The Sentient AI Trap

[PointOfViewGun]

Clarification: I wasn't arguing free will, that's an entirely different can of worms.
Because it's a fact. E.g. Kunihiko Kaneko, "From globally coupled maps to complex-systems biology", Chaos 25, 097608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4916925

Can you quote the section that mentions brain being non-deterministic? Since you should have access to the paper in its entirety as the Abstract does not even mention determinism in name.

Which is why statements like these are wrong:
If you squint your eyes enough, you can barely make the case that neuron spikes resemble logic gates somewhat. Barely. But anyone who's got any working knowledge knows that AI works differently from organic intelligence, and that the processing in chips is done very differently from the way it's done in a brain.

What seems to be lost on you is that not all AIs have the same level of complexity just like not all organisms do. It's a spectrum. Not an threshold.

[Sir Adrian]

The way processing is done has nothing to do with complexity Seth. A logic gate circuit will function following the same rules regardless if it has 100 or 1 million gates. A brain will follow the same rules regardless if it is the size of a walnut or the size of a basketball.

AI is indeed a spectrum but the starting point of that spectrum still requires intelligence.

[Muizer]

What seems to be lost on you is that not all AIs have the same level of complexity just like not all organisms do. It's a spectrum. Not an threshold.

It being a spectrum only means we have to chose a threshold and accept it is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Alternatively we can put a percentage on it. Say, an abacus is 10^-100 as intelligent as a human. See? Not 0, yet for all practical purposes not worth considering.

Maybe a different approach to how far along we think AI are would be to postulate what kind of living creature we could currently approximate artificially. In this, we can disregard things like growth, healing or reproduction and focus only on behaviour of a fully functional unit. IMHO we might now approach the creation of something equivalent to a simple insect. Would we call that 'intelligent'?

[PointOfViewGun]

The way processing is done has nothing to do with complexity Seth. A logic gate circuit will function following the same rules regardless if it has 100 or 1 million gates. A brain will follow the same rules regardless if it is the size of a walnut or the size of a basketball.

AI is indeed a spectrum but the starting point of that spectrum still requires intelligence.

You're simply making my argument. I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against there. Please follow the progression of arguments.

It being a spectrum only means we have to chose a threshold and accept it is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Alternatively we can put a percentage on it. Say, an abacus is 10^-100 as intelligent as a human. See? Not 0, yet for all practical purposes not worth considering.

We set the threshold at nature, not complexity. Hence, an abacus does not cut it. Intelligence being a spectrum doesn't really add arbitrariness as there is no requirement to have a zero point. It's all relative. Sort of like the electromagnetic spectrum. Sure, there is an absence of electromagnetic wave that we could use as a zero but it's not the kind of zero point that we are talking about here.

Maybe a different approach to how far along we think AI are would be to postulate what kind of living creature we could currently approximate artificially. In this, we can disregard things like growth, healing or reproduction and focus only on behaviour of a fully functional unit. IMHO we might now approach the creation of something equivalent to a simple insect. Would we call that 'intelligent'?

People need to realize that the every day use of the term "intelligent" is a transformed one. We only call people intelligent if they exceed a certain level of intelligence.

[Sir Adrian]

Your argument consists of comparing humans with what you think is AI. But that is false. The human brains works so completely differently it's not even comparable.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your argument consists of comparing humans with what you think is AI. But that is false. The human brains works so completely differently it's not even comparable.

How does it work differently?

[swabian]

Clarification: I wasn't arguing free will, that's an entirely different can of worms.

Because it's a fact. E.g. Kunihiko Kaneko, "From globally coupled maps to complex-systems biology", Chaos 25, 097608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4916925

Which is why statements like these are wrong:


If you squint your eyes enough, you can barely make the case that neuron spikes resemble logic gates somewhat. Barely. But anyone who's got any working knowledge knows that AI works differently from organic intelligence, and that the processing in chips is done very differently from the way it's done in a brain.

That's really interesting, but I doubt the author makes the point that the brain is non-deterministic. Chaotic systems are not called chaotic because they are non-deterministic (it's actually called "deterministic chaos", btw.), but because the differential equation describing a given system in this case is non-linear and has radically different outcomes, if the initial conditions for that dynamic system are changed even slightly. So when you have a set of connected pendulums for example and the underlying differential equation and you change the position energy that initiates the dynamic of that system even slightly, you will have radically different time evolutions. This is often misunderstood and it doesn't mean that the system in question is principally nondeterministic, just mathematically chaotic.

