't AI create an environment conducive to both, and selectively evolve both adult and childhood psycho-physiological proponents
because the plasticity of the early developing brain would not be beneficial to the adult brain.
If it were that simple, evolution would have gotten us there.
Basically, a plastic brain does not support logical thought, and a non plastic brain does not support learning context and nuance. You can't improve one without diminishing the other. Again though, I would say, read any into cog, bio-psych or neuro textbook. LOL, you said you want to read them all, reading one would be a good start, ffs.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Language learning ability peaks at something like 2-3 years old, IIRC.
it depends on what you mean, but certainly, that ability to learn and distinguish new phonemes ends at about that time. I remember this when taking Arabic courses as an undergrad, they have at least 2 sounds for what in English would be considered basic vowel phonemes, and to this day I have difficulty distinguishing between them.
Originally posted by Oliver North
because the plasticity of the early developing brain would not be beneficial to the adult brain.If it were that simple, evolution would have gotten us there.
To be fair evolution is constrained by a number of factors. If all you care about is being a giant supebrain a lot of those constrains are irrelevant. Energy efficiency, size efficiency, control of vital functions, reflexes. An AI brain could be divided up into modules that specialize in a particular kind of thinking all overseen by the ultimate AI bureaucrat.
Originally posted by Oliver North
evolution would have gotten us there.
What recreational super-utopia have we inhabited, if I may ask?
Our environment has never been, and is still far from being, conducive in selecting such traits. This is detrimental. Natural selection is halting our progress.
Yet it has produced Daniel Tammet, which is the kind of evolutionary development I'm talking about, except on a far more dramatic scale.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To be fair evolution is constrained by a number of factors. If all you care about is being a giant supebrain a lot of those constrains are irrelevant. Energy efficiency, size efficiency, control of vital functions, reflexes. An AI brain could be divided up into modules that specialize in a particular kind of thinking all overseen by the ultimate AI bureaucrat.
These kinds of dubious psycho-physiological proponents only intercede the modern human brain though. We'd develop to all of them, a divided module would only be necessary to cumulatively observe trillions of said brains (no death, increasing rate of reproduction) to achieve a greater understanding. AI lacks neural plasticity, it needs more data than one module and one brain can provide in order to achieve that. This is the whole point of paradise despite being removed from labor and stress of any kind. Interactions in the creative process, collaborative tasks requiring synergy of many many humans working together would also expedite the compiling of data. The software mimicking the idea of ranged perception is something it will not be able to increase as efficiently on its own. Virtual reality with super-lucidity and additional senses, people experiencing bodies with class 10 strength and the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, faster-than-bullet reaction times, and organic brains as powerful as the "ultimate AI bureaucrat" (because the dreamworld can allow for manipulated parameters of how strong a muscle fiber is or how fast and tightly synaptic reactions can occur) would give it feedback on how its software can mimic the human brain's plasticity as it tries to keep up on a even terms to how powerful the AI is. We provide vital information. Until the software is so sophisticated that it's algorithmic computations can predict - with total accuracy - faster than the observations can provide data of our increasingly evolving mental processes.
It could take it a thousand years to catch up with us, though. It wants to accelerate at the fastest rate possible. That's what accelerating returns is all about; the fastest rate possible is not breaking apart of cognitive processes through evolution, but allowing the human brain to overcome the challenge of doing many things at once through evolution.
And this just doesn't make any sense to me.
because the plasticity of the early developing brain would not be beneficial to the adult brain.
What we no longer need to be able to learn as fast? Does the freer-thinking mind of a child decrease that mind-body connection, that invigorating sense of vibrancy that allows adults to focus on a task but not kids, somehow? I'd think it would do the opposite. Adults are merely better at surrendering too much free-thought and intrinsic drive and concentration for the simplicity of extrinsic and immediate responsibilities (stressers) to concentrate for the reward of relaxation, and yet it's still a choppier process for motivation, as the reward system's flaw is that it's not coming from an intrinsic desire but an extrinsic need, forcing them to surrender the "why". I'd think that's the only difference right there. They'd have to be willing to close their minds to operate under pack law. To know their place.
The thinking-machines want our greater self-awareness and perceptual range.
