I was wondering. The human brain or any earth-brain really probably had a common ancestor. They're all evolved on the same framework; That is a neural network.
Would the brains (if they have such things) of an alien species that evolved on a different planet be likely to be similar? Is the idea of a centralised neural network the only solution to the problem of cognition and learning?
Are there other architectures that would provide vastly different results?
How so? What would an Alien brain or equivalent learning/control organ behave/function like?
it would probably be pretty similar
>>8128080
I believe its possible to simulate human neural networks on silicone for what it is worth.
If it has an input output system thats compatible with Real-Life.exe it can be made intelligent.
>>8128080
>run a simulation of earth AI
>Overclock processor to ungodly speeds.
>100000 years on simulated earth = 1 second on earth.
>AI is now ultra advanced civilization.
>steal all its secrets.
>implement in real life.
>>8128104
To do that you'd need to design a computer that can simulate everything.
A computer that can simulate every detail... might need to be the same thing as the thing it's simulating.
What if the universe is actually the smallest possible computer required to simulate reality. The only way to design a system capable of calculating everything from small subatomic movements, scaled up to movements in giant astronomical bodies... is reality itself.
But that's all off topic.
What I meant OP meant was is there an alternative to a nueral network. I mean in Sci-fi we always see aliens approaching that even if they don't 'look' like us, they behave very similarly to us.
They've evolved a sense of territory, anger, revenge, peace etc. All of those things though are a product of our evolutionary path, and our brains. A creature that evolved on a completely different evoluiontary trunk may not know about any of those things. It's reality and thought process might be just as complex as ours, but with no knowledge of many things that we define as absolutely fundamental.
>>8128117
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine...Lawrencium etc
>input as physical measurements and realistic reactions between atoms
>simulate a big bang
>shake the bag of Lego's till a person appears.
>>8128117
Also...
-1/12.
>>8128133
Well the most basic question is... are atoms the basic unit of building this?
Is there a single basic unit, or is there a set of different types.
Once we answer that, we answer what would it take to simulate the basic unit in it's entirety. Then scale that up to how many of these basic units exist in the universe.
The number I predict will be so high. it will be like one of those how many grains of sand on the beach there are type numbers.. taken to the power of it's self.. itself number of times.
Now my excel stops at
9.99999999999999E+307.
The largest one i've found online stops at:
10 to the 10 to the 10000000000.
And a super computer might be able to do a bit more.
But these numbers are all insignificant compared to the processing we'd actually need. Those values above are just to 'store' the value. Let alone manipulate it, and simulate mathematical operations onto it.
In short, I'm going to put out a bullshit theory that is going to take a long time to disprove:
The most efficient way to simulate an event or object in 100% detail; is the event itself.
Thus to create a universe simulation you would need a real universe with sped up time.
You might be able to approximate it on a computer. But it would just be approximations that may or may not be good enough.
For instance your computer simulated universe might have the sun shapes like a whale for some reason due to mis-approximations... and all the flow on effects of a whale-sun.
>>8128158
Shh...Just... -1/12....
Just...
>>8128104
> wat is thermodynamics
