Mark Changizi

But most of them don't really have to think about Darwin because they're doing mechanistic experiments. They're not doing hypotheses about its design. I'm one of the rare people back in the 1920s, You had the ethologists who did a lot more thinking in terms of the design and the function, really thinking about their evolutionary connection. But that's gone way away.

But most of them don't really have to think about Darwin because they're doing mechanistic experiments. They're not doing hypotheses about its design. I'm one of the rare people back in the 1920s, You had the ethologists who did a lot more thinking in terms of the design and the function, really thinking about their evolutionary connection. But that's gone way away.

But most of them don't really have to think about Darwin because they're doing mechanistic experiments. They're not doing hypotheses about its design. I'm one of the rare people back in the 1920s, You had the ethologists who did a lot more thinking in terms of the design and the function, really thinking about their evolutionary connection. But that's gone way away.

Everybody's dealing with really complicated experiments with mechanisms. They don't have to think about it. So they've somehow developed this knee-jerk reaction that you don't have to understand design and purpose. But you cannot understand any machine without understanding what it's designed for. So I often use an example.

Everybody's dealing with really complicated experiments with mechanisms. They don't have to think about it. So they've somehow developed this knee-jerk reaction that you don't have to understand design and purpose. But you cannot understand any machine without understanding what it's designed for. So I often use an example.

Everybody's dealing with really complicated experiments with mechanisms. They don't have to think about it. So they've somehow developed this knee-jerk reaction that you don't have to understand design and purpose. But you cannot understand any machine without understanding what it's designed for. So I often use an example.

If you were to find a stapler out of the middle of nowhere, natives find a stapler for the first time. And they want to try to understand it. There's not much to a stapler. There's like four parts or whatever, six parts. But you might work out all the mechanisms. This opens this. There's like seven things, let's say, and they do these sorts of kinds of actions.

If you were to find a stapler out of the middle of nowhere, natives find a stapler for the first time. And they want to try to understand it. There's not much to a stapler. There's like four parts or whatever, six parts. But you might work out all the mechanisms. This opens this. There's like seven things, let's say, and they do these sorts of kinds of actions.

If you were to find a stapler out of the middle of nowhere, natives find a stapler for the first time. And they want to try to understand it. There's not much to a stapler. There's like four parts or whatever, six parts. But you might work out all the mechanisms. This opens this. There's like seven things, let's say, and they do these sorts of kinds of actions.

Well, that's not an understanding of it. You might start saying, well, maybe it's a weapon. And you start shaking it around like nunchucks. You open it up. Well, now you can work out how does it break when you hit someone in the face? Is it bent? Maybe that's part of it. There's tons and tons of mechanistic behaviors that it has that have nothing to do with what it's in fact for.

Well, that's not an understanding of it. You might start saying, well, maybe it's a weapon. And you start shaking it around like nunchucks. You open it up. Well, now you can work out how does it break when you hit someone in the face? Is it bent? Maybe that's part of it. There's tons and tons of mechanistic behaviors that it has that have nothing to do with what it's in fact for.

Well, that's not an understanding of it. You might start saying, well, maybe it's a weapon. And you start shaking it around like nunchucks. You open it up. Well, now you can work out how does it break when you hit someone in the face? Is it bent? Maybe that's part of it. There's tons and tons of mechanistic behaviors that it has that have nothing to do with what it's in fact for.

how it deforms when this happens. There's lots of infinite numbers of kinds of mechanisms that are involved with it that are completely irrelevant, right?

how it deforms when this happens. There's lots of infinite numbers of kinds of mechanisms that are involved with it that are completely irrelevant, right?

how it deforms when this happens. There's lots of infinite numbers of kinds of mechanisms that are involved with it that are completely irrelevant, right?

Only by understanding the mechanisms in the context of what the function is for, this is where the computational heart, you've got function, you've got the algorithm level, you've got the mechanistic implementation level, you have to understand all these systems by understanding it by all of these parts all cohering together in one. In relationship to function.

Only by understanding the mechanisms in the context of what the function is for, this is where the computational heart, you've got function, you've got the algorithm level, you've got the mechanistic implementation level, you have to understand all these systems by understanding it by all of these parts all cohering together in one. In relationship to function.

Only by understanding the mechanisms in the context of what the function is for, this is where the computational heart, you've got function, you've got the algorithm level, you've got the mechanistic implementation level, you have to understand all these systems by understanding it by all of these parts all cohering together in one. In relationship to function.

In relationship to function at the top. And so they're throwing out the very thing that allows you to understand, even if they are only interested in mechanisms, which my eyes glaze over with mechanisms, you can't understand mechanisms without inherently understanding the functions.

In relationship to function at the top. And so they're throwing out the very thing that allows you to understand, even if they are only interested in mechanisms, which my eyes glaze over with mechanisms, you can't understand mechanisms without inherently understanding the functions.