Comments by "roidroid" (@roidroid) on "Даниэл Уолперт: Для чего на самом деле нужен мозг" video.

@sausage4mash technically the human brain is subconsciously calculating more lines than you are giving it credit for. Mental processes that we are conscious of, make up only a small segment of our brain's activity. I suspect a lot of the "useful calculations" are happening subconsciously and automatically in the GM's visual and spacial regions of the brain, before they are even aware of checking lines. Or to put it another way, this is what you are calling "Intuition". It's just calculation.
3
@raileanulucian oh my god did you see that woman in the front row? she was totally a woman. totally. so hot
2
@tronist not really. There's always mutants
1
@sausage4mash as far as i know the only goal of chess is to win. If the computer is beating these GMs, then IT'S THE GMs who arn't playing chess properly, they're failures. Harsh i know, but think about it. Is the ultimate goal of the game of chess REALLY to make plays based on intuition, pattern recognition, misdirection etc? Not really. Sure it makes it more fun and interesting when playing against a human opponent, but the goal of the game of chess is not to be fun and interesting.
1
@Ryakki there is no S in TED
1
Weird, I was just thinking and writing about this a few days ago, wondering if good robotic movement systems were already using the method (i mean it just seems so obvious): To use a constantly running internal simulation to control the speed of movements, based on how accurately your internal simulation seems to be predicting the real-world movement results (ie: giving robots a self-limiting sense of "confidence"). I'm glad to see it's already got a name: "Bayesian Inference". Yay learning!
1
@sausage4mash oh. Well i guess to be honest i'm not really too interested, until it seems that the paper contradicts my points (ie: parallel subconscious mental processes silently bolster conscious decision making). From your description of the paper so far, it doesn't seem like there is a contradiction. Which is why i'm currently concentrating on our conversation at hand, as i suspect we may be miscommunicating in some way. Youtube is hard to chat with :(
1
@sausage4mash who's to say that's not all chess really is?
1
@sausage4mash your brute-force chess program might not have done pattern recognition, but others do. i assure you that pattern recog can be simmered down to calculations, i suppose you could describe the evolving table of variables as nothing more than a "list" if you ignored the fact that the data stored amongst neurons can also be stored as a "list". There's no magic here, it's all essentially just number crunching, regardless of wetware or hardware. Thoughts are merely hard to debug atm.
1
@funincluded oh, you're right! That's a form of communication that requires no muscles to either send nor receive. And supposedly trees do communicate to eachother via smells, ie: Signalling distress. When one tree is under attack from insects, other trees nearby will change their sap chemistry to be less palatable to the insects.
1
@racpembertondual can you describe her? i'm not sure which lady you mean
1
@mattmoore111 this is a hypothesis about the relationship between movement and the human brain. It has nothing to do with what you asked. It's like asking how germ theory explains planetary motion. It doesn't, it's unrelated.
1