[MURG] new Road Map draft

[cat13 at illrepute.org]

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

> From: cat13 at illrepute.org
> >> Devil is in the details... Is it possible to have a complete
> >> gradual replacement using such a portable device? I'm
> >> afraid if you got hundreds of millions of wires this is
> >> not practical... With things like artificial eyes that would
> >> be OK.
> >
> >Hrm.
> >You might need some sort of bus within the skull, but I'm
> >still willing to argue that, IF you replace bits going from
> >the cortex, inward, then it might still be possible.
> 
> My point is that you'll have a lot of wires going between
> the brain and the *external* computer. And that computer
> is going to be quite big at first -- think about a Beowolf
> cluster. How can you do the complete replacement without
> massive wiring between brain and computer?

Pardon - when I said "bus" I meant "multiplexing bus", which
would take the myriad wires within the skull and turn the information
into myriad signals going down a smaller number of wires leaving the
skull.

> >> >can access one area, perfect and miniaturize our interface
> >> >with that, then hit the next area, and so forth.  I'm
> >> >suggesting that perhaps, by the time we know how to
> >> >interface with any one of those multiple areas, we will
> >> >have progressed so that we are able to get around the
> >> >physical limitations.
> 
> Why should each area be treated differently? The general
> method might be the same, especially if we use a robot.

Different areas of the brain work differently, no?  Sure, they all
have neurons and synapses and encode information in those low-level
pieces, but the ways in which they encode information and the ways
in which they function vary from area to area - no?
So, tin order to create a whole-brain interface, we'd need lots of
separate interfaces to communicate with each of those different
areas, each of which would have to be developed separately.
Sure, connecting electrodes to each of the areas might use the same
process, but interpreting the information from those electrodes
would differ.

> The cortex should best be interfaced with a robot. The task
> of sorting out all the brain areas, mapping them to sulcus/gyrus
> etc, is too tedious for any human. Also, there're a lot of
> individual variations in brain mapping.

I'm starting to think that you're talking about a completed
uploading technology, and I'm talking about how to get there.

Here's what I was envisioning: the human race develops an
understanding of, say, the visual cortex, and that understanding
is strong enough that we can replace the visual cortex with
something that works even better.  A bunch of people get this
operation done.  Then, since the organic visual cortex is
unnecessary, we have a decent number of test subjects without one,
and we improve out understanding of the subcortical area,
replace IT, and so forth, continually digging deeper until
the entire brain, in each of its parts, can be replaced.

I'm getting the impression that you were envisioning, on the
other hand, the day when we already understand all of those areas,
and you were talking about how to replace all of the parts of the
brain in a relatively small number of operations (perhaps just
one) in a relatively short amount of time.

> IF there'll be massive wiring between brain and computer,
> then the person must be immobile for a LONG period. That's
> why I say the brain support system may be a better
> solution. Afterall, the biological body will be discarded after
> uploading.

a) why must the person be immobile if the wires aren't physically
attached to the computer?
b) the biological body won't necessarily be discarded after
uploading