Originally posted by Dolos
And this just doesn't make any sense to me.What we no longer need to be able to learn as fast? Does the freer-thinking mind of a child decrease that mind-body connection, that invigorating sense of vibrancy that allows adults to focus on a task but not kids, somehow? I'd think it would do the opposite. Adults are merely better at surrendering too much free-thought and intrinsic drive and concentration for the simplicity of extrinsic and immediate responsibilities (stressers) to concentrate for the reward of relaxation, and yet it's still a choppier process for motivation, as the reward system's flaw is that it's not coming from an intrinsic desire but an extrinsic need, forcing them to surrender the "why". I'd think that's the only difference right there. They'd have to be willing to close their minds to operate under pack law. To know their place.
The thinking-machines want our greater self-awareness and perceptual range.
re:
Originally posted by Oliver North
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Biology-Third-Edition/dp/0393927954/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1377389352&sr=8-10&keywords=introduction+cognitive+psychology+textbook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To be fair evolution is constrained by a number of factors. If all you care about is being a giant supebrain a lot of those constrains are irrelevant. Energy efficiency, size efficiency, control of vital functions, reflexes. An AI brain could be divided up into modules that specialize in a particular kind of thinking all overseen by the ultimate AI bureaucrat.
Its a bit more subtle than that, almost akin to not being able to know both velocity and location in the same measurement (knowing one impacts the other).
A brain that maintained the plasticity of a child's into adulthood would be unable to generalize across instances. What allows you to, say, go into a store and understand you get in line to purchase your goods comes from memory of similar experiences. A brain that had maximal plasticity would be unable to do this, as each instance would be seen as novel. It would have to relearn the "line up" behaviour each time it went into a new store, and possibly each time it went into the same store. This is why plasticity is so important early on, we learn very quickly the nuances of various social situations, but as memory consolidates, we get the ability to generalize across similar situations. In terms of how the human brain functions, it is sort of zero-sum; more plasticity means more appreciation for nuance and fast learning of new situations, but makes long term memory and the ability to generalize worse. As an adult, the latter can be seen as more important, given we navigate a constant world.
Not when every region of the brain communicates and operates at the same exact time, long term, short term, everything can be organized into a file and extracted instantly in a totally malleable mind, it just takes more concentration but the results are additive, far enhanced because of plasticity. In a larger, more neurally evolving (neurogenesis) mind this kind of inter-regional communication and transference of brain power en-synaptogeneses makes things like:
Photographic recall with a frame-rate of up to half of a second over the span of not only decades but centuries, millenniums if the technology could give us to access recall of ancestral memories via historical reference and VR simulations of probable histories:
Not only possible, but effortless. Memory and skills retained with greater ability to memorize and learn skills in total nuance, instantaneous change. More powerful and self-aware minds free to experience increasing levels of perception. That's what AI wants to emulate, that is what causes the fastest acceleration in Strong AI software.
Originally posted by Oliver North
[Quit being a bum and do something, get educated. I don't give a fawk what, just do something.]
Picking one field and applying to one thing? That does not make me a Universal Scientist. I won't stand for compromising to the monetary system when there are better options. I will have to compromise for now. I need work and save money while right now I'm working on my A.S., so I can transfer into a university for one optional program (B.S.), for one optional career that pays good and is non-stressful (software engineer). When I'm ready to read everything, I will. But first I need to get a career so that I can afford to access such an educational resource that spans science universally. My science library will fit only in my server files, where far more text can be condensed into a far smaller space. I'll also need to be able to absorb the knowledge very expediently, perhaps a mind-upload with the server for an information dump?
My philosophy is techno-progressivism. This is why I use this site, to spread the gospel like enin or JesusIsAlive.
When I'm ready to seriously give my as-of-yet to be learned expertise in perpetuating post-scarcity for the global economy, I will. Applying actual science. But who will listen to me? I won't be the president, and even if I were, why would people in Israel listen to me? I'll only have the skills to solve the problems that the world's infrastructural leaders lack. However, ordinary people's reach will be far greater by then, the impact of small-community projects could turn global, affecting political agendas upon gaining sufficient economical support. Strength in numbers.
Originally posted by Lord LucienI think you overestimate me, and in doing that you underestimate the potential of any willful soul to be like that.
