About Brain-Computer Interfaces
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
@dkf said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
The synaptic renormalization is definitely in deep sleep; we can run deep sleep in simulation (requires a fairly complex neural model to do) and the result is an across-the-board reduction in synaptic strengths.
That kind of feels like a tautology: when we run a simulation according to our theory of what's happening during deep sleep, the results support the theory that the simulation was built on.
See also: climate change, economic forecasts, lockdown effectiveness...
-
@Gąska said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
@Mason_Wheeler said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
@dkf said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
The synaptic renormalization is definitely in deep sleep; we can run deep sleep in simulation (requires a fairly complex neural model to do) and the result is an across-the-board reduction in synaptic strengths.
That kind of feels like a tautology: when we run a simulation according to our theory of what's happening during deep sleep, the results support the theory that the simulation was built on.
See also: climate change, economic forecasts, lockdown effectiveness...
Most unit tests...
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
That kind of feels like a tautology: when we run a simulation according to our theory of what's happening during deep sleep, the results support the theory that the simulation was built on.
That particular simulation is based on models of ion and neurotransmitter flows through membranes, together with the interactions between a small group of neurons (they're typically arranged in small groups that are mixes of ⅔ neurons with primarily excitatory connections and ⅓ neurons with primarily inhibitory connections; that arrangement results in them tending to rest in a maximally sensitive state) so it's pretty good. The main problem with simulations at that scale of detail is that they're terribly slow and require a vast amount of compute power to do; this is gold standard stuff mostly used to validate other faster but less accurate simulations.
We believe it's possible to leave out a lot of detail that's in real neurobiology from any simulation that can achieve consciousness, but we don't know how much we need to keep in. We're pretty sure that using simple leaky-integrate-and-fire neuron models is not enough.
-
@dkf said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
any simulation that can achieve consciousness
The world hopes you do not succeed.
Filed under: Skynet
-
@dkf said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
going to lisp out “Yeth, Mathter!” without laughing himself to pieces afterwards
That sounds like a perfectly good candidate!
-
@HardwareGeek said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
@dkf said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
any simulation that can achieve consciousness
The world hopes you do not succeed.
Filed under: Skynet
And yet I hope they do, so that I can fuck with it!
-
-
@dkf said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
@Tsaukpaetra said in About Brain-Computer Interfaces:
with
I'm glad you included that word.
That comes later when viable consent is possible!