Origin > Will Machines Become Conscious? > Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0157.html

Printable Version
    Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
by   Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil ponders the issues of identity and consciousness in an age when we can make digital copies of ourselves.


Originally published February 2, 2000 at PsychologyToday.com. Published on KurzweilAI.net April 7, 2001.

Thought to Implant 4: OnNet, please.

Hundreds of shimmering thumbnail images mist into view, spread fairly evenly across the entire field of pseudovision.

Thought: Zoom upper left, higher, into Winston's image.

Transmit: It's Nellie. Let's connect and chat over croissants. Rue des Enfants, Paris in the spring, our favorite table, yes?

Four-second pause.

Background thought: Damn it. What's taking him so long?

Receive: I'm here, ma chêre, I'm here! Let's do it!

The thumbnail field mists away, and a café scene swirls into place. Scent of honeysuckle. Paté. Wine. Light breeze. Nellie is seated at a quaint table with a plain white tablecloth. An image of Winston looking 20 and buff mists in across from her. Message thumbnails occasionally blink against the sky.

Winston: It's so good to see you again, ma chêre! It's been months! And what a gorgeous choice of bodies! The eyes are a dead giveaway, though. You always pick those raspberry eyes. Trés bold, Nellita. So what's the occasion? Part of me is in the middle of a business meeting in Chicago, so I can't dally.

Nellie: Why do you always put on that muscleman body, Winston? You know how much I like your real one. Winston morphs into a man in his early 50s, still overly muscular.

Winston: (laughing) My real body? How droll! No one but my neurotechnician has seen it for years! Believe me, that's not what you want. I can do much better! He fans rapidly through a thousand images, and Nellie grimaces.

Nellie: Damn it! You're just one of Winston's MI's! Where is the real Winston? I know I used the right connection!

Winston: Nellie, I'm sorry to have to tell you this. There was a transporter accident a few weeks ago in Evanston, and well, I'm lucky they got to me in time for the full upload. I'm all of Winston that's left. The body's gone.

When Nellie contacts her friend Winston through the Internet connection in her brain, he is already, biologically speaking, dead. It is his electronic mind double, a virtual reality twin, that greets Nellie in their virtual Parisian café. What's surprising here is not so much the notion that human minds may someday live on inside computers after their bodies have expired. It's the fact that this vignette is closer at hand than most people realize. Within 30 years, the minds in those computers may just be our own.

The history of technology has shown over and over that as one mode of technology exhausts its potential, a new more sophisticated paradigm emerges to keep us moving at an exponential pace. Between 1910 and 1950, computer technology doubled in power every three years; between 1950 and 1966, it doubled every two years; and it has recently been doubling every year.

By the year 2020, your $1,000 personal computer will have the processing power of the human brain-20 million billion calculations per second (100 billion neurons times 1,000 connections per neuron times 200 calculations per second per connection). By 2030, it will take a village of human brains to match a $1,000 computer. By 2050, $1,000 worth of computing will equal the processing power of all human brains on earth.

Of course, achieving the processing power of the human brain is necessary but not sufficient for creating human level intelligence in a machine. But by 2030, we'll have the means to scan the human brain and re-create its design electronically.

Most people don't realize the revolutionary impact of that. The development of computers that match and vastly exceed the capabilities of the human brain will be no less important than the evolution of human intelligence itself some thousands of generations ago. Current predictions overlook the imminence of a world in which machines become more like humans-programmed with replicated brain synapses that re-create the ability to respond appropriately to human emotion, and humans become more like machines-our biological bodies and brains enhanced with billions of "nanobots," swarms of microscopic robots transporting us in and out of virtual reality. We have already started down this road: Human and machine have already begun to meld.

It starts with uploading, or scanning the brain into a computer. One scenario is invasive: One very thin slice at a time, scientists input a brain of choice-having been frozen just slightly before it was going to die-at an extremely high speed. This way, they can easily see every neuron, every connection and every neurotransmitter concentration represented in each synapse-thin layer.

Seven years ago, a condemned killer allowed his brain and body to be scanned in this way, and you can access all 10 billion bytes of him on the Internet. You can see for yourself every bone, muscle and section of gray matter in his body. But the scan is not yet at a high enough resolution to re-create the interneuronal connections, synapses and neurotransmitter concentrations that are the key to capturing the individuality within a human brain.

Our scanning machines today can clearly capture neural features as long as the scanner is very close to the source. Within 30 years, however, we will be able to send billions of nanobots-blood cell-size scanning machines-through every capillary of the brain to create a complete noninvasive scan of every neural feature. A shot full of nanobots will someday allow the most subtle details of our knowledge, skills and personalities to be copied into a file and stored in a computer.

We can touch and feel this technology today. We just can't make the nanobots small enough, not yet anyway. But miniaturization is another one of those accelerating technology trends. We're currently shrinking the size of technology by a factor of 5.6 per linear dimension per decade, so it is conservative to say that this scenario will be feasible in a few decades. The nanobots will capture the locations, interconnections and contents of all the nerve cell bodies, axons, dendrites, presynaptic vesicles, neurotransmitter concentrations and other relevant neural components. Using high-speed wireless communication, the nanobots will then communicate with each other and with other computers that are compiling the brain-scan database.

If this seems daunting, another scanning project, that of the human genome, was also considered ambitious when it was first introduced 12 years ago. At the time, skeptics said the task would take thousands of years, given current scanning capabilities. But the project is finishing on time nevertheless because the speed with which we can sequence DNA has grown exponentially.

Brain scanning is a prerequisite to Winston and Nellie's virtual life-and apparent immortality.

In 2029, we will swallow or inject billions of nanobots into our veins to enter a three dimensional cyberspace-a virtual reality environment. Already, neural implants are used to counteract tremors from Parkinson's disease as well as multiple sclerosis. I have a deaf friend who can now hear what I'm saying because of his cochlear implant. Under development is a retinal implant that will perform a similar function for blind people, basically replacing certain visual processing circuits of the brain. Recently, scientists from Emory University placed a chip in the brain of a paralyzed stroke victim who can now begin to communicate and control his environment directly from his brain.

But while a surgically introduced neural implant can be placed in only one or at most a few locations, nanobots can take up billions or trillions of positions throughout the brain. We already have electronic devices called neuron transistors that, noninvasively, allow communication between electronics and biological neurons. Using this technology, developed at Germany's Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, scientists were recently able to control from their computer the movements of a living leech.

By taking up positions next to specific neurons, the nanobots will be able to detect and control their activity. For virtual reality applications, the nanobots will take up positions next to every nerve fiber coming from all five of our senses. When we want to enter a specific virtual environment, the nanobots will suppress the signals coming from our real senses and replace them with new, virtual ones. We can then cause our virtual body to move, speak and otherwise interact in the virtual environment. The nanobots would prevent our real bodies from moving; instead, we would have a virtual body in a virtual environment, which need not be the same as our real body.

Like the experiences Winston and Nellie enjoyed, this technology will enable us to have virtual interactions with other people-or simulated people-without requiring any equipment not already in our heads. And virtual reality will not be as crude as what you experience in today's arcade games. It will be as detailed and subtle as real life. So instead of just phoning a friend, you can meet in a virtual Italian bistro or stroll down a virtual tropical beach, and it will all seem real. People will be able to share any type of experience-business, social, romantic or sexual- regardless of physical proximity.

The trip to virtual reality will be readily reversible since, with your thoughts alone, you will be able to shut the nanobots off, or even direct them to leave your body. Nanobots are programmable, in that they can provide virtual reality one minute and a variety of brain extensions the next. They can change their configuration, and even alter their software.

While the combination of human-level intelligence in a machine and a computer's inherent superiority in the speed, accuracy and sharing ability of its memory will be formidable-this is not an alien invasion. It is emerging from within our human- machine civilization.

But will virtual life and its promise of immortality obviate the fear of death? Once we upload our knowledge, memories and insights into a computer, will we have acquired eternal life? First we must determine what human life is. What is consciousness anyway? If my thoughts, knowledge, experience, skills and memories achieve eternal life without me, what does that mean for me?

Consciousness-a seemingly basic tenet of "living"-is perplexing and reflects issues that have been debated since the Platonic dialogues. We assume, for instance, that other humans are conscious, but when we consider the possibility that nonhuman animals may be conscious, our understanding of consciousness is called into question.

The issue of consciousness will become even more contentious in the 21st century because nonbiological entities-read: machines-will be able to convince most of us that they are conscious. They will master all the subtle cues that we now use to determine that humans are conscious. And they will get mad if we refute their claims.

Consider this: If we scan me, for example, and record the exact state, level and position of my every neurotransmitter, synapse, neural connection and other relevant details, and then reinstantiate this massive database into a neural computer, then who is the real me? If you ask the machine, it will vehemently claim to be the original Ray. Since it will have all of my memories, it will say, "I grew up in Queens, New York, went to college at MIT, stayed in the Boston area, sold a few artificial intelligence companies, walked into a scanner there and woke up in the machine here. Hey, this technology really works."

But there are strong arguments that this is really a different person. For one thing, old biological Ray (that's me) still exists. I'll still be here in my carbon, cell-based brain. Alas, I (the old biological Ray) will have to sit back and watch the new Ray succeed in endeavors that I could only dream of.

But New Ray will have some strong claims as well. He will say that while he is not absolutely identical to Old Ray, neither is the current version of Old Ray, since the particles making up my biological brain and body are constantly changing. It is the patterns of matter and energy that are semipermanent (that is, changing only gradually), while the actual material content changes constantly and very quickly.

Viewed in this way, my identity is rather like the pattern that water makes when rushing around a rock in a stream. The pattern remains relatively unchanged for hours, even years, while the actual material constituting the pattern-the water-is replaced in milliseconds.

This idea is consistent with the philosophical notion that we should not associate our fundamental identity with a set of particles, but rather with the pattern of matter and energy that we represent. In other words, if we change our definition of consciousness to value patterns over particles, then New Ray may have an equal claim to be the continuation of Old Ray.

One could scan my brain and reinstantiate the new Ray while I was sleeping, and I would not necessarily even know about it. If you then came to me, and said, "Good news, Ray, we've successfully reinstantiated your mind file so we won't be needing your old body and brain anymore," I may quickly realize the philosophical flaw in the argument that New Ray is a continuation of my consciousness. I may wish New Ray well, and realize that he shares my pattern, but I would nonetheless conclude that he is not me, because I'm still here.

Wherever you wind up on this debate, it is worth noting that data do not necessarily last forever. The longevity of information depends on its relevance, utility and accessibility. If you've ever tried to retrieve information from an obsolete form of data storage in an old obscure format (e.g., a reel of magnetic tape from a 1970s minicomputer), you understand the challenge of keeping software viable. But if we are diligent in maintaining our mind file, keeping current backups and porting to the latest formats and mediums, then at least a crucial aspect of who we are will attain a longevity independent of our bodies.

What does this super technological intelligence mean for the future? There will certainly be grave dangers associated with 21st century technologies. Consider unrestrained nanobot replication. The technology requires billions or trillions of nanobots in order to be useful, and the most cost-effective way to reach such levels is through self-replication, essentially the same approach used in the biological world, by bacteria, for example. So in the same way that biological self-replication gone awry (i.e., cancer) results in biological destruction, a defect in the mechanism curtailing nanobot self-replication would endanger all physical entities, biological or otherwise.

Other salient questions are: Who is controlling the nanobots? Who else might the nanobots be talking to?

Organizations, including governments, extremist groups or even a clever individual, could put trillions of undetectable nanobots in the water or food supply of an entire population. These "spy" nanobots could then monitor, influence and even control our thoughts and actions. In addition, authorized nanobots could be influenced by software viruses and other hacking techniques. Just as technology poses dangers today, there will be a panoply of risks in the decades ahead.

On a personal level, I am an optimist, and I expect that the creative and constructive applications of this technology will persevere, as I believe they do today. But there will be a valuable and increasingly vocal role for a concerned movement of Luddites-those anti-technologists inspired by early-19th-century weavers who in protest destroyed machinery that was threatening their livelihood.

Still, I regard the freeing of the human mind from its severe physical limitations as a necessary next step in evolution. Evolution, in my view, is the purpose of life, meaning that the purpose of life-and of our lives-is to evolve.

What does it mean to evolve? Evolution moves toward greater complexity, elegance, intelligence, beauty, creativity and love. And God has been called all these things, only without any limitation, infinite. While evolution never reaches an infinite level, it advances exponentially, certainly moving in that direction. Technological evolution, therefore, moves us inexorably closer to becoming like God. And the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of our biological form may be regarded as an essential spiritual quest.

By the close of the next century, nonbiological intelligence will be ubiquitous. There will be few humans without some form of artificial intelligence, which is growing at a double exponential rate, whereas biological intelligence is basically at a standstill. Nonbiological thinking will be trillions of trillions of times more powerful than that of its biological progenitors, although it will be still of human origin.

Ultimately, however, the earth's technology-creating species will merge with its own computational technology. After all, what is the difference between a human brain enhanced a trillion-fold by nanobot-based implants, and a computer whose design is based on high-resolution scans of the human brain, and then extended a trillion-fold?

This may be the ominous, existential question that our own children, certainly our grandchildren, will face. But at this point, there's no turning back. And there's no slowing down.

Reprinted with permission from Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/

 Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!

 
 

   [Post New Comment]
   
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:

mind uploading
posted on 11/20/2001 3:10 PM by lajos.kelemen@nokia.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Hi,
You have to have a wireless permanent contact with your uploaded copy then you are like the left and right hemisphere. First a bit strange then it will be the standard feeling of yours.
If one of the copies is destroyed by an accident then it can be recreated by using the other one.

Lajos Kelemen

Re: mind uploading
posted on 11/22/2001 4:49 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Brilliant! Exactly so!

May I quote you - with your name, of course?

- Thomas Kristan

Re: mind uploading
posted on 11/22/2001 4:55 AM by lajos.kelemen@nokia.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Hi,
Permission granted.
Lajos

Re: mind uploading
posted on 12/08/2001 12:54 AM by mhyper21attbi.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Yes! Your quote has sparked an awakening of thought...... the orginal brain file, let us define it:(L&R1)uploading creates (L&R2.
Thus the strange feeling at first, until all abstract is absorbed in (L&R1) becoming total logic (L) and all logic being absorbed in
(L&R2)becoming total abstract. (L&R1)+ (L&R2)= (L&R)

Now the split possibilities. If L was destroyed,
would it's recreation be abstract logic or total abstract.. likewise R destroyed produce logical abstract or total logic?

Michael Spellacy

Re: mind uploading
posted on 12/08/2001 8:53 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

It's just one correct possibility. An exercise. Thank you.

We are (at least) three now, who seems to understand this.

