Why? The number of neurons in the brain is not strongly correlated with intelligence. Babies have slightly more neurons in their brains than adults do, though they have around (I believe I've read somewhere, but I can't find where) 50% less synapses. Elephants have five times more neurons in their brains than humans do, yet are obviously far less intelligent. Whales also have around two times more neurons in their brains than humans do.brimstoneSalad wrote:The basic requirement would be a certain number of neurons.
A mutation can cause a person not to see colors even though the cones in the eyes are functioning, and so can a mutation cause a person to be more or less intelligent regardless of the number of neurons in the brain. Brains rely on genetic algorithms as much as on neural networks.
OK, now, that was a poor choice of words on my part. My point is, for some problems, genetic algorithms (and other heuristic algorithms) do worse than guess-and-check, they provide no benefit, but just use more resources than straightforward guess-and-check does. It's sometimes hard to guess which algorithm is good for what. I've once tried to make a program that will derive the sound laws that operate in a language from a dictionary using a genetic algorithm, and the results were, no matter how much time I give to it, indistinguishable from randomness.brimstoneSalad wrote:Do you think they're not Turing complete?
"Philosophers" (and I doubt those people actually know much about philosophy) who dare to talk about matters of neuroscience are usually victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The same goes for the philosophers you cite, as much as, in my opinion, for Gary Varner, who insists that fish feel pain and thereby contradicts the virtual consensus among neuroscientists.carnap wrote: Its the Dunning-Kurger effect in full force.
Plus, I seriously doubt any recent philosopher suggested no animals but humans feel pain, I think you are misinterpreting what you are reading.