Note for the downvoters of the above: I suspect you’re downvoting because you think a complete hardware replacement of neurons would result in long-term adaptibility. This is so, but is not what was mentioned here—replacing each neuron with a momentarily equivalent chip that does not have the ability to grow new synaptic connections would provide consciousness but would run into long-term problems as described.
Yeah, I was using the non-adaptive brain as a baseline reducto ad absurdum. Obviously, it’s possible to do better—the computing power wasted in the above design would be monumental, and the human brain is not such a model of efficiency that I don’t think you can do better by throwing a few extra orders of magnitude at it. But it’s something that even an AI skeptic should recognize as a possibility.
If we’re going to be picky, also the idea that only neurons are relevant isn’t right; if you replaced each neuron with a neuron-analog (a chip or a neuron-emulation-in-software or something else) but didn’t also replace the non-neuron parts of the cognitive system that mediate neuronal function, you wouldn’t have a working cognitive system. But this is a minor quibble; you could replace “neuron” with “cell” or some similar word to steelman your point.
Yeah, The glia seem to serve some pretty crucial functions as information-carriers and network support infrastructure—and if you don’t track hormonal regulation properly, you’re going to be in for a world of hurt. Still, I think the point stands.
Note for the downvoters of the above: I suspect you’re downvoting because you think a complete hardware replacement of neurons would result in long-term adaptibility. This is so, but is not what was mentioned here—replacing each neuron with a momentarily equivalent chip that does not have the ability to grow new synaptic connections would provide consciousness but would run into long-term problems as described.
Yeah, I was using the non-adaptive brain as a baseline reducto ad absurdum. Obviously, it’s possible to do better—the computing power wasted in the above design would be monumental, and the human brain is not such a model of efficiency that I don’t think you can do better by throwing a few extra orders of magnitude at it. But it’s something that even an AI skeptic should recognize as a possibility.
If we’re going to be picky, also the idea that only neurons are relevant isn’t right; if you replaced each neuron with a neuron-analog (a chip or a neuron-emulation-in-software or something else) but didn’t also replace the non-neuron parts of the cognitive system that mediate neuronal function, you wouldn’t have a working cognitive system.
But this is a minor quibble; you could replace “neuron” with “cell” or some similar word to steelman your point.
Yeah, The glia seem to serve some pretty crucial functions as information-carriers and network support infrastructure—and if you don’t track hormonal regulation properly, you’re going to be in for a world of hurt. Still, I think the point stands.