|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 16, 2017 14:33:56 GMT
But there does seem to be a repetition of that tendency, oft-repeated throughout the history of science, that the closer we look, the less difference we see between the living and the non-living. When you are looking at the lowest levels, watching protein formation or the biochemistry occurring at a single synapse, yes: completely mechanical processes. Well, you have the resemblance kind of backwards there. Neural networks were inspired by what scientists saw going on in the brain, so the resemblance is hardly "striking" since it was by design! Only at the most superficial levels is it the "same". Neural networks fail to capture the complexity going on inside of individual neurons, which are living creatures competing with each other for resources, and also leave out the important role of the biochemical soup neurons live in, which influences their firing patterns in important ways. I should add that there are also models which posit that considerable information processing/computing activity goes on even within individual neurons, not just in between them and in their networks. The mechanical circuits built by humans pale in complexity to their counterparts in the brain. Even the most complicated are extremely simple and crude when compared to biological systems. Remember, my motto in all this is that you have to take functionalism seriously, which means applying it all the way down and not stopping until you've instantiated every relevant cause and effect in your alternate medium. Only then can you say you've created a model that is truly substrate-neutral.
|
|