Cheers! :)

- Thomas

Re: mind uploading
posted on 01/13/2002 7:13 PM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Before we get too deep into uploading the human brain, we might think a bit about what it is we are uploading. The following discussion by a couple of the top authorities on the subject of the humand brain and memory is an eye-opener.

http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/2001/PsychToday.htm

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 12/29/2001 10:39 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]


I've been thinking about mind uploading for some time, and it's obvious to me that it's humanity's destiny. At least for most of humans, and at least in this century. I say most since no matter how desirable the benefits of uploading, I don't think that everybody will sign up. Perhaps because some will consider it not moral, or some won't do it simply out of fear. I must admit though, when I first heard about it some 4 years ago it didn't sound like a such a good idea. However, after examining the details, and realizing that conciousness is a pattern independent of the matter that makes it up, and that human senses are simply a function of electrical inputs provided by our bodies, it's clear that if there are ways to understand and replicate that biological "technology" there should be ways to improve upon it. Improvement would mean a great enhancement to human lives in ways that's difficult to imagine now. Along with everything what Mr.Kurzweil already wrote, I would add the creation of new senses, designing new emotions, and multiparallel presence in virtual reality. Also, borrowing here Mr.David Pearce's "paradise enginering" ideas, I think it's logical to believe that those new emotions should create unimaginable well being for those uploaded minds experiencing them.
What humanity will do having that perspective is really interesting. Perhaps voluntarily abandoning pursuit of progress/happiness? What is the incentive for progress if we don't need to be any happier? Of course that point is probably very far in the future. Maybe that's when the humanity will choose such a point to stop advancing further so it won't slide into abyss of singularity's chaos. That's all speculation.

This is all great but there is still something that disturbs me about uploading, namely the whole idea of preserving the "soul". Mr.Kurzweil mentions a thought experiment where his mind is downloaded during his sleep and reinstanciated in nonbiological entity. There are two Rays, each claiming to be a real one. Now, here's the problem. What if the first Ray gets killed in a way that he can't rely on the copy of his mind file? The copy still exists but not the first Ray. What I mean is that while the conciousness and "soul" of the second Ray is still there the "soul" or "uniqueness" of the first Ray is dead. Therefore the question. How can a mind be uploaded in the first place with preserved uniqueness so that the person before and after uploading is the same instance of itself? Otherwise it would mean that that when first original person would die, no matter how many copies were made of his/her conciousness that first person's "soul" would be dead. I must say I still haven't come across the solution to this problem so I'll try to propose it.

Let's take the real biological person, and a nonbiological brain ready to be uploaded. If a simple copy is made, then there are 2 instances of the same person and each one is unique and separate, although almost the same. When one of them is deleted, one of them is dead. To prevent that from happening I think the solution lies in a way the biological brain should be uploaded. What if throughout the uploading process only one copy of the mind is preserved i.e. whenever an imaginary "unit" of the biological mind gets transferred to nonbiological host/brain, one "unit" gets deleted in biological host/brain. The process should be fully reversible, but at each time there would have to exist only one fully functional mind between two entities. The complete transfer would finish after all the biological "units" become deleted. Each subsequent transfer done this way would preserve the conciousness as well as the uniqueness of each person.......I would hope.

Other maybe simpler approach might be to just replace each neuron one at a time in the original biological brain with a digital equivalent, and go from there, but this would not be uploading, would it?

No matter how uploading will be achieved this is a fascinating subject. The more discussion the better.
S.Paliwoda


Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 12/30/2001 7:03 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Search "self instances" here on this site, if you want to know, how I see this.

- Thomas

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 01/14/2002 12:40 PM by moyeha@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

The issue surrounding dualities of the soul, where one may be the "real" self while the other only appears and funcitons as a reflection of the "self". In order to maintain the spiritual soul could one not create a matching "Aura"?. "Mystisysm & the New Physics" looks at the connection of advanced Quantun Physics and the ancient religions of Humanity. Naturally, we are from the universal laws which apply to everything within the cosmos, would the action of an Atom, or some other subatomic matter possibly mirror the action of our Aura? This "Aura" would then maintain itself even if the hardware were to momentarily dissapear!!

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain .. Auras
posted on 01/14/2002 12:59 PM by info@gulfaliens.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I've always thought of auras as phenomena resulting from the other dimensions (eg in string theory) as they are appear in our 3D and time reality (ie the same way a hypercube has a 3D projection). So, if I am uploaded into a computer, the computer and its interactions will also have aspects through the entire spectrum of dimensions and thus also an aura.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 12/31/2001 10:36 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

If there is a second instance of the same person, as in cloning or uploading, the two instances will diverge from each other beginning the moment the second one is created. It's like identical twins. They may have the same genetic heritage and look identical, but we are shaped after birth by the course of our lives and no two people can live exactly the same life. Two separate bodies means they view life from two separate perspectives.

Separate lives are lived with separate wives and children and jobs and friends -- all the things that make our lives what they are. Their bodies and minds are merely the vehicle that allows them to travel down separate roads. The journey is the reward, as Steve Jobs used to say. In this case, that journey is life. You are the life you live.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 01/01/2002 11:11 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

> the two instances will diverge from each other

Or they will converge. They are just two instances. Like "me now" am an instance of myself 10 years ago.

One self - multiple instances, is the only logical explanation. IMO.

- Thomas

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 01/01/2002 3:01 PM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Do you mean they will be able to see through each other's eyes and each body feel what the other body is feeling at the same time it is feeling something? That doesn't sound very logical to me. You must be thinking of the situation in a different way than I am.

It is I ...
posted on 01/01/2002 6:19 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

It's a question of the bandwidth between "two minds" to be felt as one.

MPD - a case where the bandwidth inside one brains is so low, that a "different personalities come out".

The same as between many brains. When the telepathy will become technologically feasible - this will become apparent.


- Thomas Kristan

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/01/2002 8:04 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

As I mentioned before, there might be one person with two instances, but still, it would mean an existance of two different people. As far as I can understand, you talk about the bandwith between one mind doing separate activities (what I personally call "parallel presence") which I guess would require several instances of the same mind, and if that's what you're talking about then I agree 100%. I hope I got your point right.

However, I don't think the previous poster and I had those kind of instances in mind. It's just like in the thought experiment with Ray Kurzweil and his copy. 2 instances of the same person means that there have to be 2 exactly the same people (at least at the beginning) with 2 different souls. Let's say you're a real Ray, and you get killed. No matter how many copies there were of you, you're dead, and it was you, not the copy, who perhaps felt the agony.

What I was after was the very transfer from a biological to nonbiological state in a way that would preserve the soul. A transfer of the soul without the need of making any copies/instances of a person which I believe would be a creation of another similar person, and not the actual transfer of the original one. I think that "soul transfer" is possible. What I forgot to add is that the biological mind would probably have to be transformed to nonbiological state first to make sure the "unity" of the mind during the transfer could be preserved.

Happy New Year!

S.Paliwoda

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 5:02 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Soul=self. Just another word. If it should have any sense - that is.

Parallel presence is indistinguishable from (two) - one after one single presence. Or strobo presence. No memory travels of course - just self.

I can see no other way.

- Thomas Kristan

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 8:20 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Just imagine a 'strobo self' on one (human) machine every odd nanosecond and on the other (human) machine every even nanosecond!

'They' could even have (hetero) sex.

'They' could even be persuaded, that it's another person. Most likely - they would already be persuaded.

In fact - 'strobo' - is just a metaphor. Helps to understand. But no switching on and off is necessary.

If one (Ray) is killed - only the memories are lost. Or even not, if they are recorded elsewhere.

The only way out of the "Paradox of the multiple presence" - I see.

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 9:53 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Hmmm! sounds like an idea that could be turned into an interesting science fiction story. Perhaps one instance could be stored in a huge databank with thousands or millions of others and the second instance would be a living being interfacing with the real world. In essence, each could augment the other, but to what ends I haven't figured out yet. Maybe the computer bank itself could be a superbrain that uses human input to provide it with awareness of the universe and to direct human endeavor to those ends that would keep them going in a finite world. For conflict, we could have unaugmented humans uniting under a religious jihad to destroy the main brain while the augmented humans fight to keep them from doing it. Hollywood, is anybody out there taking notes?

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 1:01 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

grant!

;)) ... It is rather disgusting theory (mine) - than suitable for a Hollywood scenario.

But after some time (years in my case) you get use to it, especially be cause everything becomes quite sound into that light.

A small "self.dll" inside "OS" is alive as long as any hardware supports and runs this "OS". Even if "a PC" is recycled - there is a lot others running the same "self.dll".

Of course I am still keen to see this conjecture refuted.

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 4:03 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

It sounds like an idea for a movie I wouldn't want to see. But yes, Holywood is not taking notes. I still wait for a movie that at least would present a probable future. The basic idea behind "The Matrix" was great, but the idea of using people as batteries is beyond me.

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 3:51 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

[Soul=self. Just another word. If it should have any sense - that is.]

Yeah, soul or self is just a word, but if I'm dying and my copy is perfectly healthy that word gets a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

[Parallel presence is indistinguishable from (two) - one after one single presence. Or strobo presence. No memory travels of course - just self.]

I think the key word here is "after". For a presence to be parallel, though, it would need to exist simultaneously. As far as the memory goes, sure, each presence could access the same memory.

Slawek

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 4:06 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

They can both access the same memory. They can have separate memories. They can left to bring back memories for a while - doesn't matter.

What is stored in the future for one of them - it's for other also. With nano switching between the active hardware - or overlapping of the awake moments - doesn't matter.

Self is just a program, which can run all around - as long as it is supported by some hardware..

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/02/2002 5:39 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

[They can both access the same memory. They can have separate memories.]

I think it's a question of what could be possible and what would constitute a different human or virtual entity. Several instances of one self could access the same memory, but I believe that if someone has separate memories, then it's a separate entity. Of course it might be possible for two entities to access each other's memories but that's still two entities. If you want to create different instance of yourself, so it has different new memories, then you simply make a copy of yourself, i.e. you create a separate entity which can't be you. If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears...(eyes in this case).
Slawek

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/04/2002 6:03 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

> Several instances of one self could access the same memory

Or not. The memories are not that important when it comes to self. Do we check our memory against the self and then decide whether or not it's me or somebody else? We don't, of course.

> but I believe that if someone has separate memories, then it's a separate entity

What does it mean "separate memories". We can remember something very similar. But most of the time we do not actually remembering much. A percent of a percent of what has happened.

> If you want to create different instance of yourself

I think that's pretty much automated. God knows how many "strobos of me" currently run around.

> you create a separate entity which can't be you

I think it simply is. It can't be something else. It's just another instance of self running on a different machine(s).

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/04/2002 7:28 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

[The memories are not that important when it comes to self.]

You mean two people, each with different memory (including different experiences, and personalities) could be the same?

[Do we check our memory against the self and then decide whether or not it's me or somebody else? We don't, of course.]

Of course we do. Subconciously. How else would a person know his/her name or where is one's home.

[What does it mean "separate memories". We can remember something very similar. But most of the time we do not actually remembering much.]

Yes, but we tend to remember our personalities pretty well. Even after many years.

[God knows how many "strobos of me" currently run around.]

One - though I hope uploading will happen within decades.

[> you create a separate entity which can't be you
I think it simply is. It can't be something else. It's just another instance of self running on a different machine(s).]

It is just like you, but not you. If your original copy (uploaded from biological brain) gets shut down, you're dead. It doesn't matter how many copies, and how many machines run other copies. Let's say it's a week after creation of another copy of yourself so that original and newly created copies had been running on two separate machines for that past week. Let's say that those copies could share no new memories with each other. Now, during that week those two copies made completely different new memories. What if one of them has to be shut down. From the point of view of your original copy the only thing changed from the week before was creation of another copy (you may have not been even aware of that), but you still continually exist as an original so that created copy is nothing more to you than another person. Perfect twin but still, you don't feel it's pain. That's why it's a different person/entity.
Slawek

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/07/2002 2:42 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Slawek!

Take your time and consider again ... and again.

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/07/2002 7:07 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Like I said in an earlier post, it's been a couple of years since I'm actively thinking about this subject, and I must say that even not a long ago I shared your view, more or less, (although I still don't understand your analogy to strobe lights).
When I went deeper into thinking about uploading, though, I found a problem in it (at least in the way people currently think about it) which goes deeper too. It's a solvable problem, but still, I was amazed at the fact that nobody so far raised this issue. I tried to make my point here as clearly as I could, but I guess it's tricky to understand it. This whole thing is NOT about just conciousness, but something more subtle. The best description of it I was able to come up with was the "uniqueness of the soul". I guess it takes more time for this to really sink in.
Slawek

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/09/2002 3:40 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

The horrible (but comforting at the same time) solution of "uniqueness of the soul" as you put it - is what left after eliminating all other solutions to avoid paradoxes.

After thinking about the problem for 30 years, when I was 12 or so, I am very much convinced, that it is the case.

[You would feel perfectly the same, if your awareness "went strobe". If you were somewhere else during the dark nanoseconds - on the other side of the table. In fact you would be on the both sides, not knowing that. Just as it is. And yes, those bright nanoseconds can overlap.]

:)

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/09/2002 12:56 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Could you please elaborate more on your solution to the "uniqueness of the consciousness" problem (I think the word "soul" might have been too much of a distraction here)? What do you mean by saying that eliminating all paradoxes leads to the solution, and how this "strobe" state relates to your explanation? If you gave me some more specific examples, I could better understand your point.

One more question. Would you consider two copies of the same consciousness running on 2 machines the same entity? Yes or no. Thanks.
Slawek

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/12/2002 12:17 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I've opened the new thread for this.

Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/12/2002 2:51 PM by Blue Oyster Boy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

What if, in the far future, two differing sets of neural networks decided that they want to merge, so as to be closer together. Would this constitute an whole new being? Would it be like having a child? Could the conflicting data, there surely would be, be rectified, or would this create a schizophrenic entity? Would it be like two companies merging, maybe taking the best qualities? In other words, how close could two neural networks get to each other without becoming one being, or entity? or would it be obvious, logically that they would have to.

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/12/2002 3:08 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

If those net are conscious - they are already carrying the SAME program. Called SELF.

Be physically merged - or not.

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/14/2002 12:44 PM by moyeha@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

The issue surrounding dualities of the soul, where one may be the "real" self while the other only appears and funcitons as a reflection of the "self". In order to maintain the spiritual soul could one not create a matching "Aura"?. "Mystisysm & the New Physics" looks at the connection of advanced Quantun Physics and the ancient religions of Humanity. Naturally, we are from the universal laws which apply to everything within the cosmos, would the action of an Atom, or some other subatomic matter possibly mirror the action of our Aura? This "Aura" would then maintain itself even if the hardware were to momentarily dissapear!!

Todd Graham
[Parent]

Re: It is I ...
posted on 01/14/2002 1:11 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I think, mysticism has nothing to tell us about "soul".

Even QM hasn't.

SELF can run on almost everything, but if it runs on the meat, as we see it here on Earth, it has almost certainly nothing to do directly with QM. No QM is necessary for thinking or with something related.

It could have in the future, but now it's the same as to say that your car uses quantum mechanics. Sure it does, deep down everything is quantum. But to say that the door opening is a quantum phenomena is just silly.

