[MURG] Cortex activity

[Thomas Weber]

Hi MURG, Hi Joe,

Thomas:
 If 
> the
> >brain is the hardware - the mind is the software -
> the
> >flow of information.
> Joe:
> Something like that.  I see the mind as a process
> which is the result 
> of the brain's operation, just like the result of
> the operation of a 
> CD player may be music.
> Thomas:
Agreeing on that we can copy the music without having
to worry about affecting the molecular structure of
the disc. We end up with two discs and to have one
only we would have to "kill" the first one. Same issue
will arise in the accepted here vision of MU.
We either end up with two identical minds, or the
original will have to be ?killed?.

> >Images of eye viewed objects can be observed on the
> >occipital cortex. Could similiar images be observed
> if
> >the person imagines - thinks of the object?
> Joe:
> In theory, we think imagination goes all the way
> back to visual 
> cortex, but the activity there is extremely weak.
Thomas: As far as I have learned the cortex is made of
six layers. This suggests to me that the vision input
is displayed on the top one and what we recall -
imagine is displayed on the deeper layers - hence the
weaker activity. This arrangement helps us distinguish
between what we actually see, and what we imagine.
Hallucinations may be effect of that separation
failing.
Joe: 
> During dreaming, 
> when external inputs are surpressed at the thalamus,
> then the 
> resulting activity in visual cortex is probably much
> stronger.  But I 
> don't think anyone has come up with a way to confirm
> this 
> experimentally.  I certainly can't think of one.
> Thomas:
When we dream the cortex activity is less controlled
and therefore the upper layer becomes vacant for
inputs not originating from the eyes. The proposed
mesh would be a way to experimentally confirm it.

> >If so then it would be possible to communicate our
> >thoughts to a computer system  via the electrode
> mesh
> >placed like a beret over the cortex.
> Joe:
> For a suitably crude definition of "thoughts"
> perhaps.
> Thomas: "Crude" would be a good beginning

> >What would be the advantage of such communication
> as
> >far as MU is concerned? The information would flow
> >thought by thought from the brain to the computer.
> >As the computer processes the information it can be
> >fed back to the brain. Eventually the brain and the
> >computer would learn to communicate coherently at
> an
> >intimate level.
> Joe:
> That's assuming a lot.  Probably it's true to some
> degree, just as by 
> learning to read and type I can communicate
> semi-coherently with the 
> computer now.  But this doesn't have much to do with
> uplooading.
Thomas:
Yes it does. Your expressed opinions and your
knowledge is definitely a part of your mind. As you
have typed them here you have uploaded a tiny bit of
your mind. OK I agree not enough to brag about, but
nevertheless.....
> 
> >  The mind would operate at an enhanced
> >efficiency in a binary system made of the brain and
> >the computer. The computer would gradually take
> over
> >and..... the mind is uploaded.
> Joe:
> No.  I don't understand why this fallacy is so
> attractive lately. 
> What you have described is just a slow, drawn-out
> way to kill a 
> patient.  Much faster to just shoot him.  The things
> that define the 
> patient's identity -- his memories, personality
> traits, hopes, fears, 
> loves, hates, skills, etc. -- these exist in the
> structures of the 
> brain (and not just the cortex, which is a tiny
> fraction of the 
> brain!).  No amount of "communicating" with the
> brain is going to 
> even scratch the surface of all that.  When the
> brain is destroyed, 
> all that identity just goes down the drain, and the
> patient dies, no 
> matter how much he's gotten used to having a
> computer peripheral.
> Thomas: Here I suggest another analogy: suppose the
cortex is the librarian (a tiny part of the
library)and the brain tissue is the library where the
information is stored. The librarian with some books
in hand is the "conscious" and books on shelfs is the
"subconscious". A way to upload the library mind would
be to ask the librarian to bring one book at the time
until the shelves are empty.
Talking of our personality traits: dreams, loves,
fears, memories etc. are really only there when we
conscioiusly think about them one at the time. For the
rest of the time they are stored on shelves inside the
brain. If only sufficient amount of information is
communicated - uploaded to the non organic system all
these personality traits will be uploaded too.
Joe:
> Mind uploading is the process of creating a
> functional duplicate of 
> the brain.  To do that, you have to capture the
> ultrastructure of the 
> brain.  Nothing else will do.
> Thomas: Coming back to our disc. The contained music
can re-recorded from the dics to eg. a tape.
I that case we don't need to bother about the
ultrastructure of the disc as long as the quality of
the music is there. That music will convey love,
dreams, etc.
I disagree that "nothing else will do". I see your
vision as one way to go and respect it. As far as the
research is concerned I think it would be wise if we
try to organize camps to explore different concepts.
Mind uploading is a very pioneer undertaking into a
very virgin teritory. I think it is just to early to
be certain about what will work and what will not.

Kind Regards,
Thomas Weber
> -- 
>
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
> |    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