[MURG] new Road Map draft

[cat13 at illrepute.org]

"king-yin yan" <y.k.y at lycos.com> writes:

> >-The visual representation of information in this diagram seems disorganized to
> > me, but maybe it's just me.
> 
> It's not you, roadmap 3.1 was bad for many reasons. In v3.3 I've
> made things much simpler and tried not to speculate on things I
> have insufficient knowledge of.

This version is a vast improvement.  It's clear and intuitive.  I also
like the fact that I can fit it on one screen (which I couldn't with my
own versions).

> >-This is listed as v3.1 of the roadmap.  What was v3.0?
> 
> V3.0 contained a few mistakes so I deleted it from the site. I prefer
> keeping the current version only, is that OK?

That's fine.  I recommend keeping older versions for your own records, but
you certainly don't need to publicize them.

> There're some BCI implants that don't last very long, for various reasons
> such as chemical reactions at the electrode surface, or immuno-rejection,
> etc. Chronic means the opposite of that, meaning long-term stability of
> the BCI implant.

Would non-chronic implants still be useful to us?

> >-Why could more invasive and damaging techniques be considered if replacement
> > occurs over the span of a year?
>
> How long the complete replacement will take place will depend on
> the status of several technologies, as shown on the roadmap.

What I'm really wondering is, why could more invasive and damaging techniques
ever be considered, over whatever time period?  What about the 1-year time
period allows us to consider more invasive and damaging techniques?

> >-Why does memory extraction necessitate bi-directional communication?  Are you
> > thinking of trying to stimulate the brain to evoke all memories, and then read
> > them out?  But how would you know whether or not you've gotten all of them?
> > and if the materialist philosophy is correct, then memories must somehow be
> > encoded in the brain's physical makeup, so as long as you duplicate the brain's
> > physical makeup you will automatically have the memories.  *Interpreting* the
> > brain's physical makeup - trying to figure out WHICH information is important -
> > leads to complications, and should be avoided whereever possible; so we don't
> > want to "read out" the memories from the brain, we want to read out the physical
> > structure from the brain.  We want to mindlessly (no pun intended) record all
> > possible information about the lower level of the physical, not go into the
> > higher level of interpretation.
>
> We don't have a thousand years to read out all that info. If we have an
> understanding of how relevant information is stored in the brain then we
> can achieve MU much sooner.

So you are concerned solely with memory extraction?

> >-Is the "Moravec procedure" really required for gradual replacement?
>
> By "Moravec robot" (sorry I conned many terms) I mean a neurosurgical
> robot that implants electrodes to the brain. I think this is essentially the
> same as the so-called Moravec procedure, except that my version doesn't
> require nanotech. I think using a robot is actually MUCH *neater* than
> doing the replacement in bigger chunks. Also a lot of surgeries will wear
> out any human neurosurgeon.

All right; now that I understand what you mean by "Moravec robot," you've
convinced me.

No further reponses to any of your other comments.

Had to upgrade Dia to view your new diagram, and now can't read my old one;
once I get that resolved I'll give comments on the actual drawing itself.