Rosa Cao

Thinking about philosophy, science, and how stuff works. Being confused. Thinking more.

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@aran_nayebi @xriskology I don't dispute that all physical processes plausibly *realize* some computation or another. That's quite different from saying that the computation itself "IS" (or can play the same functional role as) the physical process that realizes it.

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@aran_nayebi @xriskology All physical processes can be DESCRIBED computationally. But you probably don't want to substitute your lunch out for something that "did the same computations". For lots of biology (and tastiness), the physics matters! I wrote a paper about it here: https://t.co/nb6A2hDg6K

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@cameronjbuckner @Ensifere Mazviita Chirimuuta has a great book review of The Multiple Realization Book (Polger & Shapiro) where at the end she reframes the MR debate for those whose primary concerns are scientific and explanatory rather than metaphysical. https://t.co/uadJo0mbdO (especially Section 4.1)

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@gualtieropicc Lots of people have raised that question (e.g. Bill Ramsey). I think the answer depends on pragmatic considerations given by the explanatory context, and especially the robustness of the putative representations attributed (details here) https://t.co/q6xetvGLSy

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@gualtieropicc Totally agree that there is interesting theoretical work for representations to do! The question is whether the activation patterns commonly identified by neuroscientists as "representations" actually play that role.

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@spiantado *implicit IN a good curve fit

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@spiantado If you build the theory in and then re-write as above, the theory is certainly "in there". But that doesn't seem to guarantee that some theory will ALWAYS be implicit a good curve fit, whether you built it in explicitly at the beginning or not.

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@neuralreckoning Rick Grush has a great paper on the relevance of this q for comp neuro. and here's a book dedicated to your question https://t.co/VO7Zw9NzKx
https://t.co/nAsDHx8M45

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@davidchalmers42 @renatrigiorese i suspect that once we get to mouse-level AI, the distance to human-level AI will be tiny. but getting to mouse-level AI requires duplicating perceptuo-motor capacities that are crucial to mouse function but difficult to make without biological bodies

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@davidchalmers42 current "AI" systems only respond to inputs in pre-determined formats (just like mice do, given the perceptual systems that they have), but unlike in mice, those inputs don't hook up to general motivational machinery

[Rosa Cao @luosha]

@davidchalmers42 the ability to map a wide range of novel stimuli to approach/avoid, reward, and attentional responses in ways that tend to keep the mouse intact