4 ms·
> there is no reason to believe a connection between the mechanical model and what happens in organisms has been established The universal approximation theor
by red75prime 2y ago
> there is no reason to believe a connection between the mechanical model and what happens in organisms has been established
The universal approximation theorem. And that's basically it. The rest is empirical.
No matter which physical processes happen inside the human brain, a sufficiently large neural network can approximate them. Barring unknowns like super-Turing computational processes in the brain.
- lupire 2y agoThat's not useful by itself, because "anything cam model anything else" doesn't put any upper bound on emulation cost, which for one small task could be larger than the total energy available in the entire Universem
- pixl97 2y agoI mean, that is why they mention super-Turning processes like quantum based computing.
- dinosaurdynasty 2y agoQuantum computing actually isn't super-Turing, it "just" computes some things faster. (Strictly speaking it's somewhere between a standard Turing machine and a nondeterministic Turing machine in speed, and the first can emulate the second.)
- staunton 2y agoIf we're nitpicking: quantum computing algorithms could (if implemented) compute certain things faster than the best classical algorithms we know. We don't know any quantum algorithms that are provably faster than all possible classical algorithms.
- dinosaurdynasty 2y agoWell yeah, we haven't even proved that P != NP yet.
- red75prime 2y agoEither the brain violates the physical Church-Turing thesis or it's not. If it does, well, it will take more time to incorporate those physical mechanisms into computers to get them on par with the brain. I leave the possibility that it's "magic"[1] aside. It's just impossible to predict, because it will violate everything we know about our physical world. [1] One example of "magic": we live in a simulation and the brain is not fully simulated by the physics engine, but creators of the simulation for some reason gave it access to computational resources that are impossible to harness using the standard physics of the simulated world. Another example: interactionistic soul.
- exprofmaddy 2y agoThe universal approximation theorem is set in a precise mathematical context; I encourage you to limit its applicability to that context despite the marketing label "universal" (which it isn't). Consider your concession about empiricism. There's no empirical way to prove (i.e. there's no experiment that can demonstrate beyond doubt) that all brain or other organic processes are deterministic and can be represented completely as functions.
- red75prime 2y agoFunction is the most general way of describing relations. Non-deterministic processes can be represented as functions with a probability distribution codomain. Physics seems to require only continuous functions. Sorry, but there's not much evidence that can support human exceptionalism.
- exprofmaddy 2y agoSome differential equations that model physics admit singularities and multiple solutions. Therefore, functions are not the most general way of describing relations. Functions are a subset of relations. Although "non-deterministic" and "stochastic" are often used interchangeably, they are not equivalent. Probability is applied analysis whose objects are distributions. Analysis is a form of deductive, i.e. mechanical, reasoning. Therefore, it's more accurate (philosophically) to identify mathematical probability with determinism. Probability is a model for our experience. That doesn't mean our experience is truly probabilistic. Humans aren't exceptional. Math modeling and reasoning are human activities.
- red75prime 2y ago> Some differential equations that model physics admit singularities and multiple solutions. And physicists regard those as unphysical: the theory breaks down, we need better one.
- exprofmaddy 2y ago