Equally, searching for some quantum answers in the brains is a waste of time.

It's the question of cells, neurons how they are connected and how do they communicate and store information.

Inter cell operation.

No 'Aura' will preserve you if there is no hardware. On the other hand, if the exact hardware reappears after a googol of years, you wouldn't notice the gap.

- Thomas

Re: It is I ...
posted on 11/25/2002 12:12 PM by harold macdonald

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

This looks like a quantum superposition, possibly a model for a quantum mind.

Re: It is I ...
posted on 11/25/2002 12:00 PM by harold macdonald

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Telepathy IS technologically feasible NOW. Observe the experiences of the specimen pool at
www.mindcontrolforums.com
[note the plural]
and
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh/

It is the next generation computer and internet and weapons platform interface.
The specimens are not voluntary, typical Air Force behaviour.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 09/30/2004 2:43 PM by Keeper

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Ultimately, the situation is if we upload our mind, is that the uploaded mind is not our mind. We might want to do that just to have a central location of all knowledge and thought (uploading to a central server); however, to clone ourselves or to upload our minds so that we can continue living... this is folly, simply because that uploaded instance is not "us", it is "it" the new uploaded instance, even if under a constant link, to be redownloaded incase of failure will cease to be us, because that is again a new instance. The question is do we care. The answer is, Yes, because we are still biological animals with an instict of "self". Further, we have a respect, and high value of "self". So in the end this is a rejection of "self" and is thus will be rejected. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean the populus will think it should be done.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 09/30/2004 4:58 PM by /:setAI

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

the idea that a COMPLETE copy of you isn't you is an easily disprooven MYTH:

>the body is made of matter that is continuously swapped out- the self is the pattern within the changing matter- your brain/body were food weeks/months ago and every cell will become feces in the weeks/months ahead- by new years you will live in a completely different body-

this illustrates the fallacy of considering an exact copy "not you"- if the copy is a precise continuation of your active consciousness and includes your full memory- it IS you- you-you not "another you"- I fyou feel that a copy would not be you- then you necissarily must believe that you yourself are currently a clone in the process of replacing the previous clone- and that the original you died as a young infant- who was progressively perveted by clones continuously copying/replacing the previous person like a parasitic virus- and that your current clone is being steadly murdered by a new one as every night when you go to sleep a substantial percentage of your cells are discarded and shunted out your intestines- and that your memroies and feeling of self is a lie as the incesant cloning parasites mimic their host- but continuously pervert your structure-: absurd


there is simply no phenomenological difference between your body's natural system of swapping matter and any other copying process- in fact your natural eating/shitting cell replacement process is much more radical than any technological copying process would be- as your body is not capable of perfectly copying your patterns in the new cells- and much information/structure is lost/perverted over time- >>

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 09/30/2004 5:59 PM by TimothyTimothyTimothy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Hello Keeper

I totally agree with /:setAI.

Hans Moravec describes a thought experiment where, say, a single ion transfer in your brain is temporarily replaced with a different mechanism (say a wireless link - remember, it's a thought experiment so technical feasibility is not an issue here) that is exactly functionally equivalent.

You are prompted by the "upload surgeon" to think/act in such a way that the ion transfer/wireless message transfer takes place. (Say, the transfer occurs as part of the massively complex process that occurs whenever you see a photograph of your mother.)

You introspect and see for yourself whether your "inner life" disappears with the wireless replacement. If it does not you are replaced functional component by functional component (always checking, of course, to see if you are being swallowed by a blank hole of nothingness).

Finally, you have been gradually replaced, just as if you had eaten and breathed your way to a new you.

It's just a thought experiment, so not proof, but can you really imagine inner presence disappearing just because one mechanical message medium is replaced by another?

Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/07/2002 7:27 AM by mirai_shounen@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I've seen your thread above and I want to give my contribution. I wasn't this sick before, it happened after I thought about consciousness for extended periods of time. I advise you not to, or to just liquidate the problem like Thomas, that keeps you sane. Ok let's do it:

There is something unique about consciousness.

You can make a copy of yourself and you'd STILL see with only one pair of eyes.
Making a backup won't save you from death, killing your copy won't be like committing suicide.
Making a copy of yourself and then committing suicide will not cause a "soul transfer"
(by "copy" I mean a copy of any kind, including mind uploading). Let us call "process" a
pattern in time and space, which can be interpreted as self aware, with this interpretation
unlimited in its potential complexity. Our brain squirts neurotransmitters, this is a pattern
of electricity and molecules evolving in time, it's got its inputs and outputs and it can be decoded
to reveal a "self-aware" being. It's a kind of process.

If you want to think about subjectivity, at some point need to realize that you ARE this process (your
mind and body). You are not "represented" by this process, codified by it, embodied by it, running on it,
but simply, ARE it. You are also not "ANY process identical to this", but ONE and only one process
(this one). You may be used to a third person point of view, the scientific one, which tells you that
identical objects by definition are identical, but this notion is not correct if you talk about the
subjective.
Your experience "log" from time 0 until death is the really unique feature about you, that nobody -
even a perfect copy - can ever share fully. You are not an entity floating about in
a universe full of colours faces trees free to choose his path (although we are designed to feel this
way); rather, the path chosen, the final combination of inputs and outputs, creates, or IS, your
subjectivity, your first person awareness, what you really mean when you say "YOU". When you think
of yourself, you should not picture a grey brain
inside a biped body walking around in manhattan. Rather, you should have in mind some kind of
1-dimensional shape that is contained in a boundless, infinite-dimension experiential cube.
Bear with me as I illustrate this point.
Each point in this infinite-dimensional space would contain a precise "subjective state",
the superimposition of all qualia of a certain strength or magnitude at one instant. A one-dimensional
line, or curve, would then be a linear sequence of such states, which is what we call "life".
Note that the infinite-dimensionality of this experiential cube allows for ALL forms of awareness and
all subjectivities to fit in; all possible qualia are included. Similarly, all lives and sequences of
experiential states can be traced in this cube.
I have pondered for ages about the conundrums of subjective consciousness and they can all be solved
provided that we accept this new model.

Q:Where was I before being born?

A:This question implies the existence of space and time at a more fundamental level than our subjectivity.
The experiential cube is timeless and spaceless. Time is something we perceive, but the individual life
lines are not inside any kind of "time" or spatial scheme. Therefore, when you were born, your experience
of space and time began; outside of that experience, space and time make as much sense as the sound of the
color red.

Q:What happens if I teleport myself? Do I live or do I die?

A:We're assuming teleportation is perfect down to the smallest details and that the original and destination
bodies use different atoms; they never share one instant of simultaneous, but conflicting, experience.
In this case teleportation should be successful. One must look at the problem this way. Does the source
person + destination person conform to our definition of PROCESS? Can we decode the person1+person2
compound, using an arbitrarily complex interpretation, into a single self-aware pattern in space and time?
If so, the person's subjectivity has been preserved. And in this case, p1+p2 have formed a single strand
in the experiential cube, just like your age 10 to age 15 person and your age 15 to present age person
have created a single line and maintained a subjective experience. The trick would seem to make sure
that this interpretation can always be made. Evidently if at one time the original is thinking hey what's
going on is this finished yet? and the copy is thinking oh ok here I am - that's not a smooth transition and
the two segments could not create a unified interpretation of process.

Q:What happens if I make a perfect copy of myself and then die in an accident after 10 minutes?

A:Well you're not 10 minutes dead but dead for good according to what I'm suggesting.

Q:So how do I live forever, or get rich, or be happy?

A:You can't. You are not an observer in a simulation, you are an experiential line which has been pre-defined.
If it were different, you would not be you, for you ARE it. So whether you die at 10 or 100 or 1000, is pre-set,
and there's nothing you can do about it. Same for all other things in life. You are now only watching a movie,
in which you are the star. You ARE the movie. What if you got rich? Well that would be another movie! Or maybe
you WILL get rich because it's already in this movie, you just need to fastforward a bit.

Q:Are you proposing that everything rotates around us in this universe? That subjective experience is more basic
than space and time? Haven't we learned that the more we discover about the universe and the less important we
and our existence become?

A:Our bodies are a byproduct of the laws of physics and play a very small role indeed. However, our subjective
experience is made of a different stuff. I suggest that an integral part of the universe is this multidimensional
experiential state, which coexists with the regular laws of physics. I don't claim to have a complete explanation
for their interaction, or which comes first. If you look at physics alone, our subjective experience has no need
to exist and indeed, it can't be measured, compared, or detected; just like light can't be touched or sounds seen.

Q:Oh come on let's just scan the brain reverse engineer it and upload ourselves into a suitable substrate and kill
the original

A:Ok go on my friend I'm sure 72 virgins are waiting for you on the other side

Q:...But I mean gradually

A:In that case, probably it's ok :)

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/07/2002 9:04 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Consciousness more fundamental than space and time?

But falling out by as simple physical process as sleeping? Or by a near (A) bomb explosion?

I see however your attempt as honest and clever - but still wrong.

What you basically saying is: Your path is you, my path is me.

Okay ... just lay down and die, when your time comes. Than wait a long time for some quantum fluctuation to brings you back. The waiting time, will be zero for you, don't worry. And for the next also.

Will it? If you say no, then you have to know, that you are going through the sequence of small quantum fluctuations all the time already.

What I am saying (another instance of you) is:

When replace your memories by those of Cezar, you will fell the same as you feel now. And the late Cezar will feel as you feel now. You are just casting. One role after another - and in parallel as well.

You were Cezar once upon the time, you are Thomas several thousand miles away - now.

That is what I say.

Q: - How is then seeing through 4 or more eyes?

A: - Just like oscillating there and back very fast. In each destination you can even be sure, that you are unique and inside that destination forever. It apparent, since memories convince you so.

I don't say you are actually oscillating between Manhattan and Alps. You don't have to. Is just the same feeling as you were. Leaving memories behind each time.

- Thomas Kristan

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/07/2002 9:42 AM by mirai_shounen@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>Consciousness more fundamental than space and time?

yep!

>But falling out by as simple physical process as >sleeping? Or by a near (A) bomb explosion?

fall out? where? mine never falls out ;)
I have no recollection of any moment in which I was not conscious.

>Will it? If you say no, then you have to know,
>that you are going through the sequence of small
>quantum fluctuations all the time already.

what's your point?

>You were Cezar once upon the time, you are
>Thomas several thousand miles away - now.

Are you suggesting that there is only one conscious entity around, and that he plays different roles one turn at a time? If that is so, the end result is still to create individual subjective consciousness strands isn't it?

>Q: - How is then seeing through 4 or more eyes?

>A: - Just like oscillating there and back very
>fast. In each destination you can even be sure,
>that you are unique and inside that destination
>forever. It apparent, since memories convince
>you so.

I don't know how this is related to my previous message but it sounds interesting. However, two separate consciousness strands would still appear.

>I don't say you are actually oscillating between
>Manhattan and Alps. You don't have to. Is just
>the same feeling as you were. Leaving memories
>behind each time.

I don't see that our arguments fit together or are in contrast. But would you expand this to all forms of life? So you are now an ant, now a person, now a squid on tau ceti, and so on? My definition of "process" goes beyond what we normally interpret as conscious. Anything with the right "decoding" could be considered conscious, and for conscious beings unobserved and left undecoded, life still goes on. So there is an infinite number of processes, or experiential lines, which you would expect from an infinite experiential space etc.
How would you compute all of these one by one?


-mirai

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/07/2002 10:14 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

mirai!

>>Will it? If you say no, then you have to know,
>>that you are going through the sequence of small
>>quantum fluctuations all the time already.

>what's your point?

That the concept of "no more life after death" doesn't deal quantum fluctuations. On a large time scale - much larger than the current age of the Universe - it's a question of time, when you will be physicaly regenerated.

Now, if you say, that after such a big fluctuation is not you any more - you have to explain, why you are now. After a zillion of small ones?

> Are you suggesting that there is only one conscious entity around, and that he plays different roles one turn at a time?

Not just one at the time. More. But one at the time is a good Gedanken Experiment to understand the subject.

> the end result is still to create individual subjective consciousness strands isn't it?

Yes. But are not more important than odd - even seconds in one strand. The consciousness is a procces. Works equally whereever it works. Spliting is not real.

And you are nothing but _this_ process!

> would you expand this to all forms of life?

No. To some apes maybe. Maybe.

> So you ... now a person ... now a squid on tau ceti, and so on?

Yes, but in parallel.

If PC's OS contained a consciousness subprogram - the last PC's second will be it's last
second of life. Not a particular PC break down.

We are NOT hardware (PC's) - but a software running on them. In many instances.


- Thomas


Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/07/2002 10:58 AM by mirai_shounen@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>That the concept of "no more life after death"
>doesn't deal quantum fluctuations. On a large
>time scale - much larger than the current age of
>the Universe - it's a question of time, when you
>will be physicaly regenerated.

I don't see this as a problem as long as you can look at the first person and the second and interpret the sequence as being a unique process (see previous messages for details on conditions) then you'd have continuous subjective experience.

>And you are nothing but _this_ process!

yes, you are a process that was my claim, and not only a process of a certain kind, but _this_ process right here. and saying "you ARE a process" is not an easy statement to make. It makes no sense. Why this and not that other? What's special about this process?

>> would you expand this to all forms of life?
>No. To some apes maybe. Maybe.

So you think hurting a dog does not cause subjective sensations of pain? I am convinced that even without superior logical and linguistic capabilities a being can be fully aware of the basic autonomic stimuli such as heat, cold, pain, etcetera. Ok monkeys are not as smart as us, but so are children and some handicapped persons or other people with neural diseases, you would not classify them as unconscious I think.

>If PC's OS contained a consciousness subprogram -

There can be no such thing, as you can read on other essays on this site. But for sake of discussion let's read on.

>the last PC's second will be it's last
>second of life. Not a particular PC break down.

Sure. That does not prove or even "go with" any of the claims you've made, however.

>We are NOT hardware (PC's) - but a software
>running on them. In many instances.

The software itself can run perfectly well without "YOU" really existing.
Just like a computer does not know that spreadsheet files exist. I also thought like this, because I came from a pc/programming background, like you perhaps. You must consider the copy paradoxes and the fact that no amount of processing whatsoever NECESSARILY causes any subjective experience. You will come to see that software ALONE is insufficient. It seems to me that lots of people who give easy answers to consciousness haven't understood what the problem is.

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/07/2002 11:43 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>>If PC's OS contained a consciousness subprogram -

> There can be no such thing, as you can read on other essays on this site

Some are saying so, yes - but they are those, who are wrong.

Searching for something more, than "just a program" is a wrong (ancient) way.

I am equating "I", "self" ... with an evolved program, which can be transloaded elsewhere.

"I" am not my hearth. That was not clear to many before the transplantation era.

"I" am not my brains. Not even my memories. I am just a proces running on a wetware. The same process everyvhere where it runs.

