3 ms·

I too believe this. Here is my argument: 1) If we have to simulate it at a low level, the human brain is far too complex for any computer in any timeframe of

by mehwoot 14y ago

I too believe this. Here is my argument: 1) If we have to simulate it at a low level, the human brain is far too complex for any computer in any timeframe of our current lives to have enough power to simulate properly 2) Working backwards and simulating the high level processes (AI, etc) have been a dismal failure at actually replicating human thought processes, and will continue to be. While NN or the like can theoretically simulate any algorithm, we have no idea how to effectively train them in a way that produces high level thought similar to a human brain. Generally when discussing this with people, I say this: if you disagree, give me a date by which you think I will be shown wrong, and then we'll reevaluate at that point. I fully expect I could be proven wrong, and that would be an awesome world to live in, but my bold and unfortunate prediction is that I won't be.

VMG 14y ago
> I too believe this. You don't. The article argues that there is a theoretical barrier that prevents a brain emulation in principle, you argue that technology isn't ready yet and won't be in our lifetimes. Opponents of your viewpoint argue that you simply can't imagine the state of technology in 50 years.
- mehwoot 14y ago
  The subject is, "The Brain is Not Computable". I too believe that. The article itself is quite vague in what particular objections the guy has. It doesn't actually state he thinks it is not computable in theory, just in practice > That’s because its most important features are the result of unpredictable, non-linear interactions amongst billions of cells, Nicolelis says. If he thought it was theoretically impossible, then the "billions of cells" would be redundant. It would only take 1 un-computable cell. Without a longer interview, we can't be sure what exactly he means. My interpretation was "unpredictable, non-linear" (i.e. not computable by a simple algorithm, would have to be very complex, because of non linear interactions between inputs) amongst "billions of cells" = an obscene amount of computational data. I don't think he means unpredictable to mean strictly uncomputable. > Opponents of your viewpoint argue that you simply can't imagine the state of technology in 50 years. Yes, but at the same time there are things we thought we would be able to do 50 years ago that there is no way we can do now. There are physical constraints to the universe, and we can't just assume "technology" will overcome all of them. Nobody can imagine the state of technology in 50 years accurately, but I am still willing (and have done) to take bets on this 50 years into the future.

by mehwoot 14y ago

VMG 14y ago

> I too believe this. You don't. The article argues that there is a theoretical barrier that prevents a brain emulation in principle, you argue that technology isn't ready yet and won't be in our lifetimes. Opponents of your viewpoint argue that you simply can't imagine the state of technology in 50 years.

mehwoot 14y ago
The subject is, "The Brain is Not Computable". I too believe that. The article itself is quite vague in what particular objections the guy has. It doesn't actually state he thinks it is not computable in theory, just in practice > That’s because its most important features are the result of unpredictable, non-linear interactions amongst billions of cells, Nicolelis says. If he thought it was theoretically impossible, then the "billions of cells" would be redundant. It would only take 1 un-computable cell. Without a longer interview, we can't be sure what exactly he means. My interpretation was "unpredictable, non-linear" (i.e. not computable by a simple algorithm, would have to be very complex, because of non linear interactions between inputs) amongst "billions of cells" = an obscene amount of computational data. I don't think he means unpredictable to mean strictly uncomputable. > Opponents of your viewpoint argue that you simply can't imagine the state of technology in 50 years. Yes, but at the same time there are things we thought we would be able to do 50 years ago that there is no way we can do now. There are physical constraints to the universe, and we can't just assume "technology" will overcome all of them. Nobody can imagine the state of technology in 50 years accurately, but I am still willing (and have done) to take bets on this 50 years into the future.