ScienceBlogs

> In the following, I briefly review three a priori arguments that purport to demonstrate that “computation” alone can never realize human-like understanding, and, a fortiori, no computational AI system will ever fully “grasp” human meaning.

So on the one side we have science and engineering, backed by lots and lots of working applications, saying „let’s try and find out“, „let’s see how far we come“.

And on the other side, we have philosophy, with a priori arguments which say this and that must or must not be so.

Clearly I’m on the side of a priori arguments, they have a history of working well. Remember when Kant proved that empirical space must be euclidean [1]? Or Hegel that there can only be seven planets [2]?

/s

[1] http://jur.byu.edu/?p=9200

[2] https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/17/hegel-does-maths

I agree that it is extremely silly, however what you suggest about the genes being all mixed up in the same chromosomes as disproving it I don't buy..

I'm not sure if you've ever seen chromosome maps showing gene locations on chromosomes between different species but this is instructive in this matter: between species and thus, as numbers of chromosomes flux up and downwards, the genes which may have started in one chromosome end up spread throughout many-

I am sure you will find the following links interesting

Background: on chromosome rearrangement:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

Synteny map - cool explination
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/08/pufferfish-and-ancestral-genom/

mouse human synteny map
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/MGA2-11-33smc.html

Placebo/Nocebo Genes ?

################

for example: http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4570625

- placebo side: "rs4570625(G;G) homozygosity was a significant predictor of clinical placebo response, being associated with greater improvement in anxiety symptoms." [PMID 19052197]

- Nocebo side: "rs4570625 may have a gender-dependent effect on susceptibility to Panic Disorder." [PMID 19132526]

################

"rs4570625 GG makes me a believer ?"
http://genes2brains2mind2me.com/2008/12/06/rs4570625-gg-makes-me-a-believer/

critics: "Neuroskeptic savages the "placebo gene" http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2008/12/neuroskeptic_savages_the_place.php

################

23AndMe service data ( if you have ): https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs4570625

These quotes fail to notice that, notwithstanding all the non-repeatable results in physics that come and go, physicists eventually settle on a few extremely reliable theoretical precepts, precepts that lead to new technology. A classic example is quantum physics, the most successful and reliable scientific theory we have, a theory that makes numerical predictions about nature that prove accurate to better than ten decimal places:

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/

Psychologists have many non-repeatable results but don't shape reliable theories about their subject. Physicists have many non-repeatable results but do shape reliable theories about their subject. The computer I'm sitting at is proof of that.

i think that's a pretty bad metric. there's absolutely no reason that working on the most important problems in your field won't end up being a complete waste of your time, because you are ill-equipped to make any real progress on them. i prefer feynman's philosophy, as expressed in a letter to a student who felt that the problem he was working on wasn't "worthwhile" enough:

The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to. ... No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it.

-- Richard Feynman

read the whole letter, it's very inspiring: http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/2008/03/what_are_worthwhile_problems_f.php

Here's a fantastic article on the variability hypothesis: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/01/gender-gap-in-maths-driven-by-social-factors-not-biological/

Men having a higher variance in intelligence pretty much only holds for white americans. The opposite is true in other cultures, which to me, seems to indicate it's a cultural issue, not in innate biological difference.

You are right some feminists would argue that women are harmed by the "patriarchy" but they would also argue that the patriarchy hurts men too. Beyond that there are a plethora of widely varying feminist schools of thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies