3 ms·
>Optimists in the comments here have hope for advances in mathematics that would give us a new method for modeling that could be applied. Maybe their hope isn't
by marcinzm 7y ago
>Optimists in the comments here have hope for advances in mathematics that would give us a new method for modeling that could be applied. Maybe their hope isn't unfounded. I'm just a dude who read an academic paper. But I did enjoy it.
I'd say most of the arguments in the comments boil down to "human brains do it so the paper's argument requires human brains to work on mechanisms other than non-quantum physics, which is mathematically model-able, which is a strong assumption."
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y agoAs far as I can tell, the strongest assumption around is that, because we can model some physical processes, we can model all physical processes. We have some maths. We haven't solved all of physics. We don't even know if solving all of physics will help us model intelligence. We have no way to know whether, even if we had an accurate model of the function of the brain and of our intelligence, we would be able to run it as a program, and on an actual computer. We know so little about what intelligence is and the dead certainty that, because we have maths, we should be able to reproduce it is just as unfounded as the opposite assumption, championed by the article.