The only case for a truly non-deterministic brain could be made if it was a quantum-mechanical system, which it isn't. The compact spaces and huge biomolecules involved result in collapsing wave functions and non-discrete energy levels (I guess with very little exceptions), so the uncertainty principle doesn't play a role anymore. But the principle that assumes indeterminism in quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen Interpretation) is not a set in stone law of physics, only a way of interpreting hard to interprete maths.

The alternative Many-Worlds-Interpretation of QM removes indeterminism altogether and it appears to be the preferred way of looking at things nowadays.

In essence: just because it's too complicated for humans to mathematically model it doesn't render it truly non-deterministic.

[Cookiegod]

Can you quote the section that mentions brain being non-deterministic? Since you should have access to the paper in its entirety as the Abstract does not even mention determinism in name.

That's really interesting, but I doubt the author makes the point that the brain is non-deterministic. Chaotic systems are not called chaotic because they are non-deterministic (it's actually called "deterministic chaos", btw.), but because the differential equation describing a given system in this case is non-linear and has radically different outcomes, if the initial conditions for that dynamic system are changed even slightly. So when you have a set of connected pendulums for example and the underlying differential equation and you change the position energy that initiates the dynamic of that system even slightly, you will have radically different time evolutions. This is often misunderstood and it doesn't mean that the system in question is principally nondeterministic, just mathematically chaotic.

The only case for a truly non-deterministic brain could be made if it was a quantum-mechanical system, which it isn't. The compact spaces and huge biomolecules involved result in collapsing wave functions and non-discrete energy levels (I guess with very little exceptions), so the uncertainty principle doesn't play a role anymore. But the principle that assumes indeterminism in quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen Interpretation) is not a set in stone law of physics, only a way of interpreting hard to interprete maths.

The alternative Many-Worlds-Interpretation of QM removes indeterminism altogether and it appears to be the preferred way of looking at things nowadays.

In essence: just because it's too complicated for humans to mathematically model it doesn't render it truly non-deterministic.

No.

For one determinism in the context I'm speaking here:

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.

Not once did I speak of determinism here in the context of free will. It is up to you if you want to sum all the outside and inside factors up to a deterministic universe (which btw. would still be a worldview that is 50+ years out of date unless you go for superdeterminism). For the context of the topic we're having right here, the brain is functionally non-deterministic. It cannot, as I have said multiple times already, reproduce the exact same processing twice.

The fact that I'm addressing here with the article (I gave a quick one, but there's a plethora out there you can feel free to find yourself), is that there is a huge number of factors influencing the brain, even (now moving slightly out of the focus of the article) down to intracellular level:

Single-cell dynamics involve a huge number of components, whose concentrations change through reaction dynamics including metabolic and transcription dynamics. Here, the concentrations of all the components are diluted by cell-volume increase, which itself is determined by the components. In this sense, the high-dimensional concentration dynamics of intra-cellular components are globally coupled through dilution by cell growth, and the growth rate works as a kind of mean field and provides a global feedback to all components. Of course, all the components have different dynamics, in contrast to the GCM with identical elements.

You're wrong in calling it merely "mathematical chaos". The whole point of the article is to try and model the chaos. Modelling chaos mathematically is not the same as it being mathematical chaos.

It being a spectrum only means we have to chose a threshold and accept it is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Alternatively we can put a percentage on it. Say, an abacus is 10^-100 as intelligent as a human. See? Not 0, yet for all practical purposes not worth considering.

Maybe a different approach to how far along we think AI are would be to postulate what kind of living creature we could currently approximate artificially. In this, we can disregard things like growth, healing or reproduction and focus only on behaviour of a fully functional unit. IMHO we might now approach the creation of something equivalent to a simple insect. Would we call that 'intelligent'?

You don't even have to go for insects, even a virus and or any other single cell organism would make do. If we go by the preciously little POVG has given us of his understanding of the term, those primitive organisms would have to be considered "intelligent", whereas pretty much the entire rest of the world considers them neither to be living, nor to have any sentience whatsoever.

