the notion of consciousness being something an experience that other animals/humans share is entirely faith based.
the only person with evidence of ones consciousness is the person claiming they're conscious.
You're basing your premise on a lack of understanding[1], the GP's premise is based on an exact understanding[2].
You don't see the difference between your premise and the GP'S premise?
-----------------
[1] "We don't know how brains actually come up with the things they come up with, like consciousness"; IOW, we don't know what the secret ingredient is, or even if there is one.
[2] "We can mechanically do the following steps using 18th-century tech and come up with the same result as the LLM"; IOW, every ingredient in here is known to us.
The blue brain project has already modeled the hippocampus and cortex of the rat brain uses advanced imaging and simulations in super computers. So if it can be written down as memory on disk it can be done on paper as well.
The rat brain is simply a smaller and structurally different neural network then the human counterpart so the jump from the blue brain project to human brains is simply a scaling issue.
But from this you should begin to see the analysis from another level. Even though we have parts of the rat brain emulated computationally we still do not know if the rat is conscious. We don’t understand the rat brain in the SAME way we do not understand the LLM.
What people are getting at is the projection of this logic to things that don’t exist yet but can exist. When the blue brain project scales to the human brain we will hit the same problem with the human brain because it’s just a scaling issue.
To sum it up. We CAN already model biological brains as mathematical equations as we do LLMs. And for both cases we still cannot fully understand or characterize the nature of both because the sheer complexity of the models are too high.
Incorrect. There's still a lot we don't know about atoms. We can (sort of) model them, but not with the degree of accuracy you appear to think we have.
I mean, it's only recently that we discovered surprising changes in the properties of quarks, gluons and nucleons in relation to each other!
So, yeah, the following foundation for your argument:
> So we do know for a fact that the brain can be modeled mathematically
Is untrue. We can't do that, we have never done that.
> The blue brain project has already modeled the hippocampus and cortex of the rat brain uses advanced imaging and simulations in super computers.
They've got something, but they don't know how close or how far away they are from accuracy to the real thing.
We've almost always had a model of the human brain; first our model was simple (it has four or five parts), then we learned more and our model expanded to include actual cells (neurons, dendrites, etc), then we learned even more and our model was refined even further to include activation energies, rerouting, etc.
What makes you think we are anywhere close to the base layer when there is no more refinement to be made? Because while there is still things in brains that our outside of our knowledge (which, by definition, we don't know yet), we don't know enough about brains to make a replica of one as a mathematical model, or in silicon.
