[MURG] Brain Emulation

[Thomas Weber]

> >
> >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. 
Thomas: I agree that they are not really inventing
anything new, but make it bigger. In this case it may
mean better as more specialized functions can be
accomodated. 

 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: It will be a matter of time. All inventions
are at first of limited access and then they leak out.

> 
> >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.
Thomas: Exactly!

  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.
Thomas: In my view having a child is a perfect example
of partial mind uploading... I know it doesn't cover
the entire *me*, but a part of it survives. What is
lost in this example is the continuity if the
individual *me*. The child is grown and we still die.
Breeding chickens is not a good example, but making
computer programs is. Our intellectual property is a
part of our minds. I perceive all memetic creation as
partial uploading. Mozart is gone, but his music is
not. His music was a part of his mind and as it
prevails it can be argued that partial mind uploading
took place.
> 
> >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.

Thomas: As we have observed some time ago mind
uploading will be a very private experience and we may
have to be self descriptive discussing it.
As for me I am willing to compromise. We don't have a
century to wait for the whole thing. I agree with you
that your version may be feasible in 50 - 100 years,
but by selecting this option don't you cut your
chances down? I try to  figure out what we can do NOW.
Realizing that my chances to keep the whole *me* are
very slim (I am 42 now) I consider "selective mind
uploading". What I mean by that is that I would like
these parts of *me* to survive which will have value
to the future generations. I doubt they will have any
interest in Thomas Weber, but I believe they may be
interested in my creative work.
> 
> >  > What sort of communication?
> >Thomas: Essentially same kind of communication that
> >takes place 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.
Thomas: Some time ago I wrote suggesting that mind
uploading may have to be conducted from within. I
envision electrodes implanted at various locations
inside the brain. Based on our activities we can find
which electrodes receive signals and so map out the
brain compartments. Concentrating on one skill at the
time we may try to improve it by inducing the earlier
mentioned communication between the compartments of
the brain and the assigned components of of the C
Cortex. This may be complicated and difficult which is
why I see it as a 10 year project. Both the brain and
the C Cortex would learn to communicate with each
other. The danger of the experiment I see in possible
confusion and incoherent flow of information. This can
possibly create psychotic and halucinatory experiences
and in the worst case cause insanity.

> 
> >  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.
Thomas: I will defend my analogy. The brain has
evolved to operate computers. The computer I am
writing on now I perceive as an extention to my brain.
The retina of my eyes optically interacts with the
computer screen and the brain perceives the movements
of my fingers on the key board just like in the case
of using the hammer. Coupled with the computer my
brain can greatly improve it's memory, comparting,
ability to communicate with other brains, etc. In case
of a C Cortex extention similiar operation would be in
place except the brain would learn to create it's own
keyboard, mouse and screen inside. We are talking
intimate computer - brain interaction. Experiments
like this are under way.
> 
> >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: Of course there is more to it, but as I say
this is my own inside my head perception: An important
aspect of the brain work lies in the interplay of the
three dimmentional brain tissue and the two
dimmentional cortex. One would be worthless without
the other. 
> 
> >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.
Thomas: No you would not be deaf, blind and numb to
the real world. A this stage the brain would receive
information via cameras, microphones and sensors. In
the final stage I imagine it would feel for the mind
like living in a two room house and simply moving to
the bigger, nicer room. 
> 
> >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. 
Thomas: Again I see this as the difference in our
visions. You seem to be more body oriented, I see mind
uploading as an opportunity for a human to become a
machine. The machine will not kill the human. The
human will become a machine and simply drop the old
body on the way.

 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.
Thomas: The machine's mind will be highly improved
human mind and will carry the chosen memories,
personality traits, etc. All mental characteristics
can be conserved, consciously dropped and up designed.
One problem that I see is that the machine will no
longer be human. It will be post human. This raises
questions regarding emotional attitudes toward humans.
As machines are we going to love our human time  loved
ones? Will they love us or will they freak out? Or
will we with our highly enhanced emotions love other
machines?

  Much faster and cheaper to just
> build a robot, sign 
> over all your earthly possessions to it, and have it
> shoot you.
> Thomas: That would still constitute partial
uploading. 

> 
> -- 
>
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
> |    Joseph J. Strout         Check out the Mac Web
> Directory:     |
> |    joe at strout.net          
> http://www.macwebdir.com/            |
>
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MURG mailing list
> MURG at minduploading.org
> http://minduploading.org/mailman/listinfo/murg 

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca