5 ms·

Given sufficiently powerful computers, human behavior could be simulated. The action of the computer would be describable as a (possibly enormously long and com

Given sufficiently powerful computers, human behavior could be simulated. The action of the computer would be describable as a (possibly enormously long and complicated) equation. I don't see how you can disagree with this unless you think there is something metaphysically inexplicable about human behavior.

reverend_gonzo 5y ago
Sure, and those sufficiently powerful computers don’t exist yet.
- canjobear 5y ago
  The actual existence of the actual machine is irrelevant for the claim that human behavior can be reduced to an equation. What is it about human behavior that you think could not be simulated by a machine?
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
Basically this line of argument boils down to assuming something about something we don’t and may never have. Until we have this technology should we adjust laws for hypotheticals? No.
- canjobear 5y ago
  Put another way: the claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics. Do you want to defend that?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics We don’t have a complete theory of physics. We don’t have any viable models of human thought. This is a non sequitur.
    - canjobear 5y ago
      We do have a theory of physics which is likely to be able to cover all the phenomena of biology[1], but that is beside the point. If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. You’ve reduced the question of whether our universe is deterministic, something the greatest minds in physics have debated for a century and continue to debate, to a sound bite. That’s disingenuous. There may be phenomena we cannot accurately model and predict for fundamental reasons that have nothing to do with the supernatural. We are so far from scientifically understanding consciousness that we don’t even have an agreed-upon empirical definition for it, let alone a way to measure it. That gap in understanding undermines any claim that it can be modelled this way or that.
        canjobear 5y ago
        Determinism is irrelevant. You can use stochastic equations to simulate human behavior if there are quantum effects involved. Consciousness is more interesting, and it boils down to the claim that there is something metaphysically and unverifiably (from the outside) special about humans. That sounds supernatural to me.
        blix 5y ago
        It sounds to me that you are arguing that consciousness fundementally doesn't exist; what we think of consciousness is an emergent property of fundementally determinable physical rules. If this is the case why are you arguing on HN? Is it possible for you to leave the discussion? Is talking to you the same as dropping a ball and watching gravity pull it downwards? I'm a little skeptical of your stochastic model of humanity as well. Statistical mechanics works because oxygen molecules don't go off and start religions and convince other oxygen molecules to behave radically differently for thousands of years (or at least we haven't ever seen it). In fact our stoachstic physical models, classical, semi-classical and quantum, kinda specifically preclude this. How would you design an equation to capture this real phenomenon in humans?
  - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
    I’m not claiming anything with regards to math model people. With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete simulation of humans, or at least a model, therefore, we should update our laws NOW, to prepare for this? A story of premature optimisation if I ever heard one.
    - canjobear 5y ago
      The claim was that it's obvious that an AI can't patent something because the AI is an "equation." I'm claiming that if you want to establish a meaningful difference between humans an AIs, which would be useful legally, it can't be that one is an "equation" and the other is not, because "an equation" could equally well describe human behavior. You'd have to search for the distinction elsewhere.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
        It is legally useful since it fits with our current understanding. When this changes, the laws will change. Your scenario is completely hypothetical at this point and also kinda extrapolated from things we know now.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Modelling quantum physics interactions is NP-hard, you can't do that using regular computers even if you make them as big as the universe. It is possible you can make a good simulation of human thought without all of that, but we can't be certain.
  - tremon 5y ago
    No, what people are saying is that humans cannot be reduced to your abstract model. Your model is a simplification, and to insist that reality matches the model is a very myopic worldview.
sjy 5y ago
You can accept that the brain is governed by physical laws, without conceding that the brain can be simulated. Emulation on the atomic level may not be computationally feasible. The emergence of human behaviour from a less detailed simulation is not guaranteed. These possibilities are discussed under the heading “Scale separation” in the roadmap to whole brain emulation published by the Future of Humanity Institute [1]. > At first it may appear unlikely that a complex system with many degrees of freedom like the brain could be modelled with the right causal dynamics, but without taking into account the smallest parts … However, state variables of complex systems can be quantitatively predicted when there is ‘scale separation’: when different aspects of the system exist on sufficiently (orders of magnitude) different scales (of size, energy, time etc), they can become uncoupled … [an] example is the scale separation between electric currents and logic operations in a computer … > When there is no scale separation (such as in fluid turbulence) macroscale predictions become impossible without simulating the entire microscale. An important issue to be determined is whether such a cut‐off exists in the case of the human brain … if it could be demonstrated that there is no such scale, it would demonstrate the infeasibility of whole brain emulation. The FHI is assuming scale invariance in order to test it experimentally. We shouldn’t assume it for the purpose of analysing the roles played by humans and AI under IP legislation. [1]: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf

reverend_gonzo 5y ago

Sure, and those sufficiently powerful computers don’t exist yet.

canjobear 5y ago
The actual existence of the actual machine is irrelevant for the claim that human behavior can be reduced to an equation. What is it about human behavior that you think could not be simulated by a machine?