THIS is my point. Everything else is an explanation of consequences of that.

- Thomas

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/08/2002 8:03 AM by mirai_shounen@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I see your argument as being shallow as your understanding of the matter. By now everyone agrees that no physical or supernatural structure itself is cause for awareness. If you go and talk to priests you can tell them about cardiology (heart is spelled with only one H). Here we are starting from the _assumption_ that patterns of "stuff" that does computation are responsible for subjectivity. A "linear" program, like one you can write in C++, cannot be conscious, however. Everyone agrees on this, but if you believe otherwise go ahead and write a C++ program that passes the turing test - then someone will listen to you. Get a big hard drive, because you're going to need lots of code. Infinite, to be exact.

If someone has valid criticism on the new perspective I have written about (starting from experiential lines rather than physical events), please reply. As for you Thomas, I think you're at the very first phase of thinking about subjectivity, good studies.

-mirai

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 02/08/2002 9:05 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I'll try to ignore your sarcasm.

> I see your argument as being shallow as your understanding of the matter.

What tell us something about your deepness.

(From now on, I'll try harder to avoid sarcasm myself.)

> By now everyone agrees that no physical or supernatural structure itself is cause for awareness

Who is this everyone?

> heart is spelled with only one H

Thanks. Did you mean 'H'? Speaking of typos ...

> A "linear" program, like one you can write in C++, cannot be conscious, however

No, it can _produce_ consciousness. By simulating enough atom _reactions_ to each other. It would require a lot of computing - but is no reason, why it can't be done. If your entire body consisted of small C++ programs, instead of cells - you wouldn't noticed the difference. You just get a signal. With no signature where from it came - from a program, cell or from a random event.

> Everyone agrees on this, but if you believe otherwise go ahead and write a C++ program that passes the turing test

Since you know better than me - you do it first! If it is mandatory for me only ... well ...

> Get a big hard drive, because you're going to need lots of code

What now? You are saying, that I need a big and hard drive for something you said earlier, can't be done at all.

> Infinite, to be exact.

That big? Not even children are afraid of the infinity any more. Let alone an arrogant smart ass as myself.

> If someone has valid criticism on the new perspective I have written about

You are saying, that the unique consciousness is glued somehow to every did of a chap. If he took plums instead of cherries just once in a life - it would be a different one. Are all the future acts then calculable just from the fact, that this is "I"? Environment information - like the air temperature - are also already included? Have to be. I can't choose any other than that and that shirt.

I don't like that.

> As for you Thomas, I think you're at the very first phase of thinking about subjectivity, good studies.

Your course I will pass, I think.

- Thomas

Re: Infinite dimensional experiential cube and why you have no free will
posted on 04/05/2002 1:41 AM by dbacker@micron.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

funny how I am not part of your 'everyone' and happend to think that Thomas is pretty correct with his assumption about our overrated wetware process.

The specialness of "Human Intelligence" shall be the last overrated human philosophy (flat earth, center of the universe, infinite universe, existence of any deity, non biological artificial intelligence, specialness of Human Intelligence).

be a thinker, let go!

Dam Backer

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/01/2002 7:25 PM by trait70426@yahoo./com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

okim totally bogus, but what are the young physicists and mathematicians thinking?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/25/2005 7:35 PM by ariston

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

This is something that always bothered me about uploading...the uploaded copy would wake up, say "Hey, it worked!", and adamently claim to be me. Meanwhile, I, the original, would say, "No, I'm still over here..." If the upload procedure destroyed my brain in the process, the original me would be dead, while the copy thinks everything went just fine.

Hans Moravec has an interesting possible solution to this problem, outlined here:
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity.html#upload
In a nutshell, this process moves--rather than copies--the mind bit by bit. In theory, it wouldn't even interrupt one's train of thought, so, subjectively, you would still be you, since there was complete continuity throughout the process.


--Ariston

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 02/05/2007 11:54 AM by ChaosPhoenixMage

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I have what I believe the answer to this:

"This is all great but there is still something that disturbs me about uploading, namely the whole idea of preserving the "soul". Mr.Kurzweil mentions a thought experiment where his mind is downloaded during his sleep and reinstanciated in nonbiological entity. There are two Rays, each claiming to be a real one. Now, here's the problem. What if the first Ray gets killed in a way that he can't rely on the copy of his mind file? The copy still exists but not the first Ray. What I mean is that while the conciousness and "soul" of the second Ray is still there the "soul" or "uniqueness" of the first Ray is dead. Therefore the question. How can a mind be uploaded in the first place with preserved uniqueness so that the person before and after uploading is the same instance of itself? Otherwise it would mean that that when first original person would die, no matter how many copies were made of his/her conciousness that first person's "soul" would be dead. I must say I still haven't come across the solution to this problem so I'll try to propose it."

My answer:

This problem is one of so-called fuzzy logic, where the general idea is that identity shifts from moment to moment as our mind changes through time. Obviously if we upload a copy from a living person, the upload (copy) would ideally need to be the same person. Remember that we are who we are because of three "inputs", which I consider the trilogy-elements of the soul for that reason: (1) brain, (2) body, (3) environment. The brain is technically a part of the body but I distinguish it because that is where consciousness itself is, and it's unique amongst all the parts of the body for the role it plays in manifesting consciousness. Also, the environment contains other consciousnesses! There are two solutions actually, as far as I think I can tell. One would be to feed each mind - the original (in this case biological) and copy (upload) the exact same sensory stimulous, whether from the same body or two bodies, so long as it is drawn from the same perceived environment. This way, if the function of the body is *identical* and the brain will feel, see, hear, taste, smell the same world and the brain will act the same way, in conjunction with its self-affective reactions as well. I would argue that a better alternative to this situation is to avoid the necessity for syncing dopplegangers - besides that having a soul-clone is disturbing for most people to begin with (!) - and instead just STOP the activity of the brain. This, is cryonics. If you can stop the biological brain and restart its function within a computer from the same point, but while refusing revival of the biological template, the resultant emulation should be a continuation in time relative to the consciousness of the same stream of believed personal identity. So yay ~

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 01/14/2002 1:14 PM by info@gulfaliens.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I should think it quite obvious that by duplicating yourself you create a new being. First regardless of the synchronicity and quality of the connection between the two beings, at a physical level they will diverge at the instant of duplication. The physical processes giving rise to life ie chemical reactions based on subatomic interactions etc, are fundmentally probabilistic.

The argument to define the potential relationships between the duplicated beings can thus only be as to the type of community or multicellular organism that these two beings represent. In this respect, it would not be moral to kill the biological entity in the process of creating the duplicant. As Kurzweil has pointed out, they will both think they are the same person, and they both will be correct. The critical factor is that after the instant of duplication, they will have independent trajectories and thus be independent beings although perhaps with varying potential degrees of integration.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 01/15/2002 7:33 AM by lajos.kelemen@nokia.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

We can think about this issue forever (whether the uploaded copy is a different being or not) but IMO that case is not interesting at all if it is a different one because you can make your copy already today (by traditional biological means:) and you can study him/her. So the only interesting case is if the uploaded copy and you make one entity so "it" becames an enhanced creature. By the way the wireless connection with biological material has already started:

Radio-controlled DNA act as gene switches
http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D752

So instead of dreaming about the future some practical design would be needed as how to control the brain in a wireless way so when the means is given then the plan is already ready.

Lajos Kelemen

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 03/25/2002 7:41 AM by artshmakov@mail.ru

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Hi,
I'll try to make some analogy with biological cells.
Consider your 'self' a cell.
Uploading produces another cell - by copying.
Connecting the new cell with the old one produces a double-cellular organism.
Killing one of the two cells is killing half of the organism - it may result in some irreparable damage. (If you lose a half of your brain, you will be significantly retarded. And if the dead half of your brain is replaced, you may again function properly, though never retrieve some memories and skills.)
But, after producing a billion of cells and connecting them:
1. A loss of one cell would no longer be significant (because of a very high superfluity rate).
2. Given proper organization, we'd have a step from amoeba to monkey - the point is that it will make a qualitative, not just quantitative difference.
And that's the Singularity.
In my opinion thinking of copying vs. moving is irrelevant. When the technology comes, uploading will be used for creating such multi-cellular organisms and not for saving/loading/multiplying primitive, however fast, human instances.

Artyom Shmakov

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 03/25/2002 4:06 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

> uploading will be used for creating such multi-cellular organisms and not for saving/loading/multiplying primitive, however fast, human instances.

This assumption is not as solid, as one might think.

Must be a _motivation_ for everything what is going to happen - or it won't.

There is a strong motivation for human uploading. And for enhancing them.

But I don't see much (healthy) motivation for something entirely different. For golden dodecahedrons or some alien mechanism doing some prime number tests.

At least, should be an uploaded mathematician to observe it.

Over the self awareness is nothing. Doesn't matter how fancy this nothing may look.

Survivors don't like it. And survivors will decide.

I'm afraid, that after the Singularity, no "higher goals" - but the hedonism will prevail.

This urge for something "better than pleasure and happiness" - is a dangerous illusion. I don't want golden pyramids (thumb stones) all over the Universe.

- Thomas

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 03/28/2002 10:59 AM by artshmakov@mail.ru

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

In fact, there IS a very strong motivation for the integration into a 'superbeing'. And it has nothing to do with any altruism. Moreover, it is one of the basic human instincts - the desire for survival.

I do not want to die! Neither at 60, nor at 60 million. If I upload, my copy survives and I die. You can kill me at once after uploading to achieve the illusion of 'transcend', but my copy gets this illusion, not me (Yes, I'm sure!).

Integration into something bigger looks weird because it is something completely, entirely new - no man has ever tried it and we _can't_imagine_the_outcome_. But it is the most natural path as far as I see it. For me, it is better to change into something different than to end my existence forever. And I do not think my desire for eternal life is very uncommon (or unhealthy) among our species or among any living beings.

I don't think we can make any assumptions about the time after the Singularity. But, extrapolating from the past, it is likely that the Life will become more meaningful. What is the meaning of life of an animal? We, humans, are more advanced from that point of view (yet very slightly). But WHAT will happen - we CAN'T know, even an uploaded mathematician won't get much closer.

Artyom Shmakov

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 03/28/2002 12:57 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

> but my copy gets this illusion, not me (Yes, I'm sure!).

You are also wrong. I know, that it is difficult to understand, but you are the copy of yourself a year ago. Aren't you?

- Thomas

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 03/30/2002 5:35 AM by smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

A message for Artyom Shmakov - you are one of the very few people who seem to have the same ideas about the formation of social superorganisms as I do. If you browse the archives of the Extropian mailing list from last year at www.extropy.org you will some of my posts on this subject.

Rafal Smigrodzki

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 03/30/2002 5:57 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Social superorganism idea is very interesting. I've always thought that it would be a future of marriage, but I've been thinking about the benefits of a merger with anybody or even whole communities, and I don't think that there are many, other than, perhaps, a satisfaction of fulfilling some ideological practice. If there are no benefits for doing something then is it logical to do it? I don't know, maybe there are some benefits of being merged but I don't see one at this point.
Slawek P.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/01/2002 1:03 PM by smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Well, if a social superorganism can be formed, it will - somebody for some reasons will try it, if only as a joke. But, if such an entity has some survival advantage over other entities, it will persist, grow, and that will be no joke.

The superorganism might be very efficient, with no need for many of the rituals, organisations, able to use resources to enhance its survival, rather than to fit the disparate needs of its parts, like a conventional human society does.

Rafal

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/01/2002 1:52 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

[Well, if a social superorganism can be formed, it will - somebody for some reasons will try it, if only as a joke] - No question about it, but I don't think the idea will be popular.

[The superorganism might be very efficient ....] - as efficient as any individual could be.

[.... with no need for many of the rituals, organisations, able to use resources to enhance its survival, rather than to fit the disparate needs of its parts, like a conventional human society does.] - an implied assumption is that the future society living in a simulation won't exactly be our current conventional one, and, therefore, the resources, and disparate needs of an individual won't be a problem. They can all be simulated (except the computer memory and processing power of course).

The other important thing to consider is the very process of merging. Would it be a creation of a person with two minds or just acquiring the memories and skills of another person who becomes extinct. As for the first definition - this is not really merging, and as for the second - it would be murder, where simple downloadable knowledge would do. As you can tell in order to say anything about superorganisms, we need a clear definition of what merging is and does.

Slawek

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/01/2002 2:11 PM by smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

[Well, if a social superorganism can be formed, it will - somebody for some reasons will try it, if only as a joke] - No question about it, but I don't think the idea will be popular.

### You need only one...

-----

[The superorganism might be very efficient ....] - as efficient as any individual could be.

### Oh, much more so. There are most likely limits on the amount of information that can be processed by a singular sentience (a limit on IQ, if you like). Societies can overcome this limit by joining the abilities of many individuals but only if the cooperation is proceeding smoothly. The SO could run much smoother than, let's say, the United Nations, CIA, Walmart or other conventional organizations.

-----

therefore, the resources, and disparate needs of an individual won't be a problem. They can all be simulated (except the computer memory and processing power of course).

### Processing costs money (or energy, or whatever is important).

------

say anything about superorganisms, we need a clear definition of what merging is and does.

#### The SO could be initiated by designing a sentience wholly devoted to the goal of forming the SO. It would then split, or spawn, producing copies of itself, as fast as possible. Copies would differentiate slightly, to accomodate various tasks within the SO, yet retaining the lack of self-oriented goals (like individual survival, except in as far as necessary to serve the SO). That's just one of the possible ways.

Rafal

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/01/2002 6:46 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Rafal

Ok, tell me what you think about this idea:
There is a society where each individual (an upload) is being run on it's own piece of hardware. Then from time to time some members of this society decide to make use of their combined processing power to make one giant supercomputer in order to achieve some advanced tasks. This state would not be permanent, and each person would retain his/her own identity at all times, reclaiming his/her full processing abilities after a given task is done.

If that's what you're mean about merging then I agree, this could be a good idea.

Slawek

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/02/2002 8:16 AM by smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

One remark - I don't think that the superorganism is a "good idea", at least if you are a human being. It is just possible that this is a *viable* idea - an entity capable of survival and outcompeting humans. I do not dream of merging with the Overmind - I worry it might simply show up one day.

And yes, the solution you described in your post is one of the possibilities, perhaps less unpleasant than many others.

Rafal

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/02/2002 10:48 AM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

[I do not dream of merging with the Overmind - I worry it might simply show up one day.] - what do you mean by that?
Slawek

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/02/2002 1:33 PM by smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

A superhuman AI could be perhaps developed within 10 - 15 years. A method for designing and modifying human motivational systems could be developed soon afterwards. The superorganism (or Overmind, or whatever scary name we decide on) could then quickly become a serious power.

Rafal

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/02/2002 2:41 PM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

If the only motivation of this AI will be something else, than the maximizing of good for the sentients - we are stupid. And doomed.

We have to SET it right.

- Thomas

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/02/2002 2:46 PM by smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Go to www.singinst.org - the guys working on the Friendly AI - a preemptive attempt at building an AI which will be nice to us.

Rafal

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/02/2002 2:43 PM by s_paliwoda@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I see. This sounds like superintelligence risk. If you want to know what I think about, it's here.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D4734%23id4818

Slawek

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 10/16/2002 8:03 AM by Dan

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Mr. Kurzweils example of becoming two separate intelligent entities poses a very real problem with the idea of continuing a concious existence. Being two separate entities - one in the physical world and one in the cyber world - does not really overcome the experience of death and loss of self by the physical entity.
One possible solution would be to use a continuous link between the physical and cybernetic entities. A continuous nanotech scanning device which could overtime shunt higher brain functions into an appropriate artificial medium would be one solution. The transfer would be gradual and largely transparent to the physical entity.
With time, the majority of brain functions would take place in the artificial medium. If the physical body / brain were allowed to die, there would be an uninterrupted flow of conciousness and a continuity of the perception of self.
As others have touched on here, there is the dilemma of multiple copies of a digital entity, introducing a strange twist on the whole cloning debate. I am not sure how many copies of myself I would like to have exist even in an artificial medium. That artificial medium would seem real enough if it was where my conciousness was being exercized. I enjoy reading the posts.
Please feel free to contact me via e-mail. I enjoy these discussion groups and the ideas posed and it would be nice to get to know some of you on a more personal level and discuss these topics.

Dan

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 12/13/2002 2:37 AM by Nellita

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I'm intriqued - fascinated! The original article was published in 2000 on my birthday - Feb. 2. My name and nickname were used in the little scenario between Winston and Nellie/Nellita in it. It's a subject I relate to in many ways. It's rather spooky!

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/11/2003 9:01 AM by iggitcom

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Ray does not know what the information dynamic system of the brain is. The story is a joke.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 04/23/2005 9:53 AM by mememe

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

In Antonio Damasio's books about the mind he gives an example of people with spinal injuries whose lack of feedback from the body changes their abilities to percieve/comprehend etc. If one is downloaded then, unless a programme deceiving oneself into believing one still has metabolising body, is downloaded with the mind, then ones "downloaded mind" will beging to evolve in ways that may have radical emergent properties. Greg Egan (science fiction writer) has explored the concept of minds living in computer generated mindscapes but he still kept them basically human in feel. It seems that downloading minds would be more a way to evolve superior programmes and might even require crippling ones downloaded mind in order to make it dedicated to a particular purpose. "Slave-minds" Would you enslave your own mind?
If we start to view our own conciousness as toys or profitable programmes we are getting into a very weird future? reductionism in extremis. A great breakthrough in downloading minds would be in being able to develop new perceptions that were so powerful that old ways of rationalising the same old wars, territorialism, greed, violence blah blah blah, would become undeniably ridiculous.
Our modes of thinking and prioritising have stayed the same for centuries. The witch doctor is still at large but now he sits in front of the television scratching himself. Developing different ways for thinking...attempts like Edward De Bono's work, studies on fuzzy logic, attempting to think in other ways than mutually exclusive logical steps,aren't sufficient. The change in mind set would have to be carried along within the culture as a popular phenomena.
Using developments in artificial intelligence to develop the breadth of our own capacities for creating a deeply fulfilling and sustainable society would surely be the greatest advancemet we could make.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 07/14/2005 12:57 AM by hinhin

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

There are quite a few problems if what Ray Kurzweil think is true in the future. First, if Ray Kurzweil is true that we can scan human brains and re-create its design electronically by 2030, then the next step that we will take is to make human clones, or transfer human memories into another body to extend lifespan. If we can extend our human lifespan, then first, this will definitely increase the over-population problem dramatically. ''human population estimates ranging from 0.6 to 1.2 billion''i Currently we already have over 6 billion of human population, and if we can extend human lifespan, it will definitely increase human population rapidly. Also, if we can transfer human memories into another body, it will lead to another problem, which is, 'Who is eligible for transferring memories into another body, and who is not eligible?' Obviously, people who are rich and famous would definitely get the advantage of trying this technology than people who are poor and infamous. Eventually, the rich and famous people will have an 'eternal life'. However, leaving the rich and famous people does not mean it is a good idea at all. For example, I suppose no one would be happy if we have this technology back in 30s and 40s and we are able to give the 'eternal life' to Adolf Hitler. He is a famous person in 30s and 40s, but definitely it will be a disaster if he has 'eternal life'.
Another problem that may occur is who is taking control of the use of this technology. In our current Information Technological Age, we already face so many types of problems dealing with computers like spywares, viruses. If we are able to scan human brains into computers, it is hard to imagine if the 'data' in the computers are infected by viruses. Also, it will be easy for the 'programmers' to 'edit' the 'data' during the transferring process to another body. This means the 'programmers' can easily censor information that they do not want. They can also be easily to do 'mind control' to people by 'adding' some information to the 'transferable data'.
In addition, there will be no privacy at all by inventing this technology. The 'programmers' can keep track of every single detail inside your 'memories'. However, I believe no one would like not having any privacy at all.
To be more optimistic, things about scanning human brains and transferring human memories to another body might just be a science fiction. This is because we are still having lack of knowledge about human brain. Also, even if we can scan and make a copy of human brains into computers, does this mean it is also the same as we can make a copy of human 'spiritually'? Human memory and Human spirit might just be two different things. It means that making a copy of human memory might not mean making a copy of human spirit. By transferring human memory might not mean it is transferring all information that human contains into another body. In addition, it might come to a point that scanning human brains is just impossible for computers to do. Also, even if computers are able to handle this technology, simply because we might run out of resources and computers are not able to operate such task.
In the pessimistic side, if computers can truly scan, copy and transfer human brains (human mind), then we will have either one of the following results:
1. Computers might take control of human beings at some point.
2. A small number of people will mind control the whole human populations.

Therefore, in order to prevent things like this happen, governments, organizations should take the responsibility to control the research on these areas and the use of the technology.

i. http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop. html, EcoFuture (TM) Population and Sustainability - How Many People Should the Earth Support?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 08/13/2005 10:51 AM by Squawk

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

There has been an experiment with rats, in which they connected a wire into his brain. In his pleasure centre to be exact. The rat just had to push a button in his cage to go into extacy. The resulting behaviour was pushing this button all day long. No more eating, no more drinking. Death.

I don't think the purpose of life is evolution. I think coping with entropy is the purpose of life and evolution is the only way to survive entropy. Complexity is not necessary, otherwise man would be the only species alive. Our complexity is a coincidence.

With this complexity of ours something strange has happened; we don't adapt anymore to our environment, we adapt our environment.

Every living creature has pleasure centres he wants to activate, and by doing so, he follows a program to survive. Only he only reaches pleasure now and then because he is not succesfull all the time. That's why he is still evolving; failures.

So trying to reach pleasure is what's needed in life, not reaching pleasure, let alone having nonstop pleasure. Because then there is no more need to fight entropy, there is no more need to live, no more need to evolve.

So if we reach the point of uploading our brain, the biological evolution has come to an end because we don't need bodies anymore. Evolution will take place outside biology. If there is any evolution left, because there is no need for evolution if you are in continous extacy. There is no need for life, no need for consciousness, no need for fysical abalities to cope with entropy.

Maybe we will become God at that point; all the living souls without a body uploaded and interconnected in total extacy and all-knowing...

Cheers.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 08/14/2005 7:12 AM by Squawk

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

In the beginning, there was physics. Out of physics came chemistry. Out of chemistry came biology, out of biology came technology. This is the path of evolution. And it will continue.

In the end, evolution will master entropy. Some people think of God as the opposite of entropy. They call him/it: dis-entropy.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 02/05/2007 1:53 PM by ChaosPhoenixMage

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'There has been an experiment with rats, in which they connected a wire into his brain. In his pleasure centre to be exact. The rat just had to push a button in his cage to go into extacy. The resulting behaviour was pushing this button all day long. No more eating, no more drinking. Death.'

Unlike rats, some of us have some concept of moderation, and find satisfaction in considerably more variety than a rat does in the (excuse the pun) singular entertainment of a button's press of food.

'I don't think the purpose of life is evolution. I think coping with entropy is the purpose of life and evolution is the only way to survive entropy. Complexity is not necessary, otherwise man would be the only species alive. Our complexity is a coincidence.'

The purpose of life is, like most things, relative to the individual's given bias. Entropy being a fancy way of saying 'chaos by unpredictability' when you say our purpose is to conquer it you are implying that our satisfaction comes from stifling out the unsatisfactory, which stemming *typically* from need is why evolution has come to be traditionally viewed as the development of means by which to meet those critical ends. It is true that complexity isn't strictly necessary for this, but that complexity is NOT a coincidence. Having evolved to the point we can fend for ourselves quite well, and thanks as Kurzweil says to the opposable thumb and the development of complex language mechanisms, we can not only survive with our tools but play with them and forge stories. If you like, evolution serves another purpose besides stifling entropy ' it allows us to create it, by making games.

'With this complexity of ours something strange has happened; we don't adapt anymore to our environment, we adapt our environment.'

Again, this doesn't address the issue of to what more we 'adapt' our environment if not simply to survive.

'Every living creature has pleasure centres he wants to activate, and by doing so, he follows a program to survive. Only he only reaches pleasure now and then because he is not succesfull all the time. That's why he is still evolving; failures.'

You're presuming your premise, that pleasure is strictly for survival ~ Human's are a bit more special than that. I can appreciate your saying that pleasure needs be refused on occasion to be appreciated and thus, relative to perception, present, but as I said moderation handles this nicely (and tends to become developed in those who actually get what they want and need find satisfaction by alternative, usually less material or sensory needs, as in the artistic or intellectual etc.), but another convenient mechanism a lot of people don't seem to consider, is that we forget. Putting down the book I cherish and love for years on end, picking it up I not only have a fresh perspective, but a novel appreciation. Maybe our weaknesses hold their own unique advantages in their own right, and not failure exclusively (thank God).

'So trying to reach pleasure is what's needed in life, not reaching pleasure, let alone having nonstop pleasure. Because then there is no more need to fight entropy, there is no more need to live, no more need to evolve.'

Non-stop pleasure' Well, how do you define 'pleasure'. It's a vague word because there are kinds of pleasure that go beyond sensory stimulus. I can be continually pleasured by sampling a variety of activities and challenges, while still remaining focused for that those distinct enterprises serve a common, unifying theme. It is an axiom almost to the point of clich' throughout history that technology creates more problems than it solves ' and that is much to the delight of we scientists. Although it would seem we're making a world more complex to the *demise* of the world (or so say our dear neighboring Luddites) we are in fact making the world a better place towards the end of addressing more fundamental problems not yet addressed, which would not have been relevant otherwise perhaps but, are necessary growing pains in the process of evolution. We fight these problems, but not the entropy itself. Entropy is what we feed, and it comes back to give us purpose, full circle.

'So if we reach the point of uploading our brain, the biological evolution has come to an end because we don't need bodies anymore. Evolution will take place outside biology. If there is any evolution left, because there is no need for evolution if you are in continous extacy. There is no need for life, no need for consciousness, no need for fysical abalities to cope with entropy.'

In a sense biological evolution, I would guess, will not come to an end because when we speak of evolution we're talking not just of the body in the sense of genetics, but the mind that it's influenced by. Just as we are shaped by our environment, we are shaped by that environment depending upon how it's perceived, and that perception is dependent by proxy via the body. An upload will be capable of altering both/either his/her central and/or peripheral nervous system, and relay their signaling mechanisms to either the functional equivalent of the biological body or else some foreign construct. If the latter is the case, as well may eventually be, the mind will shift in response to that new medium, but if the former is the case, even if partially, we will continue to evolve according to the influence of the biological programming's predetermined influence in conjunction with the environment, though both can be variable in direct proportion to one another as in our actual reality. It really depends on how you define evolution, but I think it has a larger meaning than may be inferred by your argument in attempt to convince of biology's alleged nullification in evolution's role. If you would ask what my 'need to evolve' would be, I have a plethora of answers, foremost of which is to master the piano, a very close second being to master Go, if not Chess (but I'll get around to that and many other things along my long way).

'Maybe we will become God at that point; all the living souls without a body uploaded and interconnected in total extacy and all-knowing...'

Wow. You used the word 'God'. That's a very much regurgitated can of worms I scarce dare to dip into but I've commented on the rest of what you said, and given you misspelled continuous, physical, abilities, and ecstasy I figure I might as well throw up a final wall to bang up your memes against. God is the singular form of 'god', which being without capitalization implies there are some multiplicity of gods to composite the whole of the world's fundamental rules. Off hand, it should seem intuitively obvious that there can be one god (a.k.a., 'God') since any system is inherently coherent, and logic begets causality, which roots by reductionism towards the source. I won't say it's necessarily the 'why' in every sense of that word, but it should be sufficient given our acknowledged ignorance (unless you're the kind of idiot to dive into blind faith, instead of theory as in science and philosophy) that it is the 'how'. As some knowledgeable person above on this page, physics begets chemistry, which begets biology, which begets technology. Personally I'd argue that below the level of physics is a more fundamental one of mathematics, and that it's paradoxical nature is the reason physics is so tantalizingly mysterious for all the questions it leaves unanswered. There mere fact that there are too often answers like 'there is infinity' despite the intuitive command in our heads that this isn't possible should lend some plausibility to the multiverse theory, but I'm ranting on tangent sorry. Point is, you can encapsulate 'God' to mean the collective force of universal law, or Truth (not in the sense of mere facts per se, but the reason things become what they are, or in other words the reason for change; Tao Te Ching ring a bell anyone?). Science prides itself in holding the most rational method for attaining exactly that ' Truth! But any scientist will tell you that there are very few widely acknowledged laws, and even these are disputed, the most prominent example being gravity *shudders*. In other words, almost everything if not just that, is a theory. Even if all our logic is coherent with the presently observed world, it is unwise to be confident in our beliefs because, and I'm roughly paraphrasing this from some now long dead philosopher heh, we can't know if we don't know, or what it is we don't know if that's so [hey, I even made it rhyme! :O yay'] Moreover, having full knowledge of Truth or Universal Law or whatever you want to call it would not make us God itself, except in the sense that everything already is a manifestation of God for that as its creation we are its children, if you want to put it into Biblical terms, but then again the division between objects is arbitrary and you might as well say we're a collective organism, or that for that matter in macroscopic analogy from the brain we're a conscious entity like the brain ' the so-called noosphere, and therefore, taking that likewise up to scale, that God itself is conscious through all matter, and that It is growing with/by us. But we'd be demi-gods at most in the future, and then again aren't we just that now, in a sense? Those of the past thought what we do now is magic for the incredible power it seemed relative to their own weakness and ignorance (and for their mysticism). In a sense, science is the most feasible attempt at understanding, and channeling the power of God, as if It's very instruments (but nothing else, even if in full consciousness of 'It' ; notice I omit gender? Ha! I've eliminated sexism AND feminism with one stroke!! Bwahaha'), It's will nothing less or more than what, simply, is. 'I am what I am. That is all that I am.' Puts a new twist on the nature of good and evil, doesn't it. Bias gives us meaning, shadow from the light. To answer your final, sarcastic comment on how perfect everything will be, the boredom argument is hardly new (I'm already bored with it actually) ' some say that's why it's likely we're being run as a simulation right now. Are you entertaining yet? Hurry up and get complex so we can make this divine play interesting. Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, is up to you. x_+ hehe <3

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 02/07/2007 9:26 AM by horiageorg

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

How do you decide from which level of structure ( e. e., atomic, molecular, mcomolecular, DNA, RNA, cell membrane, proteome, cell organite, synapses, etc ) your upload will choose its substance ?
I think you'll need to choose everything, in fact, not to choose; to take all.
Which seems highly impossible, even with your nanobots.
However, maybe, what constitutes memory on a specific level ( e.g., visual images , acoustic images , lingistic structures ) will become a source for this upload , once it will have been appripriately identified ( at present , I can't know what molecules represent in my brain the computer sceen I'm gazing at ).

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 02/07/2007 11:20 AM by ChaosPhoenixMage

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

With regard to the question of at what level it's appropriate to attempt a read of the brain for uploading to be successful, I agree you need to take it all into account without exception. What we don't seem to agree on its that endeavor's feasibility, or even the specific interpretation we attribute to the meaning of "all". What I mean is that you can encapsulate everything without explicit (though of course you would by necessity thus have implicit reference) to the more abstract aspects of the brain we call by words like "neuron" and "synapse" etc. In other words, we need [brace yourself] an *atomic*-level reading of the brain. I also doubt this can feasibly be done with nanobots, not only because indirect reading as by wireless scanning from the bloodstream, or even further within the tissue (itself raising the issue of danger that the specimen is irrevokeably contaminated beyond possibility of the initial state's recoverability), but more tellingly because the brain itself - in the scenario wherein Kurzweil proposes such a method - is active, processing in realtime per its panoply <Yes Mr. Special K., I'm borrowing your favorite word ;P> which it seems to me would make it rather difficult to read accurately, besides the doppleganger issue of having an original you to kill off o_O; the fuzzy logic issue of the discontinuity of consciousness this would raise seems to be telling for that it implies we would be making a mind clone for only the instant of the copy, but not after they experience a different environment and/or through a different perceptual function (bodily constitution as medium between mind and environment). Short and long of it is that cryonics seems to be to be the most philosophically appropriate route for uploading, but I don't agree with the majority, who seem to think the best solution would be nano-repair. Nanotechnology, while powerful, will not hold such direct relevance over mind uploading if from the standpoint I imagine in waking from cryosleep, since the purpose isn't just to wake up fine and etc. but to do so in a computer, and not in your biological body. By then we could get rid of a lot of the diseases and more subtle vulnerabilities of the flesh but not the flesh itself (at least not in the way typically proposed). It will not take nanobots but a more advanced form of the technology we already have available here and now, such as the cryo ultramicrotome, cryo transmission/scanning electron microscope/spectroscope, cryo confocal laser scanning micrscope, annular dark field imaging, cryo immunohisto(-cyto-)chemical serial sectioned tissue staining, neural nets (but to the quasi-atomic & molecular levels - not just arbitrarily calibrated cellular level), and a host of algorithms derived from in-vitro wetlab experiments we're barely beginning to really uncover from efforts as in the Blue Brain Project as one prime example.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/11/2007 8:48 AM by keenoT

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

This is all very interesting but we are much more than a connection of neurons. A large part of our personalities and how we react to various situations is chemical/hormonal. We would have to be able to reproduce that to reproduce ourselves and each of us are different chemically/hormonally to some extent.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/11/2007 10:02 AM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

We aren't much more than a network of neurons. Chemical processes are not substantially different from one person to another. Whatever differences there may be can likely be summed up in a few variables that can be modified at will. It's an unsubstantial amount of information compared to the whole system.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/12/2007 8:20 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

How do you know that "we are not much more than a network of neurons" ? What is your authority for this ? Which neuroscientist has proved that the sum totality of mental life is created by the 'network' - as opposed to the neurons , the matter , the chemicals and other semantic and phenomenological objects in the brain ?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/12/2007 9:40 AM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Which neuroscientist has proved that the sum totality of mental life is created by the 'network' - as opposed to the neurons , the matter , the chemicals and other semantic and phenomenological objects in the brain ?

All the ones that suggest lower level constituents of neurons that don't generate electrical signals don't participate in information processing. One molecule in the cell membrane, for example, doesn't talk to it's neighbors. Only the point nodes that transfer information are of any relevance to the information system. Neurochemicals themselves do not contribute to information processing, they're merely channels through which some information travels. Hence the idea that the mind is substrate independant, which is of course correct, as neurons are not the only devices that can participate in information exchange.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/12/2007 11:24 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"Hence the idea that the mind is substrate independant, which is of course correct,"

You're amazing. You blast out incredibly hypothetical statements as if they're either scientifically proven of self-evident fact. Neither is the case here.

The 'mind' has no concrete scientific definition. The 'mind', it is probably best to say, is viewed by scientists as 'those things the brain does', or broadly speaking, 'the collection of phenomena whose character is mainly mental'. That is where agreement ends - a lot of work needs to be done yet to decide exactly WHAT is going on. Its a long way indeed to decide HOW that comes about.

Not for you though, it seems. You've leapfrogged the entire scientific process and decided why 'what' happens without knowing exactly what the 'what' is. Why is is that some people seem to think that science is inapplicable to the brain ? Or that 'information' is somehow a causal agent, i the manner of matter or a chemical ? It beats me.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/12/2007 1:00 PM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

The 'mind' has no concrete scientific definition. The 'mind', it is probably best to say, is viewed by scientists as 'those things the brain does'

There's your definition. We know enough to know what it doesn't do, that's plenty to rule out many absurd claims such as quantum processes, "phenomenological objects" and consciousness derived from 'the matter'. If you want me to prove to you these processes do not take place, prepare to be disappointed. I can't prove god isn't a retarded fish frog either, fortunately I know enough to understand how unlikely that would be.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/12/2007 7:23 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

It's an absurd claim that brains cause minds ? Maybe you should shoot yourself in the head to see the results. My bet is you wouldn't fare too well.

Predictably the AI enthusiast creates the non-argument : i.e. if you're not with us, you must believe in God. I don't. And I dont believe that 'information' creates mental phenomena any more than a book full of information 'thinks', or a thermometer 'thinks'. In fact you'd have to be quite strange to think that a book could think, but that's what strong AI likes to suggest. After all, a computer program IS a book - just a series of 0's and 1's at various memory locations, changing over time.

Tell me this - feeling angry is different to feeling sad. What number is angry ?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/12/2007 9:28 PM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

And I dont believe that 'information' creates mental phenomena any more than a book full of information 'thinks'

If you can't tell information processes apart from information itself, there's no convincing you. I might as well be explaining fourier transforms to a peach (no offense, you're not a peach). If you can't understand what information processing is, you're not about to make sense of the relationship between information processing and mental state. Rest assured it's not as mystical as it might seem once you make some sense of it.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/13/2007 2:41 AM by LOkadin

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

feeling angry, is feeling impatient, patience is the function of waiting, when one feels pain from waiting one can said to be angry.

in any case,


I love you all, and have all the answers to everything.


:-) ;)

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/13/2007 7:19 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I get a stick in the sand. I draw a circle round it and split it into two hemispheres, east and west. In the western half I assing the value '0'. In the eastern half I assign the value '1.

In the morning I assign a value to my system based upon where the shadow falls. In the morning the system yields '1' as the shadow is in the west. In the evening it yields '0'

I thus have a computer program that tests for the presence of AM or PM.

Is the sun thinking ? And how on earth would it know that i've incorporated it into my computer ?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/13/2007 7:22 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

- a slight mistake - the computer yields '0' in the morning. nonethless, it is an 'information processor'.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/14/2007 6:52 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'Is the sun thinking ? And how on earth would it know that i've incorporated it into my computer ?'

Why merely the Sun?

Why not the imprint you made in the sand?

Why not the object you use to cast the shadow in the imprint you made in the sand?

Taking each component of your 'sundial computer' and asking whether or not it is thinking or even processing information in any meaningful way is obviously going to yield the answer 'no'. But the ENTIRE system IS capable of performing crude information-processing.

Similarly I could ask 'does a neuron think? If I extract a neuron from the brain and keep it functional in a petri dish will it have the thought capacity of a human being?' Answer: Nope. So what have I proved? That the human brain is incapable of thought? Shum Mishtake Shurely.

'I just dont think its computational'.

Well, it certainly processes information. But it also PREDICTS. It builds a model of reality which includes your sense of self, body, and environment and constantly uses that model to predict how 'reality' (whatever the hell that is) will behave, adjusting the model whenever discrepency occurs. Computers AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY do not have this closed-loop between an evolving model of a dynamic environment and the dynamic environment itself, but the next-generation sixth paradigm computing systems are being designed with this functionality in mind. Indeed, we are already seeing robots with brains self-configuring to guide a body around its environment in an effort to fulfill its needs, that are begining to display qualities that could be said to be 'thinking' (albeit on a scale as crude compared to ours as their brain is simple compared to ours).


Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/15/2007 6:22 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"Taking each component of your 'sundial computer' and asking whether or not it is thinking or even processing information in any meaningful way is obviously going to yield the answer 'no'. But the ENTIRE system IS capable of performing crude information-processing. "

OK.Let's rephrase then. Is the ENTIRE system of sand, sun, dints etc thinking or not ?


"Similarly I could ask 'does a neuron think? If I extract a neuron from the brain and keep it functional in a petri dish will it have the thought capacity of a human being?' Answer: Nope. So what have I proved? That the human brain is incapable of thought? Shum Mishtake Shurely. "

By analogy with the above, does the entire material matter of the brain (the neurons themselves, the networks and all phenomenological,physical and causal powers contained therein) think ? I think it does.

You may not think the brain thinks. I call that somewhat counter-intuitive, although its a logical corollary of your position. A neuron individually may not be capable of thought, but a network of neurons (as physicial and chemical entities) clearly DOES think in the context of a healthy brain.

Your only conclusioon must be, I suppose, that my AM/PM calculator is thinking.



Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 5:14 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'You may not think the brain thinks. I call that somewhat counter-intuitive, although its a logical corollary of your position. A neuron individually may not be capable of thought, but a network of neurons (as physicial and chemical entities) clearly DOES think in the context of a healthy brain.'

I think the same, but unfortunately you misunderstood my argument. Your original case asked us to wonder if the Sun (which is ONE component in your sundial computer) is 'thinking'. I then showed that it is an error to reduce a system to its component parts, argue that each part is incapable of exhibiting a certain behaviour, and then conclude that such behaviour cannot exist in a suitably organized system.

Put it this way: A hydrogen atom is not water. An oxygen atom is not water. But combine two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and what do you get?

'Your only conclusioon must be, I suppose, that my AM/PM calculator is thinking'.

That is not the case. There is little reason to suppose this system is building an internal model of a dynamic environment consisting of self/body/place, predicting the behaviour of the real world (as far as its senses can probe), adjusting its model until both coincide to a degree that is useful to the system's survival.

Frankly, you cannot take such a simple computer as your AM/PM contraption, make the resonable point that it is not capable of 'thought' and then conclude that ANY computational system, no matter HOW closely it peforms the types of information-processing and world-modelling capabilities of a brain must be similarly incapable of cognition.



Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 5:25 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

ALright. I will construct a Von Nuemann computer out of tin cans, string, and steam. It might not be the quickest computer in the world, but it's creatinly capable of running any computer program you care to give it.

Now I'll take the world's most sophisticated AI program and start running it on my computer made from tin cans and steam. Now that my computer is running all the right programs, is it thinking ?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/13/2007 4:01 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

incidentally - its not me that thinks its mystical. I think its perfectly natural than brains cause minds.

I just dont think its computational - and over the many years i've occassionally dropped into thos site, i've never met antbody who can explain how syntax can yield semantic and my guess is you wont either.

Neither for that matter did Marvin Minsky when I wrote to him - he stopped emailing when I asked him the very same question.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/14/2007 7:54 AM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Maybe he stopped responding because he realized the futility of the discussion :)

You're right, I can't tell you how 'syntax' can yield 'semantic'. If I could, I'd probably be writing that syntax at the moment, but I can tell you that 'syntax' can create 'semantic' because it can create any information.

Note that I quoted syntax and semantic just to stay on the same level, it's really a bad choice of words. They represent nothing of your idea, although I did understand the intended 'meaning'.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/14/2007 5:10 PM by Alex from Macedonia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

You're right, I can't tell you how 'syntax' can yield 'semantic'. If I could, I'd probably be writing that syntax at the moment, but I can tell you that 'syntax' can create 'semantic' because it can create any information.


Stick to your words: can't tell/don't know HOW, but this doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE. The possibility of such a thing ' an obvious evidence of which is our own consciousness, which is undisputable when each person observes itself ' is the most MARVELOUS thing in our Universe; it marvels that much me, that I must use the word "a kind of SUPERNATURALITY" to describe that very natural phenomenon!

Note that I quoted syntax and semantic just to stay on the same level, it's really a bad choice of words.


So, what is your "choice of words"?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/15/2007 6:33 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

it's impossible from syntax, that's for sure.

I assume you're computer conversant. Let me give you a source file of say, java code. I labell all the functions f1,f2,f3 etc (apart from 'main').There are no comments in the script(as usual, some might say)

How do you know what the subsequent program is to be used for without asking somebody who knows how it was written ?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/15/2007 6:27 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"but I can tell you that 'syntax' can create 'semantic' because it can create any information. "

Tell me how.

Let's say I create a symbol 'B'. Its a well known symbol but let's say I create it from scratch. Tell me how 'B' ever goes beyond the status of being a representative (that is after all what a symbol is, no ?)


May be i can add 'B' to another symbol 'C'. But the set of 'B' and 'C' is simply another symbol in itself.

How does this help me create any meaning ?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/15/2007 8:22 AM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

How do you know what the subsequent program is to be used for without asking somebody who knows how it was written ?

You just look at the code. I'm really not seeing what relationship this has to the issue.

Let's say I create a symbol 'B'. Its a well known symbol but let's say I create it from scratch. Tell me how 'B' ever goes beyond the status of being a representative (that is after all what a symbol is, no ?).


Again, I'm not seeing the conceptual brick wall here. Yes a symbol is just a symbol, I don't see the problem. Symbols symbolize something.

If you have a problem conceptualizing a brain on a computer, then consider the simulation of an exploding steel canister on a computer, or the simulation of water flowing into a cup. Your so called 'symbols' have effectively recreated a physical process.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/15/2007 4:23 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"You just look at the code. I'm really not seeing what relationship this has to the issue."