We set the threshold at nature, not complexity. Hence, an abacus does not cut it.

Uhm what?! And who is "we" btw? Your continued refusal to provide us any definition to work with has me think you're making stuff up on the fly.

Intelligence being a spectrum doesn't really add arbitrariness as there is no requirement to have a zero point. It's all relative. Sort of like the electromagnetic spectrum. Sure, there is an absence of electromagnetic wave that we could use as a zero but it's not the kind of zero point that we are talking about here.

I don't even see what you're trying to do with the electromagnetic radiation analogy. Radiation is split into brackets to differentiate use cases, and yes, there are some differences in behaviour and processing depending on wavelengths, as different phenomena start to dominate. More importantly however your analogy does not help you at all, since what you're trying to sell us regarding intelligence would be the equivalent of declaring all electromagnetic radiation to be, say, infrared. For obvious reasons it is not. Intelligence does not start at zero, it is not simply a few bits of processing, and if you go that spectrum route, you have no grounds whatsoever to not declare an abacus to be intelligent.

Common definitions of intelligence are stuff like:

human intelligence, mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment.

Much of the excitement among investigators in the field of intelligence derives from their attempts to determine exactly what intelligence is. Different investigators have emphasized different aspects of intelligence in their definitions. For example, in a 1921 symposium the American psychologists Lewis Terman and Edward L. Thorndike differed over the definition of intelligence, Terman stressing the ability to think abstractly and Thorndike emphasizing learning and the ability to give good responses to questions. More recently, however, psychologists have generally agreed that adaptation to the environment is the key to understanding both what intelligence is and what it does. Such adaptation may occur in a variety of settings: a student in school learns the material he needs to know in order to do well in a course; a physician treating a patient with unfamiliar symptoms learns about the underlying disease; or an artist reworks a painting to convey a more coherent impression. For the most part, adaptation involves making a change in oneself in order to cope more effectively with the environment, but it can also mean changing the environment or finding an entirely new one.

Effective adaptation draws upon a number of cognitive processes, such as perception, learning, memory, reasoning, and problem solving. The main emphasis in a definition of intelligence, then, is that it is not a cognitive or mental process per se but rather a selective combination of these processes that is purposively directed toward effective adaptation. Thus, the physician who learns about a new disease adapts by perceiving material on the disease in medical literature, learning what the material contains, remembering the crucial aspects that are needed to treat the patient, and then utilizing reason to solve the problem of applying the information to the needs of the patient. Intelligence, in total, has come to be regarded not as a single ability but as an effective drawing together of many abilities. This has not always been obvious to investigators of the subject, however; indeed, much of the history of the field revolves around arguments regarding the nature and abilities that constitute intelligence.

artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience.

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

intelligence noun
in·​tel·​li·​gence | \ in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s
\
Definition of intelligence

1a(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
3 : the act of understanding : comprehension

There's absolutely no cogent argument I can see, nor have seen you made, that'd exclude abaci while simultaneously include the most primitive setup of a few AND+XOR gates. Simply put, there are a number of definitions of intelligence adressing slightly different things.
To bring back the cake allegory, some define it as a strawberry cake, some as a banana cake, and some as as a Schwarzwälder Kirsch. Your definition of a few grains of flour come nowhere near any of these definitions. A few logic gates do not give the capacity to fulfill any of the criteria associated with intelligence, and not only does it lack in scale, you do not include all the ingredients necessary for it. Simple as that.

People need to realize that the every day use of the term "intelligent" is a transformed one. We only call people intelligent if they exceed a certain level of intelligence.

Absolutely no one here was arguing intelligence in the sense of IQ tests, so please don't argue as if we did. Instead, how about you kindly argue in good faith. Provide us with your definition of intelligence that isn't just a few tidbits thrown here and there to attempt and avoid any scrutiny. Provide cogent arguments for why you consider it to be so. When someone then presents you with a conundrum, such as how on earth an abacus doesn't fulfill your definition, instead of saying "nuh uh", provide a cogent explanation as to why it does not.

[swabian]

No.

