Hacker News Reader

_cs2017_

Can you justify the use of the following words in your comment: "largely" and "probably"? I don't see why they are needed at all (unless you're just trying to be polite).

View on HN

I see the paper as utter twaddle, but I still think the "largely" and "probably" there are reasonable, in the sense that we have not yet actually fully simulated a human brain, and so there exists at least the possibility that we discover something we can't simulate, however small and unlikely we think it is.

I agree that there maybe something we can't simulate. This has nothing to do wtih the paper. The paper makes no contribution to this discussion besides stating the obvious, with no definitions, no non-trivial insights. Moreover, it outright misleads the reader by claiming to "prove" something.

I can write a useless and poorly-argued paper about P != NP (or P = MP), and it would be twaddle regardless of whether or not I guessed the equality / inequality correctly by pure chance.

It's just it's imprecise like with the brain can "largely be simulated by an artificial network of neurons" - there may well be more to it. For example a pint of beer interacts differently with those two.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com