8 ms·

Computing something isn’t the same thing as it actually happening.

by funimpoded 4mo ago

morpheos137 4mo ago
That is a dubious asertion. At high enough resolution the model converges on the modeled.
- funimpoded 4mo ago
  "Resolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No amount of scribbling graphite onto paper will produce a butterfly.
  - pixl97 4mo ago
    [citation needed]
    - funimpoded 4mo ago
      \s?
Eisenstein 4mo ago
Would you say that displaying image of something on a screen qualifies as actually happening? Writing data on a storage medium? What about a roomba vacuuming a floor?
- funimpoded 4mo ago
  > Would you say that displaying image of something on a screen qualifies as actually happening? Yeah, of course. What I'm addressing is "if we turn 100% of everything about neurons into numbers we can do calculations on those numbers and it's the same as that stuff actually happening with real neurons". Which is entirely wrong. A trajectory calculation isn't different from actually firing a projectile because it's not precise enough but because it's something else entirely.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 4mo ago
    So are saying that if we made a computer out of neurons that it could be capable of consciousness whereas an electronic one could not?
    - funimpoded 4mo ago
      Yes, brains apparently can do consciousness. Can descriptions of brains do consciousness? I don't know why we'd expect that they could. You can describe a fire in all the detail you like, and burn nothing. Can electronic brains be conscious? I dunno. If I had to guess? Sky's-the-limit ignore-all-physical-and-temporal-constraints? Probably. Within the bounds of what humans will ever achieve? Maybe. I doubt they'd look as little-removed from tabulation machines as ours are, though. Like I definitely don't think you get there solving math problems. That would be surprisingly metaphysical.
      - Eisenstein 4mo ago
        A fire is something that happens externally and has observable actions. An internal state is not. Your thoughts may take a physical form but that form cannot be demonstrated. Unless you can show me telekinesis then you have only intuition. Why are you so certain that these intuitions are true?
        funimpoded 4mo ago
        Possibly metaphysical naturalism is wrong and supernatural things exist! And maybe thoughts (and/or the experience of consciousness) are among those supernatural things. That could be it. In which case sure, maybe solving math problems can create consciousness (why not?).
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
cortic 4mo ago
Its exactly the same, the universe is functionally a computing device, it is based on data and causality. Its complex but our brains do not work deeper than the neuron and so can be modeled in other computing devices like it is modeled in the computing device that is the universe.

Computing something isn’t the same thing as it actually happening.

morpheos137 4mo ago

That is a dubious asertion. At high enough resolution the model converges on the modeled.

funimpoded 4mo ago
"Resolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No amount of scribbling graphite onto paper will produce a butterfly.
- pixl97 4mo ago
  [citation needed]
  - funimpoded 4mo ago
    \s?

Eisenstein 4mo ago

Would you say that displaying image of something on a screen qualifies as actually happening? Writing data on a storage medium? What about a roomba vacuuming a floor?

funimpoded 4mo ago
> Would you say that displaying image of something on a screen qualifies as actually happening? Yeah, of course. What I'm addressing is "if we turn 100% of everything about neurons into numbers we can do calculations on those numbers and it's the same as that stuff actually happening with real neurons". Which is entirely wrong. A trajectory calculation isn't different from actually firing a projectile because it's not precise enough but because it's something else entirely.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 4mo ago
  So are saying that if we made a computer out of neurons that it could be capable of consciousness whereas an electronic one could not?
  - funimpoded 4mo ago
    Yes, brains apparently can do consciousness. Can descriptions of brains do consciousness? I don't know why we'd expect that they could. You can describe a fire in all the detail you like, and burn nothing. Can electronic brains be conscious? I dunno. If I had to guess? Sky's-the-limit ignore-all-physical-and-temporal-constraints? Probably. Within the bounds of what humans will ever achieve? Maybe. I doubt they'd look as little-removed from tabulation machines as ours are, though. Like I definitely don't think you get there solving math problems. That would be surprisingly metaphysical.
    - Eisenstein 4mo ago
      A fire is something that happens externally and has observable actions. An internal state is not. Your thoughts may take a physical form but that form cannot be demonstrated. Unless you can show me telekinesis then you have only intuition. Why are you so certain that these intuitions are true?
      - funimpoded 4mo ago
        Possibly metaphysical naturalism is wrong and supernatural things exist! And maybe thoughts (and/or the experience of consciousness) are among those supernatural things. That could be it. In which case sure, maybe solving math problems can create consciousness (why not?).
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]

cortic 4mo ago

Its exactly the same, the universe is functionally a computing device, it is based on data and causality. Its complex but our brains do not work deeper than the neuron and so can be modeled in other computing devices like it is modeled in the computing device that is the universe.