You arent listening. Let me give you a piece of java :


public class wotisthis {


private string n1[10];
static int n1

private int f1 (int t1)
{

t1 = n1 ;

}


public static void main (string[] args)
{
n1 = args[0] ;
f1(args[1]);
}


}

Now you have the code. You know what the variables are and how they will behave. I've written this code for a purpose - what is it ?

And please dont tell me that the purpose is to manipulate integers and strings - tell me what USE i intend to put this to.


"Symbols symbolize something. "

The more accurate statement is "symbols symbolize something, but the trouble is they can symbolise ANYTHING, and if I was a computer I wouldn't know what they symbolised"

"..symbols have recreated a physical process.."

what - a representation of rain on a computer amounts to rain itself ? Thats what "recreation" means.What you mean is the computer has facilitated a REPRESENTATION of rain.

But imagine you are inside the computer : the CPU still just processes 0's and 1's.

It's only when an observer comes along and sees a pattern of rainfall on a screen that meaning arrives. The computer has carried on in blissful ignorance.



Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 5:35 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'But imagine you are inside the computer : the CPU still just processes 0's and 1's.

It's only when an observer comes along and sees a pattern of rainfall on a screen that meaning arrives. The computer has carried on in blissful ignorance.'

So what? Whether it rains or not my brain carries on in blissful ignorance, constructing its virtual model of reality and adjusting it as needs be. From this process emerges the sensation of becoming wet. A propperly organised information processor, similarly fed signals appropriate to 'getting wet' would also conclude that it is 'raining'. The fact that there are Godlike observers outside of the entire system modelling environment/body/brain who see only zeros and ones is missing the point. To a simulated entity, the simulation IS reality and must be lived by its internal rules.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 8:50 AM by extrasense

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

E-A,

The facts that you are missing all along:

1. Self-simulation is possible only in a very limited extend.

For example, you can not well simulate an another person's mind, let alone your mind that you must know perfectly.

2. The ideas of simulation and of computer brain augmation exclude each other, as the simulating computer would have to simulate the brain computer.

3. Anything that you simulate must be less computationally expensive than the simulator capacity.

If your simulation runs a simulation in its turn,
and that simulation runs a simulation in its turn, and so forth - pretty soon the next simulation would not be available.

4.Etc.

Repent.

eS

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 11:35 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'For example, you can not well simulate an another person's mind, let alone your mind that you must know perfectly'.

Actually, neuroscientists using functional brain imaging have provided experimental proof that an individual does NOT know their own mind perfectly; that the brain knows things that you are subjectively unaware of.

The ideas of simulation and of computer brain augmation exclude each other, as the simulating computer would have to simulate the brain computer.

3. Anything that you simulate must be less computationally expensive than the simulator capacity'.

The collective brain power of the human race is several orders of magnitude LESS than the organised computational capacity of the local resources available to a type II intelligence.

'If your simulation runs a simulation in its turn,
and that simulation runs a simulation in its turn, and so forth - pretty soon the next simulation would not be available'.

Well, the 'computer' available to type II civilizations has an operational lifetime of tens of billions of years, and a computational speed sufficient to emulate the entire history of thought at Type 0 level (us) in a few microseconds. Each type of civlization differs from the next lower type by a factor of 10 billion. Perhaps literally, God knows what computational resources are available to Type IV.

Maybe we are real, living in a universe that is gradually approaching a state where life cannot be supported, in which case awareness will no longer exist. Or, we are a simulation, running on a computer that will run it to completion, whereupon the simulation ends and we no longer exist.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 1:12 PM by extrasense

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

@@@ such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point. ...Kardashev scale is of use to SETI researchers, science fiction authors, and futurists @@@

Civilization I is sure impossibility, nothing saying about Civilization II.

Ours will disappear long before the sort of energy cv I is supposed to "harness" is there.

I wonder if Martians were having dreams like yours before they went into oblivion so far that even the sculptures that they have left, do not convince anybody they existed.

ES


Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/18/2007 5:17 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'Ours will disappear long before the sort of energy cv I is supposed to "harness" is there'.

Of course.

'Civilization I is sure impossibility, nothing saying about Civilization II'.

The transition from type 0 to type I is the most IMPROBABLE leap, because it seems to necessitate the abandoning of tribal and territorial habits in favour of the establishment of a single planetary civilization. The state of the world today makes one despair of this ever happening.

Then again, a Type 0 civilization derives its energy from fossil fuels which create global environmental problems that require truly global collaboration if they are to be tackled. There is nothing quite like a common enemy to make tribes forget their differences and start collaborating.

Fossil fuels also in finite supply, as is all the matter locked up in our planet. This means the continuing survival of civilization depends upon learning how to manipulate matter as efficiently as possible, a process that logically leads us to nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has already begun to make advances in tapping solar energy, and we are still very much in the primitive stages of nano, and therefore at a similarly primitive stage in learning how to harness solar energy.

What is so important about solar energy? Well, type I is sometimes mistakenly described as 'the means to control hurricanes, Earthquakes..all the currently wild and untamed forces of the Earth!' but this is not the case. In actual fact, a type I civilization is defined by the ability to harness the total amount of solar energy striking the Earth: 10^16 watts. All that talk of making volcanoes explode on demand is just wild speculation about what you might do with all that power.

(BTW, I do not necessarily believe you can successfully harvest the ENTIRE 10^16 watts.)

'I wonder if Martians were having dreams like yours before they went into oblivion so far that even the sculptures that they have left, do not convince anybody they existed'.

Well, Mount Rushmore hardly compares to the simulacra conjoured up by light and shadow falling on an outcrop of rock that was whimsically described as 'the face on Mars', or to the effects of erosion, scultping rocks to look 'sort of' like tools, such as you have presented.

But you have stumbled upon an important point, which is that for the purposes of THIS discussion the Kardeshev scale is not the most appropriate one to use. We should be discussing the Sagan scale, which runs from A to Z and refers to the amount of information a civilization can store and process.

Type A has language but no writing. They process 10^6 bits of information. Written language is type C and it achieves 10^9 bits. All the books in all the libraries of the world today gives us 10^13 bits, and the information on the internet (which is not just words but pictures and sound too) approaches 10^15 bits. 10^15 bits places us at Type H.

The point of all this is: How many bits of information does it take to encode a brain, its body, and the surrounding environment? Moravec estimates it at 10^18 bits. So we seem to be short by 3 orders of magnitude. However, a desktop rod-logic nanocomputer processes 10^18 instructions per second (is that the same thing as bits?) and our matrioska brain blueprint with its rod-logic nancomputing systems using up all the carbon etc etc in all the planets processes 10^47 bits, which exceeds the amount required to encode the entire population of the Earth AND the Earth itself by 19 orders of magnitude.


Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/18/2007 6:11 AM by extrasense

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

@@@ desktop rod-logic nanocomputer 'processes' 10^18 instructions per second @@@

Those estimates are no good.
You are confused about their meaning too.
They actually underestimate both the brain and the computer.

Repent.

e:)S


Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/19/2007 6:51 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'Those estimates are no good.
You are confused about their meaning too.
They actually underestimate both the brain and the computer.

The statements ARE good.

I am NOT confused about their meaning.

They actually DO estimate the brain and the computer.

Hey! It sure is easier to simply contradict, rather than provide a rigerous explanation debunking your opponent! No wonder ES never bothers to explain anything propperly.

Having learned this valuable lesson, I can now 'refute' everything anybody ever writes that I disagree with, just by telling them they are wrong and never providing a coherent explanation as to WHY they are wrong.

Then again, that would make me a time-waster, wouldn't it?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 5:16 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"So what? Whether it rains or not my brain carries on in blissful ignorance, constructing its virtual model of reality and adjusting it as needs be. From this process emerges the sensation of becoming wet."

What process ? Where does this process reside if not in the brain ? And isn't ths process the whole point ? What on earth makes you think this process doesn't go on in the brain ?

Isn't the "sensation of becoming wet" EXACTLY what brain processes produce ? And if this is what brain processes produce, then how can you conceivably say the brain carries on in ignorance of the rain ?

There is nothing to stop us referring to the brain in its functional and mental capacity : we are not tied to to a 3rd person description of it as just a physical object. The brain is not in ignorance of rain : if it were, so would we.

"The fact that there are Godlike observers outside of the entire system modelling environment/body/brain who see only zeros and ones is missing the point. "

The "Godlike" (I prefer to call them 'human') observers DONT see 0's and 1's : they see rain. Rain means something ; it is an intentional state. The visual imagery, the representation of rain creates thoughts in a human mind that are about a semantic concept called 'rain'. I use the word 'rain' here as intentional content. No amount of '0's and 1's create intentional content.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/18/2007 4:08 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'What process ? Where does this process reside if not in the brain ? And isn't ths process the whole point ? What on earth makes you think this process doesn't go on in the brain ?'

The process I am referring to is the process of information being fed to the brain, which it uses to construct the mind's model of reality. The point here is this: Is it REALLY raining, or is the brain merely being fed signals that it would receive if it WAS raining? The 'Godlike' intelligences feeding the signals to the brain are in a position to know it is not 'really' raining, just as a person standing over you during your REM period of sleep know you are not REALLY dancing in the rain with a pink gibbon. But so long as they do not wake you, from your subjective point of view you ARE dancing in the rain.

So, yes, I DO think this process goes on in the brain. But I am NOT absolutely sure that what I perceive to be 'real' actually corresponds to something that really really really DOES exist 'out there' beyond the only reality I have access to...the virtual reality model constructed by my brain.

'Isn't the "sensation of becoming wet" EXACTLY what brain processes produce ? And if this is what brain processes produce, then how can you conceivably say the brain carries on in ignorance of the rain ?'

No. The 'sensation of becoming wet' is what the MIND produces, which is an emergent property of The BRAIN, an appropriate set of sensors, and the environment. The BRAIN knows nothing of 'rain' because it is totally isolated from the real world by being encased in the skull. ALL it is in contact with is the information coming in through the input axons.

Again, if an artificial brain could be fed signals equivilent to the information it would receive if it WAS raining, then the SYSTEM the (the brain, its sensors, and the information) would build a subjective model in which a MIND believes it is raining, even though observers OUTSIDE of the system believe differently.

'The brain is not in ignorance of rain : if it were, so would we'.

This is wrong. See above.



Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/18/2007 7:06 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I think you stance is basically idealist and i;m not sure thats a helpful stance, and, as i think even idealists would agree, it certainly isnt optimistic.

I believe in an external world and that the mind has a relationship to it. As an idealist you obviously doubt the existence of an external world and think there are only mental events. You are prefectly entitled to this opninion but it isnt popular these days, largely because it doesnt allow us to move much further.

I agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain but that doesnt mean it is necessary to distinguish mind from brain, any more that it is necessary to distinguish, say the surface properties of a solid object with the solid itself. A brain has mental features and physical features - you might choose to call the mental features 'the mind' but it is perfectly possible to refer to the 'mind' as 'the brain', albeit in its capacity as a mental processor.

If you are saying the mind is a totally different thing from the brain, then that is dualism. I dont think that succeeds as a position to be frank.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/19/2007 6:22 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'If you are saying the mind is a totally different thing from the brain, then that is dualism. I dont think that succeeds as a position to be frank.'

This is pretty far from what I am saying, and if we argue long enough you will see (as I do already) that our positions are not as opposed as you think. Rather, they compliment each other very well.

Instead of us spending large amounts of time coming to this inevitable convergence, it would be quicker for you to read about it in the book 'Making Up the Mind: How The Brain Creates Our Mental World' by Chris Frith:)

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/19/2007 6:28 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'I believe in an external world and that the mind has a relationship to it. As an idealist you obviously doubt the existence of an external world and think there are only mental events.'

I do NOT doubt the existence of an external world.

I am merely UNSURE that my SUBJECTIVE awareness models that external world PRECISELY. In other words, that what I THINK is 'really the case' IS.

In actual fact, that book I recommended has many examples of instances where even healthy, perfectly normal brains MISREPRESENT reality, by modelling it the way it thinks it SHOULD be, not as it IS.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/19/2007 7:15 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I think if you believe in an external world and you believe that you are capable of distinguishing when the brain makes a mistake, this implies that you believe that the mental representation is largely true.

I'll bet a million dollars that you live your life on this basis with few setbacks. In fact you KNOW when your senses are deceiving you.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/19/2007 7:08 AM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I think you think we are in agreement but I think we're not. I dont believe that mental states are caused by computational states but by the brain which is a physical object which has the causal powers to create them.

Why ? because we know that mental states are subjective and have absolute form - by which I mean the appearance of red is arbitrary and qualitative. This is incompatible with a computational approach.

The other problem i see with computation is that there are no digital computers in nature - an observer is always required to understand the physical to logical mapping of the underlying architecture (i.e what physical characteristics represent the '0's and '1's. ). This has led some AI enthusisasts to postlate the existence of a 'brain within a brain', which i think is desperate.

I think mental states are emergent properties of neuronal activity, of a kind that is ultimately physical. We have an unfortunate vocabulary that distinguishes the physical from the mental at a phenomenelogical 3rd party level. I personally believe that subjective mental states are ultimately physical phenomena, but just cant be reduced to particulate activity.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/20/2007 4:51 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'I think you think we are in agreement but I think we're not. I dont believe that mental states are caused by computational states but by the brain which is a physical object which has the causal powers to create them.'

People wonder how far into the future you would have to travel to meet computers that can think. I do not know the answer to that, but I DO know that you only have to travel a few decades into the PAST to encounter computers that are capable of thinking.

That is because, in the past, the term 'computer' was applied to people whose job it was to perform calculations. Then we built machines whose job it was to perform calculations but these too were quite different to the computers we use today, at least in appearance.

Now, we have the emerging field of 'neuromorphic moddelling' in which functional brain scanning is used to study the way the brain processes information, and then build 'functionally equivilent' hardware/software. And we know they 'function equivilent' to the biological versions because we have connected artificial neurons with 'real' neurons in a hybrid biological-nonbiological network and gotten the same type of results as an all-biological net. Also, rats have had a portion of their hippocampus removed, and a chip neuromorphically modelled on that portion was implanted in their brains. It restored function with 90% accuracy.

So, we have neuromorphic models of some types of neurons and some brain regions. Therefore, it is not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that we could reverse engineer EVERY kind of neuron, model EVERY brain region (and maybe subsequent generations of chips will progress from 90% to 100% accuracy) and construct a COMPLETE artificial brain. This neuromorphically modelled brain processes information in a way that is functionally equivilient to a human's brain. Does that mean this 'computer' can 'think'?

'I personally believe that subjective mental states are ultimately physical phenomena, but just cant be reduced to particulate activity.'

