[MURG] Cortex activty

[digfarenough]

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

The proof of concept is already there: computational neuroscience
and computational physics/chemistry in general. However, we don't
know the exact shape of the hardware and coding which will occur
after parameter extraction and multiple redesign iteration steps.

It's also not necessary, a conventional massively parallel system
simulating a simple critter at a low level of theory would do as
a demo.


 

That would definitely be proof that a low level animal could be simulated. The thing about Nanosystems is that you can't really argue with it if the calculations work out right. But what are you going to write in a book on uploading that will convince dualist people that the brain causes the mind and there is nothing else? You can be a monist philosophically and intuitively, but until science firmly closes the book on the mind/brain question, then, indeed, it's still an open question. Of course, I'd say you can pretty safely assume monism and go from that, but that right there leaves you open to critics.


You're painting a very favourable picture of what happened.
The mainstream greatly resented the way Drexler publicised his
vision, which lead to them actively ignoring it. Only recently
I've seen solid new mainstream work citing Drexler.


 

Hmm... that could be true, but the end result is the same. Had he not done this work, perhaps someone else would have picked up where Feynman was pointing, but it might have taken longer. It took quite a while as it is. :)


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://askja.bu.edu/pipermail/murg/attachments/20030925/891b8830/attachment.htm