> At first it may appear unlikely that a complex system with many degrees of freedom like the brain could be modelled with the right causal dynamics, but without taking into account the smallest parts … However, state variables of complex systems can be quantitatively predicted when there is ‘scale separation’: when different aspects of the system exist on sufficiently (orders of magnitude) different scales (of size, energy, time etc), they can become uncoupled … [an] example is the scale separation between electric currents and logic operations in a computer …
> When there is no scale separation (such as in fluid turbulence) macroscale predictions become impossible without simulating the entire microscale. An important issue to be determined is whether such a cut‐off exists in the case of the human brain … if it could be demonstrated that there is no such scale, it would demonstrate the infeasibility of whole brain emulation.
The FHI is assuming scale invariance in order to test it experimentally. We shouldn’t assume it for the purpose of analysing the roles played by humans and AI under IP legislation.
[1]: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf
Until we have this technology should we adjust laws for hypotheticals? No.
We don’t have a complete theory of physics. We don’t have any viable models of human thought. This is a non sequitur.
You’ve reduced the question of whether our universe is deterministic, something the greatest minds in physics have debated for a century and continue to debate, to a sound bite. That’s disingenuous. There may be phenomena we cannot accurately model and predict for fundamental reasons that have nothing to do with the supernatural.
We are so far from scientifically understanding consciousness that we don’t even have an agreed-upon empirical definition for it, let alone a way to measure it. That gap in understanding undermines any claim that it can be modelled this way or that.
Consciousness is more interesting, and it boils down to the claim that there is something metaphysically and unverifiably (from the outside) special about humans. That sounds supernatural to me.
If this is the case why are you arguing on HN? Is it possible for you to leave the discussion? Is talking to you the same as dropping a ball and watching gravity pull it downwards?
I'm a little skeptical of your stochastic model of humanity as well. Statistical mechanics works because oxygen molecules don't go off and start religions and convince other oxygen molecules to behave radically differently for thousands of years (or at least we haven't ever seen it). In fact our stoachstic physical models, classical, semi-classical and quantum, kinda specifically preclude this. How would you design an equation to capture this real phenomenon in humans?
No you cannot, quantum effects are way more complex than just random chance effects. The quantum waves are particles in their own rights that flows and interacts with each other and itself, if you treat it as just a stochastic variable you don't get quantum effects.
Even with indestructible information, combined with locality at the big-bang, combined with a perfect fundamental physics, is there enough time/energy to compute that? Perhaps this is grasping at straws.
With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete simulation of humans, or at least a model, therefore, we should update our laws NOW, to prepare for this?
A story of premature optimisation if I ever heard one.
It is possible you can make a good simulation of human thought without all of that, but we can't be certain.