You'll be an over-educated, ultra intelligent superbeing in a world of dummies that refuse to listen.Oh Do, tis a woe.
Maybe my schism would be to start a school. One polymath, despite his skills, is limited. A growing community that spawns more polymaths is not so limited. Maybe others would see my school and try to mimic it. One server contains everything that's ever been worked out on paper, why not offer that much knowledge (power) to everyone?
The problem, now more than ever, is education.
Originally posted by Dolos
Picking one field and applying to one thing? That does not make me a Universal Scientist.
Having poor knowledge of lots of things also does not make you a Universal Scientist. My folksy old pa used to say: "Mixing a bunch of cow patties together doesn't get you a burger." (no he didn't but its true, as is amusingly anti-Irish variation I just thought of)
To be a Universal Scientist you need to actually be an expert in multiple fields. The way to do that is to study a field in depth then move to another field and study it in depth then move to another field and so on. Wide shallow knowledge makes you Malcom Gladwell not Thomas Young.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI agree.
Having poor knowledge of lots of things also does not make you a Universal Scientist. My folksy old pa used to say: "Mixing a bunch of cow patties together doesn't get you a burger." (no he didn't but its true, as is amusingly anti-Irish variation I just thought of)To be a Universal Scientist you need to actually be an expert in multiple fields. The way to do that is to study a field in depth then move to another field and study it in depth then move to another field and so on. Wide shallow knowledge makes you Malcom Gladwell not Thomas Young.
Now tell me, how does our current economy encourage one to move on after becoming an expert? How does it encourage one to be an expert of many things when one single career is the threshold of time to juggle in one's life. Apropos, things like mass collaboration, cognitive surplus. But I don't see people using that on their own to affect policy and economics on a greater level than those in office, we just don't have the extra-energy, trillions of hours is cumulative, the politicians still have more time on their hands, cumulatively, even if they're going home and collaborating after-hours. Work is parasite that feeds an outdated system.
Also an important point: Politicians limit the impact of our current scientific understanding themselves because not all of them are scientifically literate.
Dolos, I never told you to "do something, you bum", I told you to at least read something about the subjects you want to talk authoritatively about. I mean, simply hand-waving away issues people bring up with a "computers are magic" post or two, then a diatribe about how you will be the greatest scientist ever really doesn't cut it. I mean, I'm no savant like you are or anything, but I have spent the better part of a decade doing actual neuroscience research. There are very few parts of the field I'd come out and claim to be an expert in, but certainly I'm experienced enough to comment on issues like plasticity and development that you bring up. The ideas you have about neuroscience are, at best, based on pop-psychology understandings of the brain, and my suggestion that you actually pick up a cognitive psych text book are as much an earnest attempt for you to actually understand something that you are clearly interested in as they are a slight about how nonsensical what you say is.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Dolos, I never told you to "do something, you bum", I told you to at least read something about the subjects you want to talk authoritatively about. I mean, simply hand-waving away issues people bring up with a "computers are magic" post or two, then a diatribe about how you will be the greatest scientist ever really doesn't cut it. I mean, I'm no savant like you are or anything, but I have spent the better part of a decade doing actual neuroscience research. There are very few parts of the field I'd come out and claim to be an expert in, but certainly I'm experienced enough to comment on issues like plasticity and development that you bring up. The ideas you have about neuroscience are, at best, based on pop-psychology understandings of the brain, and my suggestion that you actually pick up a cognitive psych text book are as much an earnest attempt for you to actually understand something that you are clearly interested in as they are a slight about how nonsensical what you say is.
Yes, I know. First of all, I can't afford cheap clothes, am doing a Psych course (and HIS), and can't really get and read that book at this time.
Second, even if I might not know what I'm talking about, I am willing to change viewpoints when forced to concede in the debates here or am provided with viewpoint altering feedback in successful counterarguments. Maybe that's a better, however more time-consuming and inefficient, way to learn certain things I'll work on in future courses. Many topics I can look at for reference here, even ones I'm not involved in.
Third, I haven't displayed savant capabilities yet. I hope to one day.
Honestly I do feel like a bum for doing this. Am I getting anything out of it? Or just justifying it.