(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡 ʞıɹǝʇosǝ
Yes the connectome is kind of critical. But other than that, sub threshold oscillations can and are being modeled. It also does not really matter that we are digitizing here. Fluid dynamics are continuous and we can still study, model and predict it using finite lattices.
There are some things that are missing, but very clearly we won’t need to model individual ions and there is lots of other complexity that will not affect the outcome.
PEAR? Where staff participated in trials, rather than doing double blind experiments? Whose results could not be reproduced by independent research groups? Who were found to employ p-hacking and data cherry picking?
You might as well argue that simulating a human mind is not possible because it wouldn’t have a zodiac sign.
Counterpoint, from a complex systems perspective:
We don’t fully know or are able toodel the details of neurochemistry, but we know some essential features which we can model, action potentials in spiking neuron models for example.
It’s likely that the details don’t actually matter much. Take traffic jams as an example. There is lots of details going on, driver psychology, the physical mechanics of the car etc. but you only need a handful of very rough parameters to reproduce traffic jams in a computer.
That’s the thing with “emergent” phenomena, they are less complicated than the sum of their parts, which means you can achieve the same dynamics using other parts.
Musst schon ne menge unterschiedliche Regeln haben damit die Sprechenden sich nicht mehr verstehen. Diese “Regeln” von denen du sprichst gibt es vieleicht seit ein oder zwei Jahrhunderten. Davor haben sich Leute auch ohne die Regeln verstanden.
Vor ein paar Jahren dachte ich noch, dass Reddit Aktien in den Händen von Nutzern ja vielleicht ein etwas demokratischeres System ermöglichen könnten.
Nein, das passt schon. Du musst nur nachrechnen.