[ketralnis]

> The fact that neural networks have been the only way we've been able to solve a lot of problems, which approximate the way that the human brain learns, is pretty strong evidence of this

These are all difficult assertions to make because we're trying to prove a negative. Your claim is evidence that neural networks are one way to do it, and nobody's arging that. But it's not evidence that there doesn't exist a better way, or that alien life might evolve a different and even less optimal way.

Legs are pretty ubiquitous, even flying insects have them. If we'd never seen a fish or snake we might conclude that they're inevitable. Somebody that evolved to be rad-hard on a planet without a magnetosphere might conclude that life can't exist without the thick carapace that they're made of and only look for planets rich in silicon and calcium.

[notshift]

I agree with the legs example, but neural networks are basically a mathematical construct, and they solve problems that any other intelligent species in our universe would also have to face. I think if a better mathematical construct for solving those problems were possible, the process of natural selection probably would've found it by now.

We know that evolution has limitations in how it explores the state space; sometimes certain new developments depend upon past developments. But it seems to me that the development of a brain would hit relatively few of these barriers.