4 ms·
It's not an in-depth article, but it does make an important point: That we actually understand very little of how our brain really works. People here on HN use
by jakobegger 7y ago
It's not an in-depth article, but it does make an important point: That we actually understand very little of how our brain really works.
People here on HN used to have a lot of discussions about uploading brains, neuro-preservation, simulating brains, etc. The implicit assumption was always that we already have a pretty solid understanding of how the brain works (it's just a neural network) and we just need to solve a few minor problems (just take a snapshot of all the synapses and we're good to go!).
The truth is, of course, that we have no clue if a neural network even is a good model beyond the most simple circuits (like certain reflexes), and scientists are still scratching the surface.
- lisper 7y ago> we actually understand very little of how our brain really works That's not exactly "stop-the-presses" kind of news.
- Veedrac 7y agoI mostly agree, but with two caveats. We do actually know that ‘neural networks’ are poor models for the brain. Backpropagation is unphysical and brains aren't acyclic graphs, for example. What there's uncertainty about is the degree by which they share principles. A glider and an eagle are pretty darn different, and a glider is a terrible model of an eagle, but they do at least utilize the same laws of fluid dynamics to fly. So the question holds for neural networks. As to neuropreservation, it's important to note that we don't need to understand the brain in order for it to be a good idea. What we care about is whether there will be a future wherein someone does, and whether the technique preserves enough mental structure to allow the brain to be recovered by that somebody.