[MURG] Brain Emulation

[Joseph J. Strout]

At 4:30 PM -0400 9/11/03, Thomas Weber wrote:

>  > I admire what they're trying to
>  > do; I just doubt
>  > that they can make any money doing it.
>
>Thomas: Even if they don't make money they will
>contribute to the progress. Once a system is invented
>it cannot be un - invented. Another company will take
>the idea over and so it goes.

But they're not really inventing anything as far as I can tell.  Many 
other groups have built big neural networks before -- none as big as 
this, perhaps, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.  It's too 
soon to see if they'll actually invent something useful, and if they 
do, whether they'll allow this intellectual property to fall into 
other hands after they go under.

>Thomas: Some time ago I have submitted a short essay
>on the subject of "Defining the sense of self and
>personal identity". I tried to suggest that the mind
>is a process. That information process takes place in
>the brain. The brain accomodates the process, but the
>brain is not the mind.

True, there is a useful distinction, similar to that between hardware 
and software.  The mind is the result of the brain's operation; the 
brain is the substrate which creates the mind.

>  The mind can as well be accomodated in microchips.

Well, not in current microchips by a long shot, but in some future 
derivative of microchips, sure -- that's assumption is why we're all 
here.

>  As for creating a new mind - why not?

Because that could be done a lot more cheaply by having a child (or 
breeding chickens, or making computer programs that play chess, 
etc.).  These are all fine things to do, but they don't result in 
personal survival.

>As for *me* survive - if *me* is a
>thought process and the process is upheld then yes
>*me* will survive.

There is a germ of truth in that argument, I think.  But not enough 
for me.  I want the whole thing: I want to survive, exactly as I am, 
though in a more durable body.  I believe this is achievable in the 
next century or so.

>  > What sort of communication?
>Thomas: Essentially same kind of communication that
>takes pace between different parts of the brain.

That's just hand-waving.  Millions of different kinds of 
communication take place between different parts of the brain.  The 
brain is not some sort of general processing tissue; it is highly 
specialized and compartmentalized.  Every connection has a specific 
meaning.  You can't just add more connections to some alien device 
and expect the brain to develop new functionality to accomodate them. 
Instead, how these connections would be perceived depends on exactly 
how and where you hook them in.

>  In this scenario the C Cortex makes an extention to the
>brain just like a hammer is an extention to the hand.

That's a false analogy.  The hand has evolved to manipulate objects 
(such as hammers), and the brain has evolved to perceive the hand 
doing it.  But the brain has not evolved to directly interface with 
artificial machines.  There is no reason to think that would work, 
except in a very limited fashion through existing sensorimotor 
channels.

>I envision some millions of microelectrodes
>registering the activity of the cortex. In my own
>perception the cortex works just like the computer
>screen. The conscious thoughts are "displayed" on the
>screen. I will stop here as my interest in MU is more
>psychological and I am not a neuro scientist.

OK, but for what it's worth (though I'm not a neuroscientist any more 
either), I don't think your vision is an accurate reflection of 
reality.  But I guess time will tell.

>Thomas: It would start very gradually and eventually
>all senses would be over ridden.

Well that would make it very hard to get around, wouldn't it?  You'd 
be able to see and hear the firings of some machine, but you'd be 
deaf, blind, and numb to the real world.  This doesn't sound 
appealing to me.

>As I write this I envision a two body cyborg. It is a
>pair of a human and his machine in a perfect intimate
>harmony. The machine would carry an extention to the
>human mind. Eventually the cyborg by getting rid of
>the biological component will become 100% machine with
>an uploaded post human mind.

To me, this is just a very slow way for the machine to kill the 
human.  The machine will not have gained any of the memories, 
personality traits, and other identifying characteristics of the 
human; nothing of the human will have survived at the point where the 
human is killed.  Much faster and cheaper to just build a robot, sign 
over all your earthly possessions to it, and have it shoot you.

Cheers,
- Joe

-- 
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout         Check out the Mac Web Directory:     |
|    joe at strout.net           http://www.macwebdir.com/            |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'