I agree with Jesse. Nature (if that exists) build on redundancies. (As
the UD). So if the substitution level is at the neural neurons,
``slight" changes don't matter.
Of course we don't really know our substitution level. It is consistent
with comp the level is far lower. But then at that level the same rule
It probably converges to the "linear".
Bruno (PS: I will answer other posts asap).
Le 10-juil.-05, à 20:22, Jesse Mazer a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Nevertheless, I still think it would be *extremely* difficult to
emulate a whole brain. Just about every physical parameter for each
neuron would be relevant, down to the atomic level. If any of these
parameters are slightly off, or if the mathematical model is slightly
off, the behaviour of a single neuron may seem to be unaffected, but
the error will be amplified enormously by the cascade as one neuron
I don't think that follows. After all, we maintain the same
personality despite the fact that these detailed parameters are
constantly varying in our own neurons (and the neurons themselves are
being completely replaced every few months or so); neural networks are
not that "brittle", they tend to be able to function in broadly the
same way even when damaged in various ways, and slight imperfections
in the simulated behavior of individual neurons could be seen as a
type of damage. As long as the behavior of each simulated neuron is
"close enough" to how the original neuron would have behaved in the
same circumstances, I don't think occasional slight deviations would
be fatal to the upload (but perhaps the first uploads will act like
people who are slightly drunk or have a chemical imbalance or
something, and they'll have to experiment with tweaking various
high-level parameters--the equivalent of giving themselves simulated
prozac or something--until they feel 'normal' again).