4 ms·

Regarding computability, I wouldn't dare giving any opinion on that, and hopefully didn't in my original post. All I'm saying that once we figure how informatio

by guylhem 14y ago

Regarding computability, I wouldn't dare giving any opinion on that, and hopefully didn't in my original post. All I'm saying that once we figure how information is stored and processed, with enough technology we could replicate the process. It's not about computability- if you are making a biological duplicate I'd expect it to work the same way. Some might say this is not the "singularity", but it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Also, it would help creating silicon equivalent. Imagine we have something just as small (or smaller) than a biological neuron, which can interface and work in the very same way. Computability or not, if it works in exactly the same way, I'd guess it could work the same on a higher level too - like, in a brain, especially if we have figured how to extract the stored information and if we can feed it back. (unless there are emergent properties we missed in the first place, but then if they can be identified, maybe they can be replicated too?) That would allow an iterative trial/error (ex: if it doesn't work - why?) which might not resolve the computability question, but bring even more interesting issues about why it might not possible - something we can learn only from an experimental approach.

kybernetikos 14y ago
As far as I can tell, there's a hidden (but not unreasonable) assumption in what you're saying; that it is possible to simulate what is going on. There are many things that cannot be computed, e.g. the Busy Beaver sequence, and it's quite possible that a simulation of true physics also involves noncomputable problems which would mean that it's not possible for a turing machine to simulate it. I like this blog's http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chur... take on it: "Yet our ease with the CTD Principle is an ease brought by familiarity. One hundred years ago the statement would have been far more surprising, and, I suggest, even shocking to many people. Viewed from the right angle, the CTD Principle still is shocking. All we have to do is look at it anew. How odd that there is a single physical system – albeit, an idealized system, with unbounded memory – which can be used to simulate any other system in the Universe!" You say "once we figure how information is stored and processed", but how do you know that what is going on in the brain is just a matter of storing and processing information in a way that can be mimicked by a turing machine?

by guylhem 14y ago

kybernetikos 14y ago

As far as I can tell, there's a hidden (but not unreasonable) assumption in what you're saying; that it is possible to simulate what is going on. There are many things that cannot be computed, e.g. the Busy Beaver sequence, and it's quite possible that a simulation of true physics also involves noncomputable problems which would mean that it's not possible for a turing machine to simulate it. I like this blog's http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chur... take on it: "Yet our ease with the CTD Principle is an ease brought by familiarity. One hundred years ago the statement would have been far more surprising, and, I suggest, even shocking to many people. Viewed from the right angle, the CTD Principle still is shocking. All we have to do is look at it anew. How odd that there is a single physical system – albeit, an idealized system, with unbounded memory – which can be used to simulate any other system in the Universe!" You say "once we figure how information is stored and processed", but how do you know that what is going on in the brain is just a matter of storing and processing information in a way that can be mimicked by a turing machine?