= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on David Chalmers' "The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (202)
Well, I don't think we will ever be forced to simulate the brain at a molecular level. That possibility is beyond worst-case; as Chalmers says, it's discordant with the evidence. The brain may not be a algorithmic rule-following signal processor (1), but an individual neuron is a fairly simple analog input/output device.
1: Though I think the evidence from neuroscience quite strongly suggests it is, and if all you've got against it is the feeling of being conscious then you honestly haven't got a leg to stand on
I'm playing devil's advocate in that I don't think the brain will turn out to be anything more than a complex signal processor.
neurons do seem fairly simple, we don't know what's waiting for us when we try to algorithmically model the rest of the brain's structure though.
Very true. It's not going to be anywhere near as hard as the naysayers claim; but it's definitely much harder than we're capable of now.