[ExI] Simulating the brain (was Question for the psych squad?)

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Stuart LaForge wrote:

>Stathis Papaionnou wrote:
>>The brain is not a Turing machine, but it can be modelled by a Turing
>>machine if the physical Church-Turing thesis is true; that is, if there
>>isn't anything in physics that isn't Turing emulable.

>This assumes a discrete physics that is not yet proven to be the case. At
best matter/energy are discrete due to QM but QFT happens in
differentiable manifolds of fluctuating quantum fields spread throughout
smooth space-time. I don't see why calculus should work on physical
systems if space-time is discrete.

Calculus works on computer simulations and they are discrete. And if the
world really is continuous, it can be simulated on a computer to an
arbitrary level of precision. If the 50th decimal place of any physical
parameter in your brain is essential to your consciousness, you could not
survive, as you would be instantly destroyed by thermal noise.

>If infinities exist ontologically, then space-time is a continuum. In
which case classical computers would have difficulties with irrational
numbers. They will never understand what makes perfect circles perfect
regardless if perfect circles actually exist or not.

Human understanding of irrational numbers does not depend on writing out an
infinite non-repeating decimal.

>Classical computers might always have trouble with irrational behavior as
well which is a well-documented aspect of the human brain at least with
respect to bounded rationality and behavioral economics.

A random number generator could be used for unpredictability.

>For example, an AI running on a classical computer would be unlikely to
buy a lottery ticket unless it was programmed specifically to do so
because the odds make it inherently irrational. Yet millions of people do
and a (very) few think it was the best decision they ever made.

>Another feature of behavioral economics that an AI running on a classical
computer would be unlikely to exhibit would be inequity aversion which is
the technical term why humans will share money with each other in the
Dictator Game and also why they will refuse free money if they can deprive
someone else of a substantially larger bunch of free money in the
Ultimatum Game.

If the parts of a machine work in a rigidly deterministic way following the
laws of physics that does not necessarily mean the machine itself will be
rational.

>Now I am not glorifying irrational thinking but it is distinctly human and
a  simulation of a human would not be believable without it. Indeed if
George Bernard Shaw is correct, then we owe all technological progress to
the irrational man.

>Of course this argument goes out the window once quantum computing comes
online. QCs won't have any problem with irrational behavior in numbers or
people because they would be utilizing the infinities of continuum.

On 10 July 2017 at 18:37, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> Stathis Papaionnou wrote:
> >The brain is not a Turing machine, but it can be modelled by a Turing
> >machine if the physical Church-Turing thesis is true; that is, if there
> >isn't anything in physics that isn't Turing emulable.
>
> This assumes a discrete physics that is not yet proven to be the case. At
> best matter/energy are discrete due to QM but QFT happens in
> differentiable manifolds of fluctuating quantum fields spread throughout
> smooth space-time. I don't see why calculus should work on physical
> systems if space-time is discrete.
>
> If infinities exist ontologically, then space-time is a continuum. In
> which case classical computers would have difficulties with irrational
> numbers. They will never understand what makes perfect circles perfect
> regardless if perfect circles actually exist or not.
>
> Classical computers might always have trouble with irrational behavior as
> well which is a well-documented aspect of the human brain at least with
> respect to bounded rationality and behavioral economics.
>
> For example, an AI running on a classical computer would be unlikely to
> buy a lottery ticket unless it was programmed specifically to do so
> because the odds make it inherently irrational. Yet millions of people do
> and a (very) few think it was the best decision they ever made.
>
> Another feature of behavioral economics that an AI running on a classical
> computer would be unlikely to exhibit would be inequity aversion which is
> the technical term why humans will share money with each other in the
> Dictator Game and also why they will refuse free money if they can deprive
> someone else of a substantially larger bunch of free money in the
> Ultimatum Game.
>
> Now I am not glorifying irrational thinking but it is distinctly human and
> a  simulation of a human would not be believable without it. Indeed if
> George Bernard Shaw is correct, then we owe all technological progress to
> the irrational man.
>
> Of course this argument goes out the window once quantum computing comes
> online. QCs won't have any problem with irrational behavior in numbers or
> people because they would be utilizing the infinities of continuum.
>
> Stuart LaForge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

And what do you make of the fact that a quantum computer can be emulated by
a classical computer?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170711/d124d7e1/attachment.html>