Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Human brain uploads possible by 2045 ?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#46    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:21 AM

View PostMindscanner, on 28 June 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

pretty amazing but scary at the same time, what if there are some harmful viruses occur which could distort all the data and finally vanished, no more memory, no more mobility functions ...what would happen then? can it be recovered? unless if there is any extra storage system built up, other wise will make us useless.

Not to worry, it's all wanna-be Frankensteinian sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. The human mind, with all the vagaries and nuances of self-consciousness, cannot be reduced to digitalia.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#47    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:43 AM

View PostMindscanner, on 28 June 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

pretty amazing but scary at the same time, what if there are some harmful viruses occur which could distort all the data and finally vanished, no more memory, no more mobility functions ...what would happen then? can it be recovered? unless if there is any extra storage system built up, other wise will make us useless.
This can also happen to your physical brain.


#48    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:45 AM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 28 June 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Not to worry, it's all wanna-be Frankensteinian sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. The human mind, with all the vagaries and nuances of self-consciousness, cannot be reduced to digitalia.
I see no reason except the problem of sentience, and even though we don't know how that is achieved, whatever happens would also happen in the transferred brain.  I think it may be that people here still think we have a soul lurking in there somewhere and it might get left behind.


#49    Cherrypress

Cherrypress

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:By the southern seas of England

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:19 PM

I accept the concept of mind uploading as a perfectly natural part of our evolutionary process... Allowing us to transcend the limitations of our biological bodies.
If you accept that what constitutes as our personalities and characters are nothing more then a complex map of synapses and neurons firing of and responding to external stimuli.  And NOT some funky spirit sent down from the fairy in the sky to posses our bodies...
Then bring it on I say!


#50    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:25 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 28 June 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I see no reason except the problem of sentience, and even though we don't know how that is achieved, whatever happens would also happen in the transferred brain.  I think it may be that people here still think we have a soul lurking in there somewhere and it might get left behind.

Frank, can you tell me why it is certain ("whatever happens would also happen in the transferred brain") that sentience, even though "we don't know how that is achieved." would "transfer?" This statement assumes we "know it would happen even though we don't know what it is," and implies every cognitive function is reducible to electronic harnessing.

I have seen no evidence of this. Can you point me in some direction(s)?

I'm not worried about "the soul," although I am not disdainful of the concept. Linguistically speaking, inexplicable sentience is no more or less ephemeral than the idea of a soul.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#51    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:42 PM

View PostCherrypress, on 28 June 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

I accept the concept of mind uploading as a perfectly natural part of our evolutionary process... Allowing us to transcend the limitations of our biological bodies.
If you accept that what constitutes as our personalities and characters are nothing more then a complex map of synapses and neurons firing of and responding to external stimuli.  And NOT some funky spirit sent down from the fairy in the sky to posses our bodies...
Then bring it on I say!

Welcome to UM, Cherrypress, and don't be dissuaded by opinionated people here, myself included. That being said:

Your dismissive reference to "some funky spirit" suggests an underdeveloped sense of the wholistic nature of the human being. Your scientific reductionism (". . .nothing more than a complex map of synapses and neurons. . .") is comparable to the intelligentsia of medieval Europe warning against sailing the Atlantic because one would eventually sail off the edge into the Abyss. That was state-of-the art science circa 811 AD. Just because something hasn't been quantified and catalogued yet means nothing about its reality.

And the following is a faith/rhetorical statement, not literal or scientific: When you're in your box full of chips, wires and electricity, I'll be flying high (mystically, not spatially or geographically) untethered from this material world. (A pipe-dream, perhaps, but we all have our faults.)

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#52    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:14 PM

We know that we and a lot of animals experience the world rather than sense it.  That is, we "experience" the qualia (sensations and emotions) as a sortof interface between our minds and what our brains are telling us is happening, even thought these sensations are not part of the real world but generated somewhere in our brains or our minds.  Neurologists generally ignore this fundamental problem and concentrate on how the signal gets processed in the brain, I think mainly because they have no idea of even how to approach it.

Mind is a process, probably of brain, maybe of other things too, comparable to a wave or an electromagnetic signal (where the electric wave generates a magnetic wave which generates an electric wave etc.).  One of the things constantly influencing where it goes are sensations, these qualia, that we experience internally.  That we have no idea how this happens is cited as reason to think it can't be duplicated in machines.  I think we evolved with this, maybe tapping into some Tao or something, maybe (perhaps much more likely) via a phenomena we need some insight about that hasn't occured yet to anyone, but we did it naturally in our evolution, so it stands to reason that if we imitate what nature did we will get the same sort of result, although we won't understand it.


#53    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:04 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 28 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

We know that we and a lot of animals experience the world rather than sense it.  That is, we "experience" the qualia (sensations and emotions) as a sortof interface between our minds and what our brains are telling us is happening, even thought these sensations are not part of the real world but generated somewhere in our brains or our minds.  Neurologists generally ignore this fundamental problem and concentrate on how the signal gets processed in the brain, I think mainly because they have no idea of even how to approach it.

