ninjashogun: benkay, nice to see you have nothing better to do on a Sunday than trolling.

ninjashogun: and about Goat, I know just that one person trusts him and has been in touch for over a year.

ninjashogun: mike_c - well I know a couple that have not reported thefts so far. (For example moolah's)

ninjashogun: we know that the percentage of exchnages that would pretend a theft occurred would go up. (It's called 'moral hazard' in insurance.)

ninjashogun: jurov - I wonder how much it would reduce exchnage usage if there were a 20% insurance fee on all deposits. (Which is insane.) Would some people still use it to buy fiat with BTC they accept elsewhere?

ninjashogun: benkay, that is a hilarious observation

ninjashogun: but we have a theoretical proof that the architecture of the brain is somehow encoded into under 700 MB. (well under that, as that encodes the full human body.)

ninjashogun: Of course we have no chance in hell of modelling the development of a brain by "running" the code. We can't even model a few molecules fully.

ninjashogun: Also don't forget that we know for a fact that the architecture in the brain is encoded in no more than 700 MB totally uncompressed. That is how much the human genome takes to encode as simple bits (adenine(A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) encoded as two bits each). With some compression that's even less.

ninjashogun: Hardware-wise, if we had the code than a simple cluster of a few tons of CPU and RAM units could probably run it.

ninjashogun: Based on the simple calculation that the brain is just 3 pounds, 1.25 liters, and fires at 200 herz, it is extremely likely that there exists ∃ (latex \exists) code that we could run that would result in a brain running at an appreciable percentage of real-time brain speed, using < $1B of hardware. But we don't have the code, even though it probably \exists

ninjashogun: midnightmagic, well I agree. Our current understanding isn't even enough for a full model. we wouldn't know what to run even if we had a supercomputer with unlimited resources. we don't have the code.

ninjashogun: asciilifeform, exactly, they're not in sync because why would they be. But is that out of phase effect used to do calculation or the equivalent of a pipeline, etc? Probably not.

ninjashogun: asciilifeform, that is a very good and interesting example. Do you think that the brain relies on these sampling effects?

ninjashogun: midnightmagic, this is very true. But, for example, if a supercomputer were to model these interconnects but had fewer "physical" neurons (CPU units), then the same CPU units could be reused 20 million times (4 ghz / 200 herz) to get realtime speed. (This is just an example of how to think about it.)

ninjashogun: hi, midnightmagic. Well, yes and no. It is meaningless, you are right. But it's also interesting that it means that a supercomputer running at 4 ghz interconnect speed runs at a native speed of 10,000,000 times faster than neurons' native speeds.

ninjashogun: if someone told me you can do everything a human can do in terms of brain-processing (from vision to motor control to thinking speaking, reacting, EVERYTHING) thorugh a neural net at which the maximum speed of any neuron is 200 herz I'd have laughed. "suuure."

ninjashogun: Our brain operates at a maxmium of 200 herz. That is mind-bogglingly slow.

ninjashogun: "Although different neurons fire at different speeds, as a rough estimate it is reasonable to estimate that a neuron can fire about once every 5 milliseconds, or about 200 times a second"

ninjashogun: mircea_popescu, what I found really amazing on the brain is the herz that neurons can fire at before tiring. Given how much processing we do every second, take a guess at what the maximal neuronic herz rate is in the brain :)