Real question, do you really want to know where you may be mistaken, or will you hand wave away information in order to protect what you believe?
No judgement here but I am just tired of sharing information with people to explain why while interpretation of a complex model may be hard, we know the methods of how PAC learning works and some hard boundaries on what it can do.
Obviously we need people to push boundaries and assumptions.
But we have known about hard upper limits for a long time. Right now we are pushing up to those limits in what we can actually implement, but those hard limits haven't budged in decades.
It is hormones. Also, life is a series of chemical reactions. However this approach is useful in some context and completely useless in other, like in context where people talk about life and love.
Although, it can be deconstructed to this it doesn't mean that the other POVs are false. The reasoning comes from the process itself, it triggers a series of calculations that are applied on the input, which are the reasoning part.
The analytical approach is useful when calibrating these calculations.
A simple proof that love is not just hormones is that love can last for some time. If it was just a chemical phenomenon why does it happen repeatedly. Why can someone feel love for someone just by bringing to mind the symbol which represents that person? Why can someone feel love by seeing an illustration of someone they love?
The point is that it is a phenomenon connected with memory and thinking processes. The reaction and release of hormones is part of the phenomenon, but not the entire phenomenon.
Take this in contrast to an allergy for example. Can you trigger an allergy by remembering the food? If you see an illustration of a food you are allergic to, do you get an attack?
A more similar phenomenon instead is a phobia. It is also a release of hormones based on some internal or external stimulus (you can apply all my examples about love). However in a phobia it's even more clear that the phenomenon is based on thinking patterns. Reducing the complexity to saying these are just "hormones and reactions" is the same as saying a computer is "instructions and interrupts". That is to say that a computer has these elements but what makes it work is that there are a bunch of other systems including the humans writing the software that organize these into a functional system.
Memory and thinking processes are reactions and synapses firing in the brain.
It's not "just" in the sense that there's a lot of emergence and complexity when these things all work together but it is "just" in the sense that these are all physical unmagical processes.
My point was that the original comment is a low-level view with missing details that gives little insight on the complexity of the phenomenon, not a support for dualism. It's all brain tissues and the information they encode.
I think we agree and it was fun to write this out.
It's an epiphenomenon on the scale of societies, not just people, that arises to make sense of what people do with hormones. There's a lot more to it than just the hormones.
Comments
I used to think like that but I'm not so sure anymore.
The statistical optimisation thing is an analytical approach to Neural Networks but its similar to saying that love is just hormones.
Real question, do you really want to know where you may be mistaken, or will you hand wave away information in order to protect what you believe?
No judgement here but I am just tired of sharing information with people to explain why while interpretation of a complex model may be hard, we know the methods of how PAC learning works and some hard boundaries on what it can do.
Obviously we need people to push boundaries and assumptions.
But we have known about hard upper limits for a long time. Right now we are pushing up to those limits in what we can actually implement, but those hard limits haven't budged in decades.
Shoot. Tell me that information.
Isn't love just hormones? It isn't rational reasoning at least.
It is hormones. Also, life is a series of chemical reactions. However this approach is useful in some context and completely useless in other, like in context where people talk about life and love.
Although, it can be deconstructed to this it doesn't mean that the other POVs are false. The reasoning comes from the process itself, it triggers a series of calculations that are applied on the input, which are the reasoning part.
The analytical approach is useful when calibrating these calculations.
A simple proof that love is not just hormones is that love can last for some time. If it was just a chemical phenomenon why does it happen repeatedly. Why can someone feel love for someone just by bringing to mind the symbol which represents that person? Why can someone feel love by seeing an illustration of someone they love?
How is that a proof of anything?
Do you imagine all chemical reactions to be instantaneous with effects that last only a short while ?
Why would other things triggering hormones and reactions mean it's not just hormones and reactions?
The point is that it is a phenomenon connected with memory and thinking processes. The reaction and release of hormones is part of the phenomenon, but not the entire phenomenon.
Take this in contrast to an allergy for example. Can you trigger an allergy by remembering the food? If you see an illustration of a food you are allergic to, do you get an attack?
A more similar phenomenon instead is a phobia. It is also a release of hormones based on some internal or external stimulus (you can apply all my examples about love). However in a phobia it's even more clear that the phenomenon is based on thinking patterns. Reducing the complexity to saying these are just "hormones and reactions" is the same as saying a computer is "instructions and interrupts". That is to say that a computer has these elements but what makes it work is that there are a bunch of other systems including the humans writing the software that organize these into a functional system.
Memory and thinking processes are reactions and synapses firing in the brain.
It's not "just" in the sense that there's a lot of emergence and complexity when these things all work together but it is "just" in the sense that these are all physical unmagical processes.
My point was that the original comment is a low-level view with missing details that gives little insight on the complexity of the phenomenon, not a support for dualism. It's all brain tissues and the information they encode.
I think we agree and it was fun to write this out.
Thinking about food makes your mouth salivate.
Thinking about someone could release the hormones.
Thus the experience of food is reduced to the release of saliva?
Your point proves that the experience of food is also not just a chemical process which happens in response to food.
It's a bias modifier that causes a huge restructuring/reconfiguration of the whole world model, and even perception itself.
It's what the hormone does that's important, not what it is.
It's an epiphenomenon on the scale of societies, not just people, that arises to make sense of what people do with hormones. There's a lot more to it than just the hormones.