For one determinism in the context I'm speaking here:

Not once did I speak of determinism here in the context of free will. It is up to you if you want to sum all the outside and inside factors up to a deterministic universe (which btw. would still be a worldview that is 50+ years out of date unless you go for superdeterminism). For the context of the topic we're having right here, the brain is functionally non-deterministic. It cannot, as I have said multiple times already, reproduce the exact same processing twice.

The fact that I'm addressing here with the article (I gave a quick one, but there's a plethora out there you can feel free to find yourself), is that there is a huge number of factors influencing the brain, even (now moving slightly out of the focus of the article) down to intracellular level:

You seem to be confused about 'alternative concepts' of determinism when really there is only the one concept that matters and that is of course the physical concept of determinism as that is the basis of everything. "Superdeterminism" is an interesting idea that is being played around with by theoretical physicists, but not part of the standard model, and it doesn't matter here anyway, because the brain is not a quantum mechanical system, as I explained already: the brain is a macroscopic object, so quantum indeterminism doesn't apply, even if the Copenhagen Interpretation (look it up on wiki, as it is crucial that this is being understood here) is seen as without alternatives. The only way true non-determinism could apply to the brain or - any other object - would be, if it was quantum mechanical (it would be too complicated here to explain what that means exactly).

What you're basically saying, is that a brain is not a physical object, but something that is somehow an exception in the whole universe. The 'chaos' you're talking about and that you ascribe to the brain is basically the same "chaos" that is observed in the dynamics of something as basic as a system of linked pendulums: it's non-linear, which makes it hard to model.

I doubt the author you're quoting is really disputing the physicality of the brain.

You're wrong in calling it merely "mathematical chaos". The whole point of the article is to try and model the chaos. Modelling chaos mathematically is not the same as it being mathematical chaos.

Yes, of course it is. There is no "chaos" that is inherently physical, and yet, at the same time, a quality that removes the applicability of the laws of physics from a system altogether, which is really what you're saying. You're obviously misunderstanding a couple of things there, sorry.

[Septentrionalis]

You seem to be confused about 'alternative concepts' of determinism when really there is only the one concept that matters and that is of course the physical concept of determinism as that is the basis of everything.

I don't quite understand where the idea that brain would be non-deterministic stems from, but Cookie will probably elaborate.

I was just listening to the neuroscientist/philosopher Sam Harris answer questions from listeners in his podcast, and one of the questions had to do with the nature of consciousness. I'll quote here the part in his answer that touches upon determinism.

Even worse for the concept of free will, I find that if you look closely enough at your experience subjectively, introspectively, if you turn consciousness upon the evidence of free will, you don't find it. It evaporates. The sense that you could have done otherwise evaporates. The sense that there is an agent who can decide to do one thing or the other evaporates, and there is just the mere arising of thoughts and intentions and subsequent actions in consciousness. They are getting pushed into view by you know not what subjectively, but undoubtedly neurology and other physical facts about you. All of these things are simply emerging, and you don't know what you will think next until you think it. You don't know what you will intend or how strong the intention will be. You don't know if you will resist it and if you resist it, how much, before any of those things happen.

So it is all just playing out in a way that is completely compatible with the truth of determinism. Many people are worried that there are downsides to realizing that, but I don't believe there is. In fact it seems like it's all upsides to me.

If we have a truly vast artificial neural network that is constantly receiving input through multiple channels and thus changing constantly, I am not sure if that will produce the same exact process twice either. When you train a very simple one by correcting it's output, you will notice that familiar inputs start to provoke new outputs.

[swabian]

For the context of the topic we're having right here, the brain is functionally non-deterministic. It cannot, as I have said multiple times already, reproduce the exact same processing twice.

I might add that this boils down to the physical interpretation of the Poincaré recurrence theorem and the historical debate aroudn it.

What that basically says is, that in a finite volume (and applying classical dynamics) physical states can reoccur any number of times, if given enough time (like planetary constellations in the solar system for instance). This historically seemed like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because reoccuring physical states and increasing entropy seem to be mutually exclusive, but the contradiction disappears if it's interpreted statistically.

What it boils down to is that reoccuring physical states of the brain must be principally possible, because temporary reductions in entropy are principally possible. It doesn't matter that it's very unlikley, it still disproves that very point, cookie.

