On the other hand, you cannot offload some of your brain’s neural networks to a computer (yet, growth mindset).
But you can run neural networks on a computer, and get them to do things for you. (I don’t think this has taken off yet in the same way using the internet has.)
But, since a large component of the task is catering to human aesthetic tastes, math cannot compete with innate human abilities that are designed to be human-centric.
I’m skeptical of this. If we have found “math” to be so useful in the domains where it has been applied, why should it be supposed that it won’t be useful in the domains where it hasn’t been applied? Especially when its role is augmentation:
Now, using math doesn’t replace our cognition, it augments it. Even when we use math we actually use all three types of thinking at once: the unconscious intuition, the conscious informal verbal reasoning and (also conscious) mathematical reasoning.
Determining what is safe to eat is not held to be a mystery.
Why should what is delicious to eat be any different? Why is this domain beyond the reach of science?
But you can run neural networks on a computer, and get them to do things for you. (I don’t think this has taken off yet in the same way using the internet has.)
I’m skeptical of this. If we have found “math” to be so useful in the domains where it has been applied, why should it be supposed that it won’t be useful in the domains where it hasn’t been applied? Especially when its role is augmentation:
Determining what is safe to eat is not held to be a mystery.
Why should what is delicious to eat be any different? Why is this domain beyond the reach of science?