this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
160 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
59 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If you're a big-headed guy or gal at a rationalist puddle cuddle, double check that your rubbers didn't get punctured.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brutticus@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Based on my neurology classes, I feel like we have some idea what some parts of the brain do. Obviously full on experiments would be unethical, but we can like, observe which neural pathways formed in people with the same life style (so Taxi Drivers have larger and more developed sections focused on navigation). We can observe what happens to people who take the same kinds of damage, and occasionally we get lucky and we can see what happens to people with grievous injuries or rare maladies. Also, we can do experiments on creatures like snails which far less complex brains.

The brain is certainly an interesting a weird black box, but we do have outs to learn some things

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

Oh, totally. We legitimately know tons of stuff about brains, including what most parts are typically used for. We just can't tell much based on eyeball lookin', we've gotta get in there with FMRI and EEGs.

I'm purely referring to head/brain size or gross physical properties and how they relate to intelligence.

Show a neurologist a photograph of a random brain and ask them to assess the owners intelligence.
The only thing they really have to go on is that if you can photograph someone's brain, signs aren't typically looking great for them.
They'll be making guesses based on vague correlations, and also getting fidgety about what you even mean by intelligence, since that's also not a simple measure.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I forgot to mention that we can also do some weird experiments with rats. Teach a bunch of rats how to do a maze, or complete some task, and then surgically remove different bits of each of their brains.
Unless you really mess them up, they usually remember how to do the maze.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5001904/

It's why missing a chunk won't make the neurologist definitely say it's impaired someone's intelligence.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/22/1165131907/neuroplasticity-plasticity-glass-half-full-girl

It's an extreme case, but definitely indicative of how visual examination is just not great for assessing brain function.

[–] Brutticus@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah, brain plasticity is really fascinating. One of the guys I work with, its the only way to teach him anything. He had a heroin overdose like 15 years ago. He has basically no short term memory, but I've been able to get him to retain things via repetition. Mostly repetitive physical tasks, but social media, with advertisers constantly pinging him, has also been a very powerful reminder. He's big into the EDM scene and he remembers events, both past and future, because social media keeps buzzing him and reminding him. I wish there was a way to harness that power for good.

But obviously, I've never seen his brain before.