ReExperienceUrSenses OP t1_j71xvm7 wrote on February 3, 2023 at 2:22 PM

Reply to comment by niboras in I finally think the concept of AGI is misleading, fueled by all the hype, and will never happen by ReExperienceUrSenses

Synthetic biology would hardly be able to be called artificial intelligence by our concepts of the terms. We want a program we can run on computers that behave intelligently. Synthetic biology is just biology, a completely different paradigm as I’ve already laid out. You couldn’t program it to follow your command only exercise power over it. Slavery essentially. This is the reason i say never. The stored program computer is not up to the task, the stuff that makes up a brain which results in a mind is not programmable.

We and our eukaryotic brethren are intelligent, because we actually do the sophisticated things required by our definitions of intelligence. Its a hardware(wetware) problem, not a philosophically unreachable subject.

pretendperson t1_j7cvcie wrote on February 5, 2023 at 9:22 PM

Is it not reproducible by emulation at a molecular chemistry level, factoring in the biophysics elements such as ion channels?

ReExperienceUrSenses OP t1_j7ebwnz wrote on February 6, 2023 at 4:03 AM

Its a two pronged problem. First there are just too many elements with a lot of complex dynamics at the molecular level. Our hardware is just not good at that type of task, especially when you scale it to trillions of cells, and then the environment around them at the molecular level because that is a huge factor as well.

The second problem is that we also do not even know all of the dynamics, so we don't exactly have all the data necessary for running the simulation in the first place. We don't have a full account of all the metabolic and signal transduction pathways and various other processes, and how they intersect each other. We can't exactly get a real-time view into a living organisms cells at molecular resolution.