You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

John_Maxwell_IV comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: Yvain 19 October 2012 01:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (479)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 22 October 2012 04:15:34AM *  2 points [-]

I did find that objection less persuasive. I didn't say PZ's post was perfect.

I don't think doing rationality better than PZ should be our goal; I think figuring out what's true should be our goal. I do think that semi-ridicule by a professional biologist should be taken as evidence that the authors of WBE roadmap know less than they think (edit: but see Carl Shulman's comment). Beyond that, I'm out of my depth and happy to be corrected on specifics.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 22 October 2012 07:56:19AM 5 points [-]

Argument screens off authority. When an esteemed biology writer dismisses a claim about computer simulations of life-forms by using an argument based on a serious confusion regarding computation (not regarding biology), his reputation as a biologist counts for nothing.

Any computer simulation can be run faster than real-time given adequate processing power; and this has nothing to do with whether the process being simulated can be accelerated.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 23 October 2012 12:31:04AM *  2 points [-]

Myers writes:

Sure, you can just arbitrarily set the time-scale of the simulation, but then you mess up the inputs from outside the simulation. And you can’t model a human brain in total I/O isolation without it melting down into insanity.

I didn't feel comfortable dismissing his objection out of hand, because I wasn't exactly sure what point he was trying to make. Then I read Carl Shulman's comment, and now I'm thinking it probably just didn't occur to him to simulate the brain in a sped-up virtual environment. Probably he assumed the simulation was expected to interact with the real world as flesh-and-blood humans do, just while thinking faster. If this was the goal, it seems his objection would be valid.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 23 October 2012 02:42:55AM 0 points [-]

Fair enough. His point that a mind works with sense organs is a good one, it's true. Running a double-speed brain with single-speed audio inputs w...o...u...l...d ... n...o...t ... w...o...r...k.