[MURG] A repost - some questions

Tue Sep 16 22:59:25 EST 2003

 Hi there,
I am one of the strong believers in uploading the mind
from the brain into a non organic system. Here I have
a few questions to those of you competent in
neuroscience:
What do we know about the activities of the brain
surface - the cortex?
Can we observe a consistent relationship between what
we consciously experience including thinking and the
activity of the cortex?
If so then I don't think that it is necessary to
connect electrodes to every brain cell aside from the
fact  that this would dramatically alter or destroy
the brain.
I think there must be a less invasive way. I visualize
a mesh of densely set electrodes placed like a beret
on the cortex without damaging the cells in contact.
Such a device would actually touch some 30% of the
brain surface because the rest is hidden inside the
folds, but this might be sufficient. Now we could read
what happens on the cortex during specific activities.
We can determine for instance when the subject thinks
about a cat - does a thought about a cat cause a
specific activity? If so then observing that
particular activity to occur we can know that the
subject thinks about the cat. This way we can perhaps
create a cortex dictionary. The mentioned mesh would
work two ways - both receive and send signals to the
brain cells. Suppose the "cat" activity is recorded
and now it can be reversed. The mesh sends the "cat"
pattern onto the cortex. If the "cat" comes to the
conscious mind at that moment we could claim that
intimate communication between the computer and the
brain takes place. Subsequent mind uploading would be
accomplished gradually piece by piece which in my
opinion would take anywhere from one to ten years.
Anyone knows some good links on research regarding
cortex activity?

Kind Regards,
Thomas Weber

--- "Joseph J. Strout" <joe at strout.net> wrote: > At
5:32 PM -0500 9/16/03, Joseph M. Graham Jr.
> wrote:
> 
> >There has been an idea around for some time that
> the
> >complete contents of a human brain could somehow be
> >"downloaded" into a computerlike device, then to
> either
> >be "uploaded" into another brain or to be run as a
> >simulation by the computer directly - an electronic
> >"you" in a cyber-universe or "android" body.
> 
> Actually, the standard terminology here is that
> copying the brain 
> into an artificial device is "uploading" (not
> "downloading").  We can 
> go into the nuances if you like.
> 
> >The main frustration to this goal is that our brain
> >tissues are not constructed in a way that makes it
> >easy to deduce their functional parameters in high
> >detail.
> 
> True, I believe that serial sectioning is the only
> approach that will work.
> 
> >  Indeed, the electrochemical nature of a
> >nerve impulse gives very little signal to detect
> >by any means other than the direct insertion of
> >an electrode into discrete nerve cells. Getting
> >nerves to respond to induced signals is also very
> >difficult - again the only viable solution is to
> >directly insert an electrode.
> 
> No, electrodes are irrelevant to uploading.  We need
> to capture the 
> complete structure of the brain; electrodes disrupt
> structure rather 
> that capture it.
> 
> >It is obviously not going to be possible to stick
> >an electrode into each and every cell in the brain
> >at the same time so we can record the minds
> >functional parameters, much less to input new
> >information.
> 
> Quite so.
> 
> >  Some have suggested freezing brains
> >and then taking them down molecular layer by
> >molecular layer so we can find the telltale signs
> >of synapse weights and connections. Yucky, to
> >say the least.
> 
> Open heart surgery is yucky too.  And yet this is
> how it'll be done.
> 
> >Instead of trying to "scan" synapses and neural
> >activity, let's think about having the nerve itself
> >play the tattletale. Can an organic chemical be
> >fabricated which will lodge inside neurons, or
> >be placed there indirectly via a retrovirus, which
> >will momentarily change physical shape or even
> >give off a high-frequency electromagnetic signal
> >when when the cell membrane depolarizes ???
> 
> This is a variation on an old idea (it must be,
> since it's on the 
> mind uploading home page, which I haven't updated in
> ages! -- see 
> <http://sunsite.unc.edu/jstrout/uploading>).  A neat
> variation, I'll 
> admit.  It doesn't sound very plausible to me,
> though...
> 
> >In the case of a spontaneous gigahertz radio
> >transmission, we could then very easily listen
> >to each nerve chatter away with conventional
> >radio receiving apparatus.
> 
> But there's no reason to think that listening to the
> neural chatter 
> would in any way help us to construct a functional
> duplicate of the 
> brain.
> 
> >As for "uploading" ... a vital element in any
> >future human/machine interfacing ... we can
> >revisit the idea of inserting engineered
> >"antennas" into the nerve membranes which,
> >when hit with an appropriate external RF signal
> >will cause the nerve to fire off.
> 
> I don't follow you here.
> 
> >Anyway ... if the brain exhibits low compatibility
> >with our data and engineering technology, let's
> >think about ways to change the brain at the
> cellular
> >level to make it more compatible.
> 
> It's pretty compatible already.  The main advances
> needed are MEMS 
> devices to automate the sectioning and scanning,
> while minimizing 
> damage (i.e. information loss) due to the sectioning
> and scanning 
> process.
> 
> >  What I have
> >suggested is much more readily within our immediate
> >capabilities than, say, nano-machines or scanners
> >which can easily determine the disposition of every
> >atom in a brain.
> 
> First, you don't need to know about every atom in
> the brain.  My 
> estimate is that resolution of 10 nm or so will do
> just fine (though 
> that's a question that needs more research in the
> future).  Second, 
> you don't need nano-machines either.  Ordinary MEMS
> (microtechnology) 
> will do just fine.
> 
> >  We don't really HAVE to know the
> >disposition of every brain atom in order to
> "download"
> >the person, but we do need to know the connection
> >diagrams, synapse weightings and chemoreceptor
> >responses of each discrete neuron.
> 
> Right.  Now you've got it.
> 
> >The computing power to run a gross simulation of a
> >living brain is promised within 30-50 years - which
> >likely means 15-20 years.
> 
> If you're an optimist, I suppose.  Or it might mean
> 60-100 years.  :)
> 
> >Wouldn't it be nice to trade a worn-out old body
> for a fresh new one ?
> >You only have to get "you" from one skull into the
> other ...
> 
> Yes, that's why we're all here.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Joe
> 
> -- 
>
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
> |    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