But it's a massive leap of faith to assume that the massive and varied array of information processing modalities in the brain are mostly unnecessary, or even that the "important" part of how the brain processes information can be modeled using classical computing at all in a way that's more efficient than biological neurons.

That's just a feeling you have.

It's not a massive leap of faith at all. Two reasons:

   1. We know how natural selection works, and it clearly often produces unnecessary parts for many things.
   2. There is physical evidence of evolution creating unnecessary and inefficient parts and components. 

1. Natural selection works by randomly creating a fixed set of features both bad and good and then selecting the best one. Thus the features are bounded by randomness. If the random mutation doesn't create the most efficient part then The only thing that can be selected is an inefficient part. This follows that it is VERY possible that many processing modalities of the brain CAN be unnecessary. It is NOT a massive leap of faith.

Additionally the selection criteria is simply survival. Not efficiency. As long as the "processing modalities" in the brain aid in survival the selection process does not interfere. Thus all kinds of arbitrary processing modalities both efficient and inefficient can occur so long as the modalities do not detriment survival. Why does stupidity evolve? Well stupid people aren't smart enough to create nuclear bombs to kill themselves. Thus stupidity is a possible trait, similar to how inefficient and unnecessary "processing modalities" are possible, mayhap being stupider aided in survival or didn't contribute anything at all. Just looking at people responding to me on HN, alot of them are pretty stupid (physical evidence). Not pointing out which one, certainly not you.

2. There is (alot) of physical evidence of the above. For example, the wheel is a very efficient way of traveling yet no animal has evolved some form of a wheel. The reasoning is actually more complicated about why a wheel hasn't evolved but the general idea I described above still applies... both natural selection and random mutation were not able to generate the series of intermediate traits required to form wheels.

Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities".

Yes this idea did begin as a gut feeling. Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical. It is unwise to constantly mistrust it. It is always wise to analyze these "feelings" in attempt to break down the logic behind why it occurred.

What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain.

But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer.

For example, look at cellular reproduction. Just imagine if your phone could produce a smaller phone, which would develop into a fully functional phone. And imagine if it could do that using energy which was converted from breaking down fruits and vegetables. These are things that every living thing can do, but it's way beyond the scope of what our technology can accomplish.

There are many such miracles of biology. For instance, a gecko's feet act as an adhesive in a way that artificial imitations have not been able to match.

Wheels are also great unless they aren't. If we had evolved in an environment where we had lots of smooth roads to roll around on, maybe some animals would have evolved wheels, but instead we evolved legs which are much better for getting around uneven and unpredictable terrain.

> Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities".

It's possible, but what evidence do you actually have that this is the case? How do you know the brain hasn't been subject to selection pressures forcing it to have evolved in an extremely efficient fashion?

> Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical.

Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? Or is your brain maybe incredibly powerful and capable, enough to create abstract and complicated emergent phenomena like intuition, which are so far impossible to understand analytically, or indeed to reproduce artificially?

> What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain.

This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise!

>This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise!

YOu need to explain how it's a leap of faith. That means low probability. So you need to explain the sample space and the numerator.

For me I explained. The sample space is ALL models for physical processes. Given that most of these models are elegant with efficient and simple primitives. It follows via probability that modeling intelligence by probability will most likely be the same way. See what I did there? I actually logically explained why it's not a leap of faith.

>Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it?

First off being inefficient is different from being correct. The brain can be correct AND inefficient at the same time. It can also be correct about some things and incorrect about other things. This is obvious if you look at the world around you. People are often wrong. They are also often right. Evidence is everywhere and obvious.

> But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer.

Sure it does. But I talk in terms of probabilities and possibilities. I am addressing the "leap of faith." I am saying because such and such is extremely possible... my statement is not a leap of faith. In this case I am saying inefficiencies are very possible. Thus my statement is highly realistic.

I never made a statement about anything absolute. I never said that absolutely the brain is inefficient. I simply said my statement is categorically not a leap of faith because it is VERY possible. And i provided logical evidence supporting this.

Ok let me present the following evidence:

1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient.

2. Human intellect and consciousness is one of the most complex nuanced phenomena we are aware of in the universe.

3. The human brain is one of the most complex things we know about in the universe.

4. We know very many things about how the brain processes information. We know structure and function are heavily intertwined. We know that the brain uses virtually every aspect of neural biology, from macro structures down to intracellular mechanisms, to facilitate information processing.

So we know the biology of the brain is incredibly complex. We know the output of the brain is incredibly complex. We know of many instances where the complexity of the biology contributes meaningfully to how the brain processes information. That is all evidence to support the belief that the complexity of the brain is meaningful with respect to the production of human intelligence.

It seems that you want to believe that most of that complexity is not meaningful, and your only evidence is "you had a feeling" and "biology is inefficient sometimes".

If you want to prove it's not a leap of faith, you have to present examples in which the information processing of the brain is actually inefficient, or how it can be replaced by a much simpler system. Otherwise it's all just a guess.

