|
|
|
|
|
by cubetime
4137 days ago
|
|
Agreed that it's unfeasible for now, of course, but I'm a little amazed people aren't seeing the uses of this. We can edit, directly observe, and record/playback simulated brains. We can test ten million different models on top of a recorded simulation and see which one fits best. Eero doesn't think we could learn about how the brain works by simulating a trillion slightly different permutations on a brain, or (maybe more ethically) small subsystems of a brain, and observing how each behaves? Sweet god, the economic implications! http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/uploads.html Horrifying, maybe, but I don't see how people can get away with suggesting this will never be valuable to anyone. |
|
> I'm a little amazed people aren't seeing the uses of this.
That's not the issue - I imagine everyone here would like to see these goals reached. Nobody has to sell anyone on the rewards of neuro research. The question is merely whether this specific project can deliver them.
> We can edit, directly observe, and record/playback simulated brains.
The idea itself is a good one. However, the key issue becomes choosing an appropriate level of detail for the simulation. I believe a blanket choice of "let's just do the entire brain" is computationally infeasible right now, plus we don't have good enough models to actually program the thing - but most importantly even in a future where these problems are solved the device seems like a blunt and unwieldy instrument that won't give up its data easily.
> or (maybe more ethically) small subsystems of a brain
That's what's already happening all over the world right now, in thousands of independently scoped simulations and experiments.