This can also be read such that the dynamic evolution of classical physical systems (which the brain is, because it's in essence macroscopic due to the wholesale collapse of quantum mechanical wave functions within it) are reversible and therefore strictly deterministic.

[Cookiegod]

You seem to be confused about 'alternative concepts' of determinism when really there is only the one concept that matters and that is of course the physical concept of determinism as that is the basis of everything. "Superdeterminism" is an interesting idea that is being played around with by theoretical physicists, but not part of the standard model

You seem confused about the topic of the conversation. Hint: It's not about quantum theory. There's absolutely no point whatsoever to debate e.g. the Many Worlds Interpretation (highly debatable that it's held by a majority, especially considering that it is and will remain unfalsifiable).

and it doesn't matter here anyway, because the brain is not a quantum mechanical system, as I explained already: the brain is a macroscopic object, so quantum indeterminism doesn't apply, even if the Copenhagen Interpretation (look it up on wiki, as it is crucial that this is being understood here) is seen as without alternatives. The only way true non-determinism could apply to the brain or - any other object - would be, if it was quantum mechanical (it would be too complicated here to explain what that means exactly).

No one except you brought up quantum theory. It is not relevant to the discussion here. There is plenty of noise, such thermal noise, that affects neurons to a very significant degree. Randomness is built in and affects the brain to a very significant degree. If your recourse then is to claim that the universe in its entirety is not random and contend that everything is causal, that is up to you, but the brain does not factor in the position of every particle in the universe. I do favour the Copenhagen interpretation, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What you're basically saying, is that a brain is not a physical object, but something that is somehow an exception in the whole universe. The 'chaos' you're talking about and that you ascribe to the brain is basically the same "chaos" that is observed in the dynamics of something as basic as a system of linked pendulums: it's non-linear, which makes it hard to model.

No, what I am saying is that the neurons are very significantly affected by inside and outside factors, and that your brain is thus not built on the assumption that every neuron fires only when necessary.

What it boils down to is that reoccuring physical states of the brain must be principally possible, because temporary reductions in entropy are principally possible. It doesn't matter that it's very unlikley, it still disproves that very point, cookie.

Imagine contending that the way the entire brain is built on is predicated on a statistical impossibility. Right? That is what you're contending. Either that or you're on purpose ignoring the topic.

[swabian]

Oh, he prefers Copenhagan, cute

You seem confused about the topic of the conversation. Hint: It's not about quantum theory. There's absolutely no point whatsoever to debate e.g. the Many Worlds Interpretation (highly debatable that it's held by a majority, especially considering that it is and will remain unfalsifiable).

No one except you brought up quantum theory. It is not relevant to the discussion here. There is plenty of noise, such thermal noise, that affects neurons to a very significant degree. Randomness is built in and affects the brain to a very significant degree. If your recourse then is to claim that the universe in its entirety is not random and contend that everything is causal, that is up to you, but the brain does not factor in the position of every particle in the universe. I do favour the Copenhagen interpretation, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

No, what I am saying is that the neurons are very significantly affected by inside and outside factors, and that your brain is thus not built on the assumption that every neuron fires only when necessary.
Imagine contending that the way the entire brain is built on is predicated on a statistical impossibility. Right? That is what you're contending. Either that or you're on purpose ignoring the topic.

The discussion, which you attempt to foolishy tyrannize into the intellectually decrepit state that apparently allows you to follow it (unfortunately so, I must discern here as everywhere else you begin to inflate), simply arrived at a point where the not only relevant, but important question occured, whether or not the brain is a deterministic system or not.

Now for the 5th time or so: it is deterministic, if it is physically deterministic and it is physically deterministic, if it is macroscopic. It's as simple as that and I have elaborated on the necessary steps to arrive at the conclusion with the appropriate amount of detail.

You were counterfactually stating, that the brain was non-deterministic (if not in the physical sense, then in some vague nonsense). You were ignoring what others had to say about it and repeating your nonsense like it was the word of some god of sorts indeed.

Now I came along and added my 2 cents, thereby merrily hacking away the fruitless bramble of ignorance you're growing around your little castle ITT. Oh you don't like it? How about you make a point for once then: Sentient AI is not impossible, because you make false claims on determinism and are completely ignorant of the underlying physics. Here, I present to you the connection to the topic in an idiotproof manner, I hope.

