> On 1 Apr 2018, at 00:29, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 2:32:06 PM UTC-6, telmo_menezes wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell > <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > You would have to replicate then not only the dynamics of neurons, but > > every > > biomolecule in the neurons, and don't forget about the oligoastrocytes and > > other glial cells. Many enzymes for instance to multi-state systems, say in > > a simple case where a single amino acid residue of phosphorylated or > > unphosphorylated, and in effect are binary switching units. To then make > > this work you now need to have the brain states mapped out down to the > > molecular level, and further to have their combinatorial relationships > > mapped. Biomolecules also behave in water, so you have to model all the > > water molecules. Given the brain has around 10^{25} or a few moles of > > molecules the number of possible combinations might be on the order of > > 10^{10^{25}} this is a daunting task. Also your computer has to accurately > > encode the dynamics of molecules -- down to the quantum mechanics of their > > bonds. > > > > This is another way of saying that biological systems, even that of a basic > > prokaryote, are beyond our current abilities to simulate. You can't just > > hand wave away the enormous problems with just simulating a bacillus, let > > alone something like the brain. Now of course one can do some simulations > > to > > learn about the brain in a model system, but this is far from mapping a > > brain and its conscious state into a computer. > > Well maybe, but this is just you guessing. > Nobody knows the necessary level of detail. > > Telmo. > > Take LSD or psilocybin mushrooms and what enters the brain are chemical > compounds that interact with neural ligand gates. The effect is a change in > the perception of consciousness. Then if we load coarse grained brain states > into a computer that ignores lots of fine grained detail, will that result in > something different? Hell yeah! The idea one could set up a computer neural > network, upload some data file from a brain scan and that this would be a > completely conscious person is frankly absurd.
This means that you bet on a lower substitution level. I guess others have already answered this. Note that the proof that physics is a branch of arithmetic does not put any bound of the graining of the substitution level. It could even be that your brain is the entire universe described at the level of superstring theory, that will change nothing in the conclusion of the reasoning. Yet it would be a threat for evolution and biology as conceived today. Bruno > > LC > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
