> From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And that is the whole point. You don't need to simulate the brain at > the > molecular level or even at the level of neurons. You just need to > produce an > equivalent computation. The whole point of such fine grained > simulations is > to counter arguments (like Penrose's) that qualia and consciousness > cannot be > explained by computation or even by physics. Penrose (like all humans) > is > reasoning with a brain that is a product of evolution, and therefore > biased > toward beliefs that favor survival of the species. >
An equivalent computation will be some percentage of the complexity of a perfect molecular simulation. You can simplify the computation but you have to know what to simplify out and what to discard. Losing too much of the richness may produce a simulation that is like a scratchy audio recording of a philharmonic or probably even worse the simulated system will not function as a coherent entity, it'll just be contentious noise unless there is ample abetting by external control. But a non-molecular and non-neural simulation may require even more computational complexity than a direct model. Reformatting the consciousness to operate within another substrate without first understanding its natural substrate, ya, still may be the best choice due to technological limitations. John ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
