The brain is perhaps 1 to 2 OOM larger than the physical limits for a computer of equivalent power, but is constrained to its somewhat larger than minimal size due in part to thermodynamic cooling considerations.
I conclude something more like “the brain consumes perhaps 1 to 2 OOM less energy than the biological limits of energy density for something of its size, but is constrained to its somewhat lower than maximal energy density due in part to energy availability considerations” but I suspect that this is more of a figure/ground type of disagreement about which things are salient to look at vs a factual disagreement.
That said @jacob_cannell is likely to be much more informed in this space than I am—if the thermodynamic cooling considerations actually bind much more tightly than I thought, I’d be interested to know that (although not necessarily immediately, I expect that he’s dealing with rather a lot of demands on his time that are downstream of kicking the hornet’s nest here).
jacob_cannell’s post here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xwBuoE9p8GE7RAuhd/brain-efficiency-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know#Space argues that:
Does that seem about right to you?
I conclude something more like “the brain consumes perhaps 1 to 2 OOM less energy than the biological limits of energy density for something of its size, but is constrained to its somewhat lower than maximal energy density due in part to energy availability considerations” but I suspect that this is more of a figure/ground type of disagreement about which things are salient to look at vs a factual disagreement.
That said @jacob_cannell is likely to be much more informed in this space than I am—if the thermodynamic cooling considerations actually bind much more tightly than I thought, I’d be interested to know that (although not necessarily immediately, I expect that he’s dealing with rather a lot of demands on his time that are downstream of kicking the hornet’s nest here).