[zxwx]

> 1… If we can simulate nuclear reactions, we can simulate consciousness, and that will result in real consciousness

Why do you think this? What other simulations are the same thing as what they’re simulating?

Based on observation of lots of these discussions, I also think people who don’t have much experience writing simulations miss the nuances involved. What is it to “simulate nuclear reactions”? It’s entirely context dependent on the problem you’re trying to answer. If you’re trying to predict statistical behavior of a system, doable; if you’re trying to actually predict when a particular atom splits and which way the neutrons fly… no.

> 2… [Consciousness rests on] some kind of interconnected network like neural networks.

When is a computerized neural network aka a collection of tensors in RAM a network? When you’re not processing a tensor actively, there is no network. When the CPU suspends your hypothetically conscious neural network to move processing between cores and GPU, where does the consciousness go? Where does the network go?

[swid]

1) I used nuclear reactions just as a fill in to say it should be possible to simulate matter with close enough approximation to facilitate thought. This was posited in "A New Kind of Math" which suggests there is a thing as "computation equivalence", which is a theory I mostly subscribe to. If we wanted to simulate a human naively, we would probably only care about biochemical reactions at earth like temps, not nuclear or quantum physics.

2) I’m not sure matrix math is sufficient, but let’s ignore that because I feel some kind of math is sufficient, and any computer program will have the same question apply. I also feel the universe might be the most efficient computer in time and space, which means we aren’t living in a simulation, because the computer would be bigger and run time slower than the reality it simulates.

- I don’t think it matters where the network is in reality. Virtual is fine. In a mostly perfect simulation of reality (let say enough to accurately model biochemical processes), there will be some state of the program, and for something living in the simulation, they will feel alive if they are complex enough.

They will experience time differently than we do, but they will arrive at their own conclusions as part of the simulation.

[closedloop129]

> I used nuclear reactions just as a fill in to say it should be possible to simulate matter with close enough approximation to facilitate thought.

If we can use Quantum Computers to hugely accelerate some calculations, then you can't use regular computers to accurately simulate nuclear reactions in a reasonable time frame.

[swid]

Reasonable time frame is not a requirement of the argument I was trying to make. I’m saying that there is nothing inherently missing from a silicon based computer or Turing complete language to support human level intelligence.