[MURG] Cortex activity

[Thomas Weber]

Hi MURG, Hi Eric,
> 
>Eric: 
> I know what you mean by saying computers are
> superior, but I don't think it's accurate.. my brain
> doesn't crash and lose all its information when a
> neuron dies and my brain doesn't corrupt information
> when I wear my magentic helmet
> 
Thomas: Brains don't crash exactly the way computer
programs do, but when overwhelmed minds go irrational.
In that case it is not loss of all information, but
priorities, goals, etc. go all mixed up. The most
tragic example is when the person becomes dangerous to
others or self destructive.

Eric:
> if you store memories in a computer the same way
> they're stored in a brain, they won't be easily
> accessible at all.. neuronal activity will be
> directly accessible, but memories are stored as
> subtle changes in synapses throughout many brain
> areas.. you can't just read it out and make sense of
> it like you can open a jpg on a computer
>
Thomas: I agree. You don't want to store memories the
same way if there is a better way. I also realize that
memories are are stored all over the brain which is
why we need the cortex. If the brain is the computer -
then the cortex is the screen. The cortex is an organ
meant to retrive information from the inside odf the
brain.
 
> Eric:
> we would have to use an external
> > probe to access each neuron, but unlike a computer
> > in which execution can be paused so the data
> doesn't
> > change while it's being read, the brain goes on in
> > time, so the entire state would have to be read
> > nearly simultaneously to get all the data
> 
> Thomas: In a paired system it would be possible to
> stop the computer part while allowing the brain to
> think what to do next.
> 
> Eric:
> not the way you're proposing it.. you're proposing
> the computer become a fundamental part of the
> substrate supporting the mind, if you just stop the
> computer who knows what would happen.. definitely
> not something good..

Thomas: Not necessarily. I imagine if the computer is
turned of - the brain would simply operate the way it
does now. The on/off option would be necessary for the
safety of the experiment.

Eric:
> 
>  have you ever read "true names" by vernor vinge?
> you ought to.. it's a short story that you should be
> able to find online easily enough..

Thomas: No I haven't read it, but I will try to find
it. As far as I know Vernor Vinge is the first person
who visualised the concept of singularity back in
1993. 
> 
Eric:
> >, the problem is that at *best*,
> > the brain would use the computer as an addition to
> > its neural network and would become inexorably
> tied
> > to your identity...
> 
> Thomas: That would bring us very close to my vision
> of
> mind uploading.
> 
> 
> that's good, cause I was describing how I interpret
> the results of what you want to do.. which means I
> must at least partly understand it..
> 
 and if you set up one of these huge
> > networks for each function area of the cortex,
> > eventually, if the brain was plastic enough, you'd
> > be able to get enough function into the network
> that
> > removing the brain wouldn't much effect the new
> > cortex
> > Thomas: In my view when that happens the mind
> is....
> UPLOADED. Do we have a computer system big enough
> for
> this? Yes we do! Imagine that the computer brain
> extention is connected to the internet. Interactive
> web sites would take care of various functions. And
> of
> course you would have a direct intimate brain
> connection to all the internet information.
> 
> Eric:
> so you're saying that the mind is the result of the
> cortical operation, not of the brain's operation..
> you're ignoring most of the brain

Thomas: I am not ignoring most of the brain. I will
repeat the library analogy: Suppose the cortex is the
librarian - the conscious - and the inside of the
brain is the rest of the library - the subconscios -
all the books on shelves not currently read. One would
be useless without the other. But I think we can say
that the current - conscious - mind is the result of
cortical operation. Notice that at any given time we
are busy doing and thinking of limited number of
issues ..... ignoring the rest of what is stored in
the brain. 

Eric:
> also, just because the brain has a connection to
> information doesn't mean it can process it or that
> you'd be aware of it.. most of what the brain does
> is non-conscious and much of the information coming
> into the brain isn't made a part of consciousness

Thomas:
Yes - some information is instinctual - genetically
encoded. This information didn't come to the brain via
the cortex. The learned information however comes thru
sensory inputs, hits the cortex and gets reflected
back into the brain to be stored. Once stored it
becomes subconscious until later retrieved.
(out of sight - out of mind). The third kind of
information is that which results from internal
synthesis of the pieces of information stored. This is
the creative work. It would explain how creative ideas
suddenly "flash" in our heads. It also proves that the
subconscious is not only the stored data, but some
intensive thinking - data processing goes on under the
cortex.

> Eric:
> but also, I already have a connection to all the
> inteernet information, the pathway is
> internet->computer->eyes/ears->brain... in order for
> the information to be understandable, it has to at
> least go through sensory pathways, if you just run
> an html file into your cortex you won't suddenly
> know all the information in it, you have to read it
> and understand it the old fashioned way.. the way
> our brains work seem to make knowledge downloading
> impossible

Thomas: I think it will be difficult, but possible. I
agree that the most difficult part of the experiment
will be to establish smooth and coherent communication
between the brain amd the computer.
> 
> 
> Thomas: No you would not. I can very well relate to
> your concern as I do creative work myself. Each time
> you practice or even perhaps think about your music
> it
> would be gradually bit by bit uploaded to the
> computer. Some time ago I proposed what I called'
> "selective mind uploading". That means if asked
> which
> aspect of my mind I would want to upload if I had to
> pick only one - my answer would be my talents in
> mechanical design.
> 
> Eric:
> what makes you think your talents in mechanical
> design are somehow seperable from other parts of
> you?

Thomas: 
As you say "parts of you" you already indicate that
the mind is a system made of components. If this is
the case the components are at least theoretically
separable. Most of our mind is in charge of simply
keeping us alive, but then there is that part of us
which makes us unique in our fields. In case of our
talents and professional abilities - this is the part
that is really useful to the rest of the world.
> 
Eric:
> I think for some reason you picture this all being a
> one-way transfer.. you think about something and the
> computer picks up on it and it all just slides up
> into the computer

Thomas: Yes! That's how I picture it - except it is
not a one way transfer.

Eric:
 and disappears from the brain,

Thomas: No it doesn't. When I slide my thoughts onto
this computer it does not erase my memory. Quite
opposite - I reinforce it. That is why I see it as a
two way brain - computer communication.

Eric:
> then you serially go through everything you know and
> eventually it's all in the computer and the brain
> isn't needed anymore

Thomas: Somewhere around there the mind uploading is
accomplished

> Thomas: Don't worry about your mind's imperfections
> -
> we all have them. Your left - right problem is a
> very
> good example how computer augmented mind can be
> improved. It would take a very simple function to
> communicate the left and right to your brain. One
> step
> further the computer can be equipped with a magnetic
> compass solving your east - west problem.
> 
> 
> oh, I don't worry about them
> 
> what makes you think it'd be so easy to communicate
> left and right to the brain? it seems like that'd be
> a big problem to me.. for instance, let's say I'm in
> a car and there's a turn ahead, I want to tell the
> driver which way to turn.. I can picture the
> direction in my head, but I have to think for a
> couple seconds about which word means that
> direction, usually I do the L on the left hand
> thing, or draw a line down the middle of the view in
> my head and figure out which is which.. 

Thomas: So it is not really about directional
confussion - but about proper words to describe it.
Then you could use a program helping you with better
word selection. Once you picture the direction in your
head - on your cortex the computer would pick it up
and flash "L" as a feedback.

> Thomas: Running out of time - I will finsh the rest
later........

Kind Regards,
Thomas Weber 

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