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago

Basically this line of argument boils down to assuming something about something we don’t and may never have. Until we have this technology should we adjust laws for hypotheticals? No.

canjobear 5y ago
Put another way: the claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics. Do you want to defend that?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > claim that humans cannot be modeled as equations equates to the claim that humans cannot be modeled using physics We don’t have a complete theory of physics. We don’t have any viable models of human thought. This is a non sequitur.
  - canjobear 5y ago
    We do have a theory of physics which is likely to be able to cover all the phenomena of biology[1], but that is beside the point. If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If you think that human behavior cannot be reduced to equations, then you think it cannot be predicted mathematically. I can only interpret this as a claim that there is something about human behavior which is supernatural. You’ve reduced the question of whether our universe is deterministic, something the greatest minds in physics have debated for a century and continue to debate, to a sound bite. That’s disingenuous. There may be phenomena we cannot accurately model and predict for fundamental reasons that have nothing to do with the supernatural. We are so far from scientifically understanding consciousness that we don’t even have an agreed-upon empirical definition for it, let alone a way to measure it. That gap in understanding undermines any claim that it can be modelled this way or that.
      - canjobear 5y ago
        Determinism is irrelevant. You can use stochastic equations to simulate human behavior if there are quantum effects involved. Consciousness is more interesting, and it boils down to the claim that there is something metaphysically and unverifiably (from the outside) special about humans. That sounds supernatural to me.
        blix 5y ago
        It sounds to me that you are arguing that consciousness fundementally doesn't exist; what we think of consciousness is an emergent property of fundementally determinable physical rules. If this is the case why are you arguing on HN? Is it possible for you to leave the discussion? Is talking to you the same as dropping a ball and watching gravity pull it downwards? I'm a little skeptical of your stochastic model of humanity as well. Statistical mechanics works because oxygen molecules don't go off and start religions and convince other oxygen molecules to behave radically differently for thousands of years (or at least we haven't ever seen it). In fact our stoachstic physical models, classical, semi-classical and quantum, kinda specifically preclude this. How would you design an equation to capture this real phenomenon in humans?
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  I’m not claiming anything with regards to math model people. With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete simulation of humans, or at least a model, therefore, we should update our laws NOW, to prepare for this? A story of premature optimisation if I ever heard one.
  - canjobear 5y ago
    The claim was that it's obvious that an AI can't patent something because the AI is an "equation." I'm claiming that if you want to establish a meaningful difference between humans an AIs, which would be useful legally, it can't be that one is an "equation" and the other is not, because "an equation" could equally well describe human behavior. You'd have to search for the distinction elsewhere.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
      It is legally useful since it fits with our current understanding. When this changes, the laws will change. Your scenario is completely hypothetical at this point and also kinda extrapolated from things we know now.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Modelling quantum physics interactions is NP-hard, you can't do that using regular computers even if you make them as big as the universe. It is possible you can make a good simulation of human thought without all of that, but we can't be certain.
- tremon 5y ago
  No, what people are saying is that humans cannot be reduced to your abstract model. Your model is a simplification, and to insist that reality matches the model is a very myopic worldview.

sjy 5y ago

You can accept that the brain is governed by physical laws, without conceding that the brain can be simulated. Emulation on the atomic level may not be computationally feasible. The emergence of human behaviour from a less detailed simulation is not guaranteed. These possibilities are discussed under the heading “Scale separation” in the roadmap to whole brain emulation published by the Future of Humanity Institute [1]. > At first it may appear unlikely that a complex system with many degrees of freedom like the brain could be modelled with the right causal dynamics, but without taking into account the smallest parts … However, state variables of complex systems can be quantitatively predicted when there is ‘scale separation’: when different aspects of the system exist on sufficiently (orders of magnitude) different scales (of size, energy, time etc), they can become uncoupled … [an] example is the scale separation between electric currents and logic operations in a computer … > When there is no scale separation (such as in fluid turbulence) macroscale predictions become impossible without simulating the entire microscale. An important issue to be determined is whether such a cut‐off exists in the case of the human brain … if it could be demonstrated that there is no such scale, it would demonstrate the infeasibility of whole brain emulation. The FHI is assuming scale invariance in order to test it experimentally. We shouldn’t assume it for the purpose of analysing the roles played by humans and AI under IP legislation. [1]: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf