Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Are you saying that only (human?) biological brains can be GI, and that whatever intelligence is, it would emerge from a pure physics-based simulation?

Both of those seem questionable, multiplying them together seems highly unlikely.



Are you arguing that intelligence is not physical? Could you name a single thing in existence that fundamentally cannot be linked to physics?


I think the argument is simpler than that. I have a PC, if I wanted to emulate an old Nintendo system well enough to play I dont have to emulate from the physics upwards.

Even though every NES in existence is a physical system, you don't physical level simulation to create and have a playable NES system via emulation.


You have no proof that emulating a brain is on the same level of complexity of emulating a gaming console. Tech bro reductionism is a plague.


I'll be borrowing "tech bro reductionism." That's the perfect term for something that's a scourge these days.


I’m saying that:

1) intelligence and consciousness seem to be linked and we don’t understand consciousness. It may be physical but not purely chemical and classic physics.

2) Even if it is purely chemistry and classic physics, the development process may matter. Whole brain simulation may get you a simulated lump of flesh with no electrical activity.


There are a hundred trillion synaptic connections. Is it even possible to model something of that scale?


Yes, consciousness is not explained by known physics.

This is a trivial question to answer.


Not currently explained != not based in physics. Modern physics does not have an explanation for how gravity works at the quantum scale, yet anyone who'd seriously argue that quantum gravity is not physical would be laughed out of the building.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: