3 ms·
Lets separate "modeling the brain" into two classes of work: modeling the interaction of complex proteins in large systems, and modeling the physiochemical stru
by ynniv 16y ago
Lets separate "modeling the brain" into two classes of work: modeling the interaction of complex proteins in large systems, and modeling the physiochemical structure of the brain. The first is very difficult, and we have been working on it for a some time already. Meyers' argument is that this is an astoundingly intensive job that will take an prohibitive amount of time. The later relies on both the former, and an understanding of how the most complex biological structure that we are aware of is constructed. Kurzweil suggests a (surprisingly low) bound on the complexity of this structure (which builds on complex proteins and should be seen as multiplicative of the former complexity).
But to say that Kurzweil is an optimist is to completely miss his perpetual argument. As drug companies dump billions USD annually into both complex protein research and sequencing technologies, we advance the state of the art in both of these classes. And while we have a long way to go, automation will get us there faster every year. If Meyers were to show that Kurzweil's estimation of complexity was off by 1000-fold, Kurzweil would still win because we would reach the goal 12 years later than expected, and "off by 12 years" isn't as wrong as "never".
- sprout 16y ago>Kurzweil suggests a (surprisingly low) bound on the complexity of this structure (which builds on complex proteins and should be seen as multiplicative of the former complexity). I think this is where most everyone really is missing the power of exponential growth, to use Kurzweil's language. The difference between "surprisingly low" and spot-on is +-5 years in Moore's law time. Really what it boils down to is how long Moore's law continues.
- ynniv 16y agoA (the?) key point of Kurzweil's work is to show that the exponential growth of technological leverage is independent of Moore's law. His prediction is that when Moore's law runs out (being tied to transistor density, it must), something else of the same shape will replace it. That is obviously yet to be proven, but there are some nice historical graphs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change.