HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why don't we know everything there is to know about the human body?

1 points by gnulinux996 ↗ HN
The human body seems to be of finite complexity and always available for observation, surely there has to be a way for growing lost limps, triggering sensations and changing anything we want changed in an human.

Why do we still struggle to modify humans in any way we want yet, AI/LLMs are making strides?

8 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] thread
8474_s
Ethics, regulations, patient privacy. Generally what is done is clinical trials and research on model animals, that of course is much cheaper to experiment as first stage before human trials.
illuminant
So many things wrong with your question it is hard to know where to start without trolling your aragance.

That you think "yet ... are making strides?" What, since yesterday? And how well do you really think those things are doing? HN complains every day over their lack of maturity and how these may dead end long before AGI.

There you say "seems to be". Seems? Throwing words like "finite" around as though that's helpful. And who is "we" anyhow? We reject thousands of years of eastern (and some western) development outright as our PRIMITIVE modern science hasn't adequately reduced for purposeful observation or explanation.

In short, life technologies are far beyond modern comprehension due to their exponential complexity. We're so satisfied with what we call technology, yet we've really only been making any sort of progress for less than a hundred years.

I say exponential complexity as systems change their behavior based on the interference of external factors. Add a new element (chemical, stress, an exogenous, etc.) and the system complexity grows in ways previously inconceivable.

We don't fully understand light, how can we fully understand the most ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY KNOWN IN EXISTENCE, the human being.

What we know is miniscule and just beginning.

gregjor
Lots of unknown unknowns. How would we know when we know everything there is to know?

Saying something "seems to be of finite complexity," without evidence or attempt at proof, sounds profound but means nothing. Do you mean to imply that some things "seem to be" of infinite complexity? If not, what does "finite complexity" mean? Do you think human brains can understand anything completely as long as "it seems to be of finite complexity?"

Kye
Exponentials mess with people's intuition. There is a finite number of things in the human body. There's also a finite number of interactions. Unfortunately, the number of interactions, while finite, are exponential, and we have no good way to figure out which are meaningful and test ways to control them without laborious trial and error.

I think this is where someone usually chimes in to say "actually, interactions grow geometrically, not exponentially." I'm not sure what it means, and it's probably right, but the intuitive concept of "exponentially" looks close enough to the mathematical concept and maps close enough to the reality to work. Or seems to.

gregjor
The human body doesn’t have a static number of “things.” Cells divide and die. Microorganisms come and go with each breath. How do you define “thing?” Do we have a finite number of thoughts at any time? A finite number of sensations? Of gut bacteria?

The universe presumably contains a finite number of stars, but knowing that doesn’t get us closer to counting them, much less describing their interactions.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
ompogUe
Because Everything is a fractal. See also: E-Prime and Empiricism
shrimp_emoji
> AI/LLMs are making strides?

Lol

It's just GPU power making strides (about the only thing that hasn't plateaud yet).