4 ms·
> Just create an arbitrarily accurate digital model of a human brain and step through time. Is it sentient? If not, make it more accurate until it is. If it is,
by Planktonne 4y ago
> Just create an arbitrarily accurate digital model of a human brain and step through time. Is it sentient? If not, make it more accurate until it is. If it is, where is the sentience? It's just numbers and algorithms, right?
You can trivialise anything using this rhetoric, but that doesn't make it meaningful. Just think hard until you can move objects with your mind. If you still can't, think harder. The majority of things are more complicated than that [1], even if they are 'just numbers and algorithms' (also not proven). 'Doing more of the same' is not the only, best, or universally-applicable route to advancement.
We don't fully understand the brain, let alone consciousness itself. Throwing more and more compute at the problem without discernment is like trying to understand music by setting louder and louder alarms.
[1] https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/
- kadoban 4y ago> Just think hard until you can move objects with your mind. If you still can't, think harder. That only works if "move objects with your mind" is possible to do. "It's not possible to make a model of a human" is a possible objection to the argument, but it raises the question: "why not?". There seems to be no blocker beyond cost and lack of research.
- copperx 4y agoThat there is no blocker doesn't mean there is isn't one. I am as optimistic as they come, but let's look at much smaller problem: modeling an arbitrary analog circuit with DSP. The Nyquist theorem implies it's impossible to model such a circuit perfectly. Is there hope for perfectly modeling a physical brain with an electrical computer?