Neurosurgeon: we may have underestimated the neuron

[FrodoGoofball]

Stuart Hameroff on Singularity 1 on 1: Consciousness is More than Computation!

The gist seems to be that the human brain / mind may be a bionano computational device, not a cellular one, in which case uploading a human mind could require substantially more computing power than the 1e18 b + 1e18 b/s OA EG states.

It might also explain the remarkably complex behavior of some seemingly extremely simple lifeforms that have no central nervous system.

If this is true (and human civilization survives that long), the singularity will likely occur, but may be further away than most transhumanists believe.

It also suggests to me that it is likely we might have very convincing pseudo-AIs by the time the first true AI is created, making it all the more plausible that early AIs could conceal their true level of sentience and intentions.

[Cray]

We're already deep in a singularity. Up through the 17th or 18th Centuries AD, human civilization (technology, at least) would've been fairly comprehensible to any human from the past 10,000 years. Technology is accelerating so rapidly that today a burger flipper can own a little handheld gizmo with access to more information than a US President could access in the White House 30 years ago. For a few days' pay, you can jump on a machine that blasts through the air as fast as a black powder pistol bullet, propelled by engines that are only a few tons but have more mechanical horsepower available than all the animal and water power in George Washington's Virginia.

[omega_tyrant]

The gist seems to be that the human brain / mind may be a bionano computational device, not a cellular one

I think he's saying that the brain is more of a quantum computational device, rather than a bionano one.

Anyway, I have my doubts about all of this. He seems to be saying, "Quantum mechanics is a mystery. The brain is a mystery. Ergo, there must be a relationship between the two," without much supporting evidence. The fact that a microscopic organism can swim without having neurons does not necessarily lead to evidence supporting his main claim that "consciousness" is a quantum mechanical thing.

[Rynn]

Hameroff is *not* a neuroscientist; he is an anesthetist. Along with Roger Penrose he's been arguing for a quantum mind theory for ages but they don't have any evidence and their arguments are not supported by consensus amongst neuroscientists.

[Drashner1]

Even if consciousness is a quantum mechanical thing (and not arguing that it is), there's nothing that says we can't develop quantum computers that could replicate the process in that case or that such computers would take substantially longer to be developed than AI based on more 'conventional' computing models. Quantum computing is admittedly in its infancy at this point, but so was regular computing less than a century ago - even on merely historical time scales that's very little time indeed.

Todd

[Matterplay1]

Even if consciousness is a quantum mechanical thing (and not arguing that it is), there's nothing that says we can't develop quantum computers that could replicate the process in that case or that such computers would take substantially longer to be developed than AI based on more 'conventional' computing models. Quantum computing is admittedly in its infancy at this point, but so was regular computing less than a century ago - even on merely historical time scales that's very little time indeed.

Interestingly enough, Hameroff makes the same point later in the interview and even speculates about other materials than microtubules as the substrate. He's not arguing that uploading or AI are impossible, but that currently the AI community is haring off in the wrong direction.

Speaking of haring off in odd directions, Hameroff goes into some speculative flights himself later in the interview. Speculations that are, for me, a pretty far reach even if Hameroff and Penrose are somehow spot-on in their initial hypothesis.

For what it's worth, I think Hameroff and Penrose's central idea is in the realm of 'not impossible', but also and perhaps more significantly it is well into the realm of 'not very likely given what we know'. One part I find particularly hard to go along with its the idea that it is consciousness in particular depends on some kind of quantum effects mediated through microtubules. If microtubules do have a direct role in the cognitive aspects of a neuron's activity (as opposed to an indirect one, as in they are part of what supports a neuron's very complex behaviour), then they'd also have a similarly important role in all of the brain's unconscious activity. Anyway, as Hameroff mentions, the basics of this will eventually be sorted out one way or another on available evidence, probably well within the coming decade. I'll be interested to see what turns up and very, very surprised if Hameroff's picture of how things work turns out to be right.

The broader point, that the complexity of the human mind/brain is not adequately described even by a very thorough description of the human connectome (map of all the connections between all the neurons) is pretty well unassailable. That's something one can predict quite well with a much more conventional take on the complex decision-making behaviour of individual neurons, and a look at the structures that support that complexity. Early estimates of how 'big' a computer would have to be to support a human upload, especially those thrown out by Kurzweil and company, are very very far off the mark. That's not a doom-and-gloom-it's-all-impossible statement but just a matter of fact observation that there's a lot of room for growth in our capabilities and understanding on the way to human-equivalent AI, human uploads and so on, assuming (as I do) that it's not impossible.