1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient.

By your second sentence it follows that such structures aren't a leap of faith. It is very possible.

2. Human intellect and consciousness is one of the most complex nuanced phenomena we are aware of in the universe.

complexity isn't indicative of efficiency.

3. The human brain is one of the most complex things we know about in the universe.

Same as above.

4. We know very many things about how the brain processes information. We know structure and function are heavily intertwined. We know that the brain uses virtually every aspect of neural biology, from macro structures down to intracellular mechanisms, to facilitate information processing.

But we don't know whether the entire structure is efficient.

>That is all evidence to support the belief that the complexity of the brain is meaningful with respect to the production of human intelligence.

But it is not evidence supporting the thesis that the brain being inefficient is a leap of faith.

>It seems that you want to believe that most of that complexity is not meaningful, and your only evidence is "you had a feeling" and "biology is inefficient sometimes".

The feeling has been rationalized. I explained the logic, it is now backed up. The criterion here is not absolutist. The criterion is just stating whether or not such a scenario is likely. IS it a leap of faith or is it not? I've sufficiently proved that the brain being inefficient is clearly NOT a leap of faith.

>If you want to prove it's not a leap of faith, you have to present examples in which the information processing of the brain is actually inefficient, or how it can be replaced by a much simpler system. Otherwise it's all just a guess.

Easy we have many ML models that already beat humans at certain tasks.. Those models use much less neurons then the entire brain itself and follows a much simpler model. See spam filters. It shows that a simpler model is already possible for certain aspects of intelligence.

I disagree with you. I believe I've shown enough evidence to move the probability out of "leap of faith" territory. I just threw in the example up above because you requested it.

So your statement was this:

> There must be something "turing complete-ish" about neural nets. As in although the primitive element of a human neuron is complex, you can achieve identical computational power with a much simpler model.

So the assertion is, that you can achieve identical computational power to a neuron with a much simpler model.

That is a leap of faith. There is insufficient evidence to conclude this. If you said "I believe there might be" or "it's possible that" I would not have taken issue with it, but there is a very high burden of evidence to assert this belief. Without that evidence you are operating on faith.

Until we can successfully reproduce something approximating human intelligence, or until we can postulate a credible mechanism by which human intelligence arises, it's a very very big leap to assume we understand anything about what is or isn't required to produce it.

> complexity isn't indicative of efficiency ... But we don't know whether the entire structure is efficient.

We don't know the complexity is efficient, and we don't know whether it's required. What we do know for a fact is that a human brain is capable of producing human intelligence. We don't have evidence that any other system is in fact able to produce human-like intelligence.

> But it is not evidence supporting the thesis that the brain being inefficient is a leap of faith.

I don't have to produce evidence that it's a leap of faith. You made a claim that is not supported by evidence. You have to provide evidence for your claim, or else it is defacto a leap of faith.

> The feeling has been rationalized. I explained the logic, it is now backed up. The criterion here is not absolutist. The criterion is just stating whether or not such a scenario is likely. IS it a leap of faith or is it not? I've sufficiently proved that the brain being inefficient is clearly NOT a leap of faith.

Yeah but you can rationalize just about anything. I could provide a rational argument for why God exists. It's still a leap of faith to believe in God.

You have a rationalization, but it falls far short of being any kind of rigorous proof.

> Easy we have many ML models that already beat humans at certain tasks.. Those models use much less neurons then the entire brain itself and follows a much simpler model. See spam filters. It shows that a simpler model is already possible for certain aspects of intelligence.

All ML models prove is that we have been capable of producing machines that are capable of pattern recognition. It's a massive leap of faith to generalize this result to assert the belief that neurons in general can be modeled at a much lower level of complexity. It may be the case, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that. It's just your belief based on gut instinct, and the fact that you've talked yourself into it.

>So the assertion is, that you can achieve identical computational power to a neuron with a much simpler model.

I use the word "Must" as in "highly likely" if my words didn't convey the probability then my bad, but I assure you now that my intent is conveying a probability.

> There is insufficient evidence to conclude this.

There is enough evidence to show it is sufficiently high probability for consideration.

>If you said "I believe there might be" or "it's possible that" I would not have taken issue with it,

I did say this MULTIPLE times in subsequent responses. I am telling you now that is 100% what I meant. Now that we're clear, we are in agreement. This conversation is over.

> There is enough evidence to show it is sufficiently high probability for consideration.

Agree to disagree.

It's fascinating that we have simple primitives or notions of analysis, deduction, causation, yet no artificial system where those features of intelligence emerge on their own.

Not true. It's called unsupervised learning.

What do you think is missing then? Unsupervised learning == general intelligence?

Not talking about agi. I am doing proof by contradiction. Yes current models of ML are primitive but the reasoning attributes you brought up have been reproduced in ML.. albeit in a primitive way.

It is still proof by contradiction, what you say is categorically not true.