[PointOfViewGun]

The idea that the brain cannot reproduce the exact same processing twice has no basis.

[swabian]

I don't quite understand where the idea that brain would be non-deterministic stems from, but Cookie will probably elaborate.

He's defining for everyone else what the topic is supposd to be to support his narrow view, I wouldn't call that "to elaborate".

If we have a truly vast artificial neural network that is constantly receiving input through multiple channels and thus changing constantly, I am not sure if that will produce the same exact process twice either. When you train a very simple one by correcting it's output, you will notice that familiar inputs start to provoke new outputs.

Yes, an artificial neural network would, with growing complexity, inevitably arrive at some point (prossibly very early on even) where it runs into very similar problems a biological brain runs into. Namely thermodynamic entropy and electromagnetic interference and maybe other stuff. In other words it would have to find a way to filter out the noise, just like a biological brain. Neither the latter nor the artificial brain would be non-deterministc in any relevant meaning of the word.

Ultimately the question, whether the brain is deterministic or not answers the question if an artificial brain can be built at all. Physical determinism (and a brief discussion of it) is therefore not only a necessary sidenote ITT, it's absolutely central, necessarily.

[swabian]

The idea that the brain cannot reproduce the exact same processing twice has no basis.

It can not only get arbitrarily (or infinitesemally) close to reproducing the exact same processing twice, it can get exactly there any number of times, if given enough time. The amount of time required to reproduce the exact same physical state twice, in a system as complex as a human brain, would be absurdly large (many billion times the age of the universe), but it's provably not impossible and this trolls cookie god, so it is orgasmically relevant to the thread. There.

Whatever relevance that has, the cookie god has to explain (hopefully he doesn't as far as I'm concerned, though). He thought it was important to the thread (even though it's not even true) and was obnoxious about it.

An artificial neural network as complex as the human brain or beyond that is possible and can acquire sentience, regardless of that redundant falsehood stated by cg. It is principally possible, because the biological brain is deterministic, and, as a matter of fact, it's probably just a few decades away, which is also cool and good.

[PointOfViewGun]

It can not only get arbitrarily (or infinitesemally) close to reproducing the exact same processing twice, it can get exactly there any number of times, if given enough time. The amount of time required to reproduce the exact same physical state twice, in a system as complex as a human brain, would be absurdly large (many billion times the age of the universe), but it's provably not impossible and this trolls cookie god, so it is orgasmically relevant to the thread. There.

Whatever relevance that has, the cookie god has to explain (hopefully he doesn't as far as I'm concerned, though). He thought it was important to the thread (even though it's not even true) and was obnoxious about it.

An artificial neural network as complex as the human brain or beyond that is possible and can acquire sentience, regardless of that redundant falsehood stated by cg. It is principally possible, because the biological brain is deterministic, and, as a matter of fact, it's probably just a few decades away, which is also cool and good.

I would argue that it's not even at such a low possibility while being possible. Our processing does not operate in absolutes in precision. It operates among parameters or blocks, whichever way you like to visualize it, which makes things a little bit simpler.

[swabian]

I would argue that it's not even at such a low possibility while being possible. Our processing does not operate in absolutes in precision. It operates among parameters or blocks, whichever way you like to visualize it, which makes things a little bit simpler.

Yes, that's why I said "infinitesemally" close to that as well as "exactly" that. I wasn't needlessly precise, it would take that absurd amount of time, if it was 100% exactness (which is possible after all!). There has been a calculation done historically (forgot who did it) on a 1x1x1 box filled with gas particles and it would take an absurdly vast amount of time. The time needed to approximate the reproduction of a previous state would take less, the less precise the reproduction of that state is.

The point is: it can not only be approximated, but it is physically possible to reoccur 100% exactly as it was before. It's basically the mathematical proof of reincarnation. The problem is that it takes trillions of universe ages

[Cookiegod]

The idea that the brain cannot reproduce the exact same processing twice has no basis.

Except a plethora of papers and scientific consensus.

[PointOfViewGun]

Except a plethora of papers and scientific consensus.

Care to cite just one?