5 ms·
In support of the requirement for high-fidelity (atom-for-atom) modeling is the notion that an evolved computer would converge toward behaviors that supervene o
by jchrisa 6y ago
In support of the requirement for high-fidelity (atom-for-atom) modeling is the notion that an evolved computer would converge toward behaviors that supervene on specifics of the host environment. If porting a binary to another CPU architecture is tough, how easy will it be to port a mind to a simulated simple physics? How many edge cases will it have to get right to even run at all? If brains are hacks designed over millions of generations to surf overlapping fitness functions, it makes sense they'd find implementation (real physics) dependent optimizations that compound in ways which fall apart in toy physics. That's not to say we can't add cool peripherals.
ps even with atom-for-atom modeling, how do you know the behavior doesn't depend on relations which are not computable? If physics ranges over the reals, some of those edge cases might be hard to find with a simulator.
- dsiroker 6y ago> If porting a binary to another CPU architecture is tough, how easy will it be to port a mind to a simulated simple physics? It will be very difficult, but we shouldn’t underestimate what is possible decades from now. As an analogy, consider when the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) came out in the 1980s. Did anyone ever imagine it could be fully emulated in JavaScript in a browser [1]? Certainly not since those technologies hadn’t been invented yet. [1] https://jsnes.org/ https://jsnes.org/
- indrax 6y agoWhat's JavaScript? What's a browser?
- cylon13 6y agoI can hit myself in the head and I don't lose my train of thought, instantly lose consciousness, or die. If consciousness relied on the precise positions of individual atoms (as far as that makes sense with moving particles) it would be way more fragile than we've observed it to be. The fact that your brain is resilient to being knocked around a bit is evidence towards the underlying mind being at least slightly higher level than where strong quantum effects live and also fairly redundant.
- im3w1l 6y agoI agree, but I think there is a case to be made that there is important state separate from just which cells connect to which and how strongly, but is also more coarse grained than single atoms floating around. The cytoskeleton may be found out to have a role to play. The number and locations of ion pumps. Or epigenetic changes in clusters of brain cells.
- Franciscouzo 6y agoIf you hit your head hard enough all those things will happen though.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoOn the other hand, the brain is famously warm and wet. There's a limit to how much local state the brain can practically use to compute, given how messy it is.
- jjaredsimpson 6y ago>If physics ranges over the reals I thought this was ruled out by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
- gnramires 6y agoThat's my understanding as well. Quantum states encode finite information (despite their dynamics lying on the reals; the practical consequence is just that state transitions and information flow are smooth). The formal discussion around this is largely centered on the Church-Turing thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis Essentially stating (in a certain interpretation) that any physical process can be simulated by a Turing machine (with no mention of efficiency). This seems to be the case, although I'm not sure we have a convincing proof from quantum field theory yet (note that quantum process can be simulated in classical Turing machines, although with an exponential cost).
- GoblinSlayer 6y agoHopefully the brain doesn't rely on undefined behavior.