I sure should’ve read the sequences, if anything, for this post. It is very explanatory in a way.
On the other hand, it is really hard for me to visualize the proposition that there is no kind of mind substantially stronger than a human one.
Yea, right, and if you study complexity theory, you know that the performance on some tasks will at most double when the computing power is squared, and you’ll see that you don’t quite know if ‘mind’ is such a task and if that ‘strength’ is logarithmic. Yes it’s hard to visualize something seriously non-linear like a logarithm or exponent. That’s because correct thought can be hard for human brain to process. And the invalid thought can be easier.
I picked up an intuitive sense that real thinking was that which could force you into an answer whether you liked it or not, and fake thinking was that which could argue for anything.
If you go by the feel of how easy it is to visualize something, that is example of a process that could force you into an answer whenever you liked it or not—but this is just another kind of fake thinking.
I sure should’ve read the sequences, if anything, for this post. It is very explanatory in a way.
Yea, right, and if you study complexity theory, you know that the performance on some tasks will at most double when the computing power is squared, and you’ll see that you don’t quite know if ‘mind’ is such a task and if that ‘strength’ is logarithmic. Yes it’s hard to visualize something seriously non-linear like a logarithm or exponent. That’s because correct thought can be hard for human brain to process. And the invalid thought can be easier.
If you go by the feel of how easy it is to visualize something, that is example of a process that could force you into an answer whenever you liked it or not—but this is just another kind of fake thinking.