Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#111

Post by Dylan16807 »

gwern wrote: post #52
Dylan16807 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it show that the belief isn't accurate? This isn't simulating a brain, it's simulating the connections in a brain and pretending the neurons are about as complex as wires. That is a model that is possibly correct, but there's certainly no evidence it's correct.

It shows, at a minimum, that 'simulating' is not a binary either-or proposition, and that the higher-level a simulation, the easier/more efficient the simulation can be, and so it is perfectly possible to have a high-level simulation of a 'big' thing which is easier to run than a low-level simulation of a 'small' thing - both of these points, as obvious as they may seem to you or me, are badly underappreciated by a l…

When people say 'simulate a brain' they mean a very specific thing: simulating it in enough detail that it can have thoughts in fundamentally the same manner as a fleshy brain.

>it is perfectly possible to have a high-level simulation of a 'big' thing which is easier to run than a low-level simulation of a 'small' thing

While this is true, it's not being shown here until we know that this particular high-level simulation actually works. If it doesn't work then it's more of a failed attempt at creating a simulation.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#112

Post by Dylan16807 »

lukifer wrote: post #89
Dylan16807 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they debate? It's very easy to test for [sentience or fake sentience programmed by a sentient]. Unless the aliens think we're robots they can do a mirror test or something. But such a test does not work in a possibly-tainted environment. A neural net that seems to communicate might just have a hidden encoding of ELIZA. You can err on the side of assuming sentience if you want, but don't think it's out of se…

We choose the definition of sentience so that it includes us. There's no reason to believe that an alien species might not do the same, and that we might not make the cut. Hell, some of the worst racist rhetoric on the planet involves seeing other humans as non-sentient. See also: http://terrybison.com/page6/page6.html

Why did you link a story where the ability to think/feel was clearly established in a bafflingly-different species to argue against me?

It's not like this is some crazy threshold designed specifically to apply to humans, it applies to a bunch of animals too.

At a certain level it's kind of like checking for turing completeness.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#113

Post by shardling »

Xcelerate wrote: post #77
shardling wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The very best simulations of reality that we can perform handle at most just a few H/He/C atoms. On a deeper level, we still have trouble simulating even a single proton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gauge_theory

That's true. However, unless I'm mistaken (my field is more chemistry-simulation than physics-simulation), the internal nature of the proton is not necessary for achieving chemical accuracy level results from something like FCIQMC, namely because the chemical properties of interest are the result of only the charge interactions of the protons/electrons as potential terms in the Schrodinger equation. I believe applyin…

Sure, just wanted to point out how complicated truly "simulating reality" is. :)

I mean, my doctorate involved calculating tiny, tiny corrections (8 or 9 decimal places) to hydrogen-like energy levels, but even there I could still treat the proton as point like!

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#114

Post by smosher »

coldtea wrote: post #101
smosher wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not helpful. My question demands an answer from the person making the claim, unless you happen to know what they're thinking. Besides, this sounds nothing like what they're talking about. Worse, I don't think you're prepared to prove that a mostly pure-neuron simulation is incapable of giving rise to that certain complex quality apparently far removed from the level of the simulation.

> Not helpful. My question demands an answer from the person making the claim, unless you happen to know what they're thinking. No, questions can be answered by anyone, if they provide a relevant answer. What the person making the claim thought is irrelavent. The parent gave you a valid reply.

I was literally asking someone what they were talking about. Instead I got an answer from someone else about something else. It's just some asshole who has one little nugget of information they want to spout at someone.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#115

Post by moocowduckquack »

dnautics wrote: post #87
jfoutz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, i would assert that a cell is 70% water. some tiny fraction of water that's actually used in a reaction would just be special cased, and modeled independently. My understanding of "solution" is stuff floating in water. If there's some value in breaking out each atom, i'm all for it, but i kind of suspect the spherical cow is good enough in that case. Even if i'm wrong there, each atom would introduce at least…

The interior of a cell does not follow solution dynamics at all in the way that you would like for it to, and this is why: http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/illustration/mycoplas...

That is an absolutely awesome illustration.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#117

Post by dnautics »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #115
dnautics wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interior of a cell does not follow solution dynamics at all in the way that you would like for it to, and this is why: http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/illustration/mycoplas...

That is an absolutely awesome illustration.

check out "macrophage and bacterium", by the same guy. All of the shapes of the proteins are informed by their crystal structures. The concentrations of them in the cell/plasma are also informed by known data about those environments.

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#118

Post by lukifer »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112
lukifer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We choose the definition of sentience so that it includes us. There's no reason to believe that an alien species might not do the same, and that we might not make the cut. Hell, some of the worst racist rhetoric on the planet involves seeing other humans as non-sentient. See also: http://terrybison.com/page6/page6.html

Why did you link a story where the ability to think/feel was clearly established in a bafflingly-different species to argue against me? It's not like this is some crazy threshold designed specifically to apply to humans, it applies to a bunch of animals too. At a certain level it's kind of like checking for turing completeness.

The whole point is that we're blind to our own biases, as fish are blind to water. That includes our bias towards physical matter over simulated matter. (It's funny how the notion of a simulated universe unsettles people and destabilizes their narratives, despite the fact that discovering it would change precisely nothing about the subjective reality of our universe.)

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#119

Post by Xcelerate »

shardling wrote: post #113
Xcelerate wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true. However, unless I'm mistaken (my field is more chemistry-simulation than physics-simulation), the internal nature of the proton is not necessary for achieving chemical accuracy level results from something like FCIQMC, namely because the chemical properties of interest are the result of only the charge interactions of the protons/electrons as potential terms in the Schrodinger equation. I believe applyin…

Sure, just wanted to point out how complicated truly "simulating reality" is. :) I mean, my doctorate involved calculating tiny, tiny corrections (8 or 9 decimal places) to hydrogen-like energy levels, but even there I could still treat the proton as point like!

Wow, really? That kind of research fascinates me. I would be interested in seeing your thesis if it is available online!

Re: Simulating 1 second of real brain activity takes 40 minutes and 83K processors

#120

Post by Dylan16807 »

smosher wrote: post #114
coldtea wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not helpful. My question demands an answer from the person making the claim, unless you happen to know what they're thinking. No, questions can be answered by anyone, if they provide a relevant answer. What the person making the claim thought is irrelavent. The parent gave you a valid reply.

I was literally asking someone what they were talking about. Instead I got an answer from someone else about some thing else. It's just some asshole who has one little nugget of information they want to spout at someone.

The answer wasn't quite relevant to your question, but the specific person that answers doesn't matter unless you're asking for their expertise.

So, basically, you're the only one being an 'asshole' here.

Post reply on HN