Mind is a process, probably of brain, maybe of other things too, comparable to a wave or an electromagnetic signal (where the electric wave generates a magnetic wave which generates an electric wave etc.).  One of the things constantly influencing where it goes are sensations, these qualia, that we experience internally.  That we have no idea how this happens is cited as reason to think it can't be duplicated in machines.  I think we evolved with this, maybe tapping into some Tao or something, maybe (perhaps much more likely) via a phenomena we need some insight about that hasn't occured yet to anyone, but we did it naturally in our evolution, so it stands to reason that if we imitate what nature did we will get the same sort of result, although we won't understand it.

But if this evolved ability to experience these qualia is a natural part of us, but not identifiable, quantifiable nor as of yet accessible to our senses (the ability, not the qualia per se), how are we convinced that it is recordable in digital form and containable in a box of wires and circuitry? I don't get the leap. Your use of the word 'Tao' (roughly, "The Way," a term Jesus and subsequent Christians appropriated) is again an ephemeral descryptid (eluding description) and we have no reason to assume such a concept is transferable or even locatable.

I appreciate your explanatory offering, but I still think it begs the question of: How does the Tao get in the box? (or, dare I say it, how to insert the 'ghost into the machine?'). More simply: How does the indefinable get defined within physicality/materiality?

Literature--and much science itself--is a warning against the hubris that believes we can imitate nature. My references to Frankenstein aren't cheeky or sarcastic, but reminders that there's a whole history of scientific ambiguity to account for (from splitting the atom to premature deaths among cloned creatures).

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#54    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:24 PM

The Tao gets there because its everywhere.

I don't want to be glib but that is about all I can say.  If it works in animals and people it should work in machines that achieve the same things.


#55    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,047 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 28 June 2013 - 04:39 PM

I'm wondering just how the brain is going to be uploaded into a computer. Well, the mind. What's the technology?

The brain performs many functions separate from mind or consciousness. Does the mind require a biological body to be healthy? A mind floating around in a computer without its body I think would become disoriented.

This computer mind would also have to recieve signals from the outside world. The computer would have to recreate all the five senses and be connected in some way to that mind.

Perhaps just the realization of that mind that it is computerized would be a traumatic experience for it.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#56    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,259 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 29 June 2013 - 07:36 AM

View Postozman, on 22 June 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

There is no such thing as uploading your brain to a computer.  A computer doesn't know or will most likely never be able to scan the memories information feelings and everything in the brain onto a computer.  The human brain is too complex for a computer to be able to scan.  An MRI can detect activity in certain areas but can't actually know what information is stored there or what memories are currently being accessed by the brain.
As a person that works on R&D projects at Intel, I can say that for the next several decades there is no fear of computer processing power multiplication slowing down. We're already working on stuff 2 generations of processors ahead of what is on the market. By 2045 (30+ years) you can expect computing power to be about a quarter of a million times faster then today's best computer. Soooo..... Given enough memory (And Intel is working to improve that at the same pace), it is not unreasonable to imagine that a complete and virtual brain, full of virtual connections and activity potential, dendrites and all.... could be simulated, given the right imaging technology.

The computer end of this is NOT going to be a problem. It is the imaging that I imagine would be hard to produce.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#57    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,259 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 29 June 2013 - 07:41 AM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 28 June 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Perhaps just the realization of that mind that it is computerized would be a traumatic experience for it.

Very, very likely. It would not surprise me if only a small faction of these virtual minds were created and did not go immediately insane....

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#58    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 29 June 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

As a person that works on R&D projects at Intel, I can say that for the next several decades there is no fear of computer processing power multiplication slowing down. We're already working on stuff 2 generations of processors ahead of what is on the market. By 2045 (30+ years) you can expect computing power to be about a quarter of a million times faster then today's best computer. Soooo..... Given enough memory (And Intel is working to improve that at the same pace), it is not unreasonable to imagine that a complete and virtual brain, full of virtual connections and activity potential, dendrites and all.... could be simulated, given the right imaging technology.

The computer end of this is NOT going to be a problem. It is the imaging that I imagine would be hard to produce.

Yes, and one cannot image an immaterial reality such as self-consciousness, much less digitalize it.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#59    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:11 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 28 June 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

The Tao gets there because its everywhere.

I don't want to be glib but that is about all I can say.  If it works in animals and people it should work in machines that achieve the same things.

But that is exactly the fallacy: Animals, machines and humans are not equivalencies, and never will be.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#60    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:31 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 29 June 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

But that is exactly the fallacy: Animals, machines and humans are not equivalencies, and never will be.
How do you know?  Animals and humans both share sentience.  Humans may have more than just sentience, or our special characteristics may just be another form of sentience.  I don't think increasing computer power is going to make thinking machines.  The hype of AI has passed and its promises fell flat.  Some different paradigm will be needed to get sentient computers.  My only point in this is that we don't need to understand sentience to make it artificially.  Natural selection "understands" nothing, but it made it.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users