Yes, we have a lot of arguments at MindX about what causes the phenomenon we call 'mind'. Some think the brain does. Some argue in favour of the body. Some point to the environment as the cause. I think the truth is that 'mind' does NOT exist in any of these candidates ALONE but is an emergent pattern that results between a flow of information exchanged amongst the ensemble. You CANNOT separate 'mind' from brain/body/environment and still retain it, just as you cannot separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms and still have 'water'. But that does not mean to say 'water' does not deserve to be thought of as a thing in and of itself. After all, it definitely has distinctive characteristics that cannot be reduced to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen which make it up. I think we can say the same thing of 'mind'. It does not exist separate to brain/body/environment but properties like qualia (which cannot be reduced to brain or body or environment) make it a thing in and of itself.

The interesting question, though is this: Given that the brain builds a MODEL of the self/body/environment emergent pattern we call 'mind' from the information flowing in on the input axons, and it is this MODEL of reality (including our sense of physicality and subjectivity) that is the only reality we actually KNOW, what happens if INFORMATION equivilent to the information a brain would recieve if it was in an actual environment were sent into its input axons, and we could read the outputs and adjust the simulation accordingly? In a very crude sense, we have performed this experiment already, because people have had the brain region responsible for recognising faces stimulated with electric current, and the people reported seeing faces....

'This has led some AI enthusisasts to postlate the existence of a 'brain within a brain', which i think is desperate.'

Yeah you can see infinite regress happening here. So a brain needs a brain within it to function as a brain? Why, that must mean that the brain in my brain needs a brain in ITS brain that has a brain in ITS brain...



Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/24/2007 4:13 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"This neuromorphically modelled brain processes information in a way that is functionally equivilient to a human's brain. Does that mean this 'computer' can 'think'? "

No. It runs a program that implements a representation of a brain. A representation of a thinking brain is different to an actual thinking brain in the same way that a duck is different to a painting of a duck.

I think you focus too much on perception and the senses. The 'model of reality' we have is not restricted to the senses- for one thing, we know our senses to be imperfect.

We have a 'model of reality' based largely on ideas, one if which is that, in general, the senses see things as they are. When we don't, we are aware of it.

But it makes no sense to say that we don't see a table, only an appearance of a table, for example. We see a table.

If we didn't believe this, we might as well go home and pretend we're the only people in the world.

In you example of the brain being triggered artificially by an external input,for example, the correct answer is that the patient doesnt see anything : he hallucinates.

We nonetheless have some agreement - although I think the mind emerges from neuronal and physiological behaviour, not 'information processing'.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/25/2007 5:35 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'It runs a program that implements a representation of a brain. A representation of a thinking brain is different to an actual thinking brain in the same way that a duck is different to a painting of a duck'.

A completely misleading analogy.

What I am describing is a working replica of a brain, that can perform the capabilities of the original. We have already demonstrated that we can build artificial neurons that process information like the 'real' thing, and by hooking both up in a biological-nonbiological network we have shown that 'real' neurons are quite happy to work with artificial ones as if they were 'one of them'. We have also demonstrated that we can reverse engineer a brain region and replicate its functionality. Again, this was verified by removing the portion of the brain responsible, and wiring in circuitry designed to do the job of the original.

So what I am talking about is not merely a 'program'. It is a physical device that does what a brain does. Your duck analogy is like asking 'can a picture of a stomach help digest a pizza', to which the answer is obviously no. But so what? That has very little to do with what I am describing. The PROPPER question to ask is 'can an artificial stomach, designed to perform the functions of a 'real' stomach, help digest a pizza'?

'In you example of the brain being triggered artificially by an external input,for example, the correct answer is that the patient doesnt see anything : he hallucinates'.

But is the patient AWARE that the information his mind is interpreting into a model of reality corresponds to a 'real' place? Put it this way, while you are dreaming, are you AWARE that your physical embodiment in the environment is the result purely of activity in the brain and has no correspondance to the 'real' environment in which you exist?

The answer is no. While you are asleep and dreaming, it IS your reality. So, for as long as the brain is being fed information equivilent to what it would receive if it were in the ACTUAL environment, and so long as the mind's states were monitored in order to update the information to correspond with what the model of reality predicts, how can there be any subjective awareness of the 'fact' that it is hallucination?

'But it makes no sense to say that we don't see a table, only an appearance of a table, for example. We see a table.'

Again, this misses the point. The brain is not in direct contact with the world. All it 'knows' (actually it does not 'know' anything but never mind) is the information it receives from the senses. The information it has at any given moment is used to predict what the next input of information will be. If the information corresponds to that which the senses would send if there really was a table, then as far as you are concerned there IS a table.

This is more than mere guessing. Actual experiments have been carried out in which patients have had certain areas of their brains stimulated with electric current, resulting in their experiencing hallucinations corresponding to the area being stimulated. So, for example, if the area being stimulated is the brain region responsible for recognising faces, the patient reports that s/he can see faces.

Now, before you jump on the fact that the patient 'knows it is an hallucination' that is only because the brain is receiving a lot of information from the environment, most of which does NOT agree with what that particular region is 'reporting'. But what if we could stimulate EVERY brain region that WOULD be stimulated if there really WAS a person standing in the room? How would the mind then be able to tell the difference between hallucination and reality?

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/25/2007 7:09 AM by extrasense

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

@@@ But what if we could stimulate EVERY brain region that WOULD be stimulated if there really WAS a person standing in the room? How would the mind then be able to tell the difference between hallucination and reality? @@@

E-A

It is rather dobtful, that you will ever understand the difference between a duck and a movie of it.

Why would not you assume today, that you are a simulation? And that your thoughts about the simulation, are induced? And that similators rig the simulation and induce them into you simulated brain?
You claim that there can not ever be proof to the contrary, so go ahead!

It would be a standard schisophrenic viewpoint, with only difference that "other people" would be substituted by computer-simulator.

It would be a standard religious viewpoint, with only difference that "God" would be substituted by computer-simulator. And you would have to wonder, what is the intent of computer-simulator etc.

What is the value of speculations like that?
There is NONE.

e:)S

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/26/2007 5:18 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Extrasense, the purpose of MindX is to discuss what we COULD do, given the known laws of physics. If you assume that there are physical processes underlying a human being's ability to enter fully-convincing environments (as sometimes happens in dreams), and that these physical processes can be reverse-engineered into technological tools that provide the same ability, you arrive at the perculiar scenarios I have underlined.

'What is the value of speculations like that?
There is NONE.'

Descartes saw some value in such speculations. And, judging by the fact that his philosophy continues to be reprinted and re-imagined many centuries after he died, I take that to mean his 'demon' continues to fascinate and vex people's minds to this day.

You know, I do wonder why you bothered with your reply, since it must have required some speculating on a subject aparrently not worth speculating on in the first place:)

Re: Debunking conscious machines?
posted on 06/27/2007 5:28 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

David Gelernter has written an essay, detailing why he believes conscious computers can never be built. Read it at http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18867/

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/27/2007 9:19 AM by extrasense

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

@@@ why you bothered with your reply, since it must have required some speculating on a subject aparrently not worth speculating on in the first place:) @@@

The scenarios that you talk about, are by no means realistic, they are 'speculations' as opposed to 'reasonong'.

They are rehashing the religious pseudo explanations in the new closes of technology.

The physical world has been proven to exist and to be not managed by any entity.

The only technically interesting issue is if a simulation, if created, will know whether it is simulation, how it will discover the fact, and if so, what its decision about it will be.

I guess it would vary.

es

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/29/2007 4:53 AM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

'The physical world has been proven to exist and to be not managed by any entity'.

I never said the physical world did not exist. You clearly misunderstand me. Just as you clearly misunderstand science's power of falsification. Trust me, it does not extend to disproving the existence of God.

'The scenarios that you talk about, are by no means realistic, they are 'speculations' as opposed to 'reasonong'.

Agreed, they are speculations. Jules Verne once wrote a story, speculating that people would one day transmit information all over the globe via 'boxes of light'. Was that realistic? Not according to his publisher, who refused to publish such wild speculation. This just goes to show that 'realistic' predictions are rather subjective and that what seems within the bounds of possibility to one person seem ridiculous to another.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/29/2007 5:37 PM by extrasense

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

@ 'realistic' predictions are rather subjective @

Is it right to equate genius of Wern with the curent primitive minds, in the prediction business?

es


Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/30/2007 8:04 PM by Extropia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Of course not. We might disagree on who exactly IS a nitwit...

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/04/2008 7:30 PM by wolfman141

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I'm a year behind and playing catch-up. I agree with the concept that mind is the emergent property that comes from brain, sensory input and environment. After all, that's how awareness emerged during evolution (if one is allowed to accept that "theory" as true!) This leads to an issue that I haven't seen much discussion of: once we upload a mind to a computer, how do we provide input that feels real? I believe we underestimate the processing that goes on in the nerve endings in fingers, arms, eyes, ears etc. The feeling of rain on one's skin takes in a number of separate but self-consistent inputs, including touch: impact, running drops tickling our scalp; temperature sensing, including the cooling effect of evaporation as well as the temp difference between the air and the water, plus the sensation of the water in contact with the skin warming as a result of that contact, etc. Not to mention the sound of rain falling and the vision of drops in the air, hitting the sidewalk and darkening it, the smell of all the things that rain brings, from stirring up dust to ozone. We discuss uploading as a hard problem in itself, which it is, but also hard and perhaps a different order of difficulty is simulating those inputs. Imagine if you were the uploaded mind, residing in a computer somewhere. Right now, we're able to supply vision and sound with cameras and microphones, but smell, taste and touch and the various other subtle inputs such as proprioception--the sense of how our body is positioned and moving, etc.--are beyond us. Any comments on this problem?

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 10:28 AM by Alex from Macedonia

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]


As you already feel, the concept of SEMANTICS is a PSYCHOLOGICAL ONE, not a mathematical/informatical/cybernetical one ;-))

Let me tell you THE REAL SITUATION, as a mathematician.

Mathematically, it DOESN'T MEAN whether you denote a symbol with B or C, neither whether the Java functions are f1, f2, f3... or Init, Check_Parameters, Print_Results... But it is very PSYCHOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT to humans to use semantic descriptors and comments, as our memory is very poor and after a while all of us FORGET that f2 was to stnad for Check_Paramaters.

So, can some "abstract symbols" have a kind of IMPLICIT SEMANTICS, i.e. the SYNTAX ITSELF to YIELD THE SEMANTICS? The mathematics is overwhelmed with such an examples, and below I will use one.


Assume that we have the right to CREATE SET with ANY elements we have. First of all, we have no elements, and thus we can only create the empty set '. Using it as an element, we can create an ONE ELEMENT SET {'}.

Furthermore, let's repeat this procedure: with each further step, create a set of the ALL PREVIOUSLY DEFINED SETS. So we get these sets, as results of that procedure (the first two are included in the beginning):

'
{'}
{',{'}}
{',{'},{',{'}}}
{',{'},{',{'}},{',{'},{',{'}}}} etc.

This is a SYNTACTICALLY CREATED MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE. Has it some kind of IMPLICATE SEMANTICS WITHIN ITSELF? YESSS!

First of all, using the concept of a SUBSET, we can always order the sets obtained. Also we can always define the concept of an IMMEDIATE SUCCESSOR of a particular set. Denote it with the operand #; so we have these equations:

'# = {'}
{'}# = {',{'}}
{',{'}}# = {',{'},{',{'}}} etc.

Replacing the left side sets with ' and an appropriate number of #s, we eventually get:

'# = {'}
'## = {',{'}}
'### = {',{'},{',{'}}} etc.

What is this structure? Is it know, under other "semantic" notation? Of course it is known; they're the NATURAL NUMBERS, denoted within the decade system as follows:

0 = '
1 = '# = {'}
2 = '## = {',{'}}
3 = '### = {',{'},{',{'}}}

Then, the relation IS A SUBSET OF has the semantic meaning IS SMALLER THAN, while the operand SUCCESSOR is the OPERATION +1.

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 2:03 PM by eldras

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Refreshing to read you Alex.

Yes symbolism is fundamental especially, maybe entirely for memory and manipulation.

I used Alchemedic symbols as I found the occult interesting, and much of mathematics, is premised or forerun by astrology and alchemy.

Set theory is the basis of computation.

Without it computing would, perhaps, be impossisble.

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 4:33 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

You are getting confused. The very idea of a set is semantic in itself. The very first thing you do is take some semantic - the idea of a set - and represent it with a symbol !

You then inject some rules to manipulate those symbols to create a structure. But the semantic is there from the outset.

Lets put it this way - without your explanation accompanying the development of the symbol sequence, your symbols themselves are completely meaningless. Which is my point - unless you know what the symbols are doing, what they are meant to represent, then all you are looking at is a string of ASCII sequences.

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 4:39 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

incidentally, the concept of semantics is a linguistic one, rather than psychological. it's not an unnecessary need, either - even hard nosed strong AI people like Daniel Dennett acknowledge that people think about things. Without semantic there can be no thought, as simple as that.

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 5:08 PM by LOkadin

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I am all knowing entity of the universe.

...


Whatever you tell me I can understand.


...

What is necessary to be intelligent?

Randomness + Symbols you understand.

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 5:08 PM by LOkadin

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

which is semantics + symbols

Re: Syntax vs. Semantics
posted on 06/15/2007 5:35 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

all knowing and understanding

nice to meet you, god.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/16/2007 8:24 PM by Gully Foyle

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

All these syntax vs. semantics arguments seem, to me, to be no different than the old chestnut, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

In a world of AIs, where humanity is extinct, do equations like F=ma and E=mc^2 have any meaning if there are no human scientists around to understand them? Are humans needed to create "real meaning," despite the presence of engineering marvels built by AIs, marvels that no human can even imagine today, but nonetheless can be only be built by understanding the meaning of such equations as F=ma and E=mc^2?

I think the notion that some HUMAN has to be around to make something "mean" something is ridiculous, just like the notion that someone needs to hear something for it to make a sound.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 06/17/2007 5:47 PM by jack d

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

But a sound is an idea that has meaning only to humans and other animals. In a possible world, for instance,in which animals had never existed with an audial sense, then the falling tree does not make a sound, as 'sound' has no meaning.

The meaning of sound cannot be identical to 'variation of pressure through a gaseous medium'. Sound means 'audible noise' and was in use long before the scientific theories as to its origin. In fact the scientific theory of sound was meant to explain the very idea of sound, so the meaning of 'sound' is prior to,and not the same as, its scientific theory.

Re: Live Forever--Uploading The Human Brain...Closer Than You Think
posted on 11/26/2007 10:53 PM by Aldune

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Wow old topic, well I'm sure by the time we get that advance in techology we'll be able to communicate with the other us by wireless technology.

No matter how many copies of us there is I'm sure that our quantum computers can keep up. In the near future I believe we will no longer be enslaved into a human body anymore. We will have multiple copy of ourselves in multiple places that can communicate with each other constantly.

If we wanted we could have us saved onto a home computer while having 2 sets of ourselves saved onto some form of robotics which would be out in the world do what we do, being in 3 different places at one time.

Not limited by having one of us in one place at one time.

Dreams are what humans are made of, we should not be forcing ourselves to fear.

Sorry this was kind of a mind to paper kind of writing so hopefully you all understand my points. :P