>>12951544>Proof?If it does indeed require the precise web of interconnected neurons in order to function, you wouldn't be able to compute it in reasonable timeframes.
>That's not true at all. You don't need this to be exact.Yes you do. If it's not exact you will literally go insane, it will destroy the synaptic connections in your brain and kill you.
If I just started stimulating your neurons randomly, which is what it would mean if it weren't exactly correct, it would fuck you up. It could destroy your mind.
You can't just imprecisely start firing synapses and hope it will work.
>You cannot take any firm of previous lack of advancement as an argument that there will be no further advancement.Exactly, it goes both ways. There is no telling yet whether or not there exists an upper bound on possible technological advancement.
Most likely, there is. If the computational complexity of a problem requires converting a galaxy into a computer and having it run for a billion years, then the problem isn't solvable.
I expect more and more problems to fall into this category as we advance, until we hit a point where all problems left are no longer solvable. At which point we will not advance any further.
This most likely is also the reason we don't see any alien civilizations, because the universe and physics and computation sets an upper bound on how advanced a civilization can become.
Of course no one knows yet, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But we should expect to not succeed.
