if you could transfer

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
was just thinking about this.. also might be related to the post below

if you could transfer brain functions/thought into a computer powered system, do you think that the said person would be able to think faster? Because all of the thought processes in brain are chemical, they are supposed to be a little slower than electrical as in computer/whatever system.

Now, I realize that there is no way that this will be even possible, since the human brain is so extremely complicated, but think of the possibilities..

ai's working with hybrid humans... crazy stuff, this opens up whole can of worms, think if somebody was to trap someone's brain electronically and exploit it (while human still walks around) I think I'm going to far with this, as it is probably impossible

 

nortexoid

Diamond Member
May 1, 2000
4,096
0
0
It's obviously not impossible in principle, and it seems even feasible in the very distant future. It's called 'mind uploading' (there's even an article about it on Wikipedia!). I've read only about the nano-replacement method where, in piecemeal fashion and over some time, each individual neural cell is replaced by a nano-computer. In the initial stages, the nano-computer monitors and records the cell's behavior until it is able to mimick it perfectly. At the end of the process, each cell is being mimicked perfectly by a nano-computer, and so the biological cells can be removed or just die off over time. I guess the body would have to be replaced over time as well since the brain doesn't function independently of the rest of (certain parts of) the body.
 

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
Originally posted by: nortexoid
It's obviously not impossible in principle, and it seems even feasible in the very distant future. It's called 'mind uploading' (there's even an article about it on Wikipedia!). I've read only about the nano-replacement method where, in piecemeal fashion and over some time, each individual neural cell is replaced by a nano-computer. In the initial stages, the nano-computer monitors and records the cell's behavior until it is able to mimick it perfectly. At the end of the process, each cell is being mimicked perfectly by a nano-computer, and so the biological cells can be removed or just die off over time. I guess the body would have to be replaced over time as well since the brain doesn't function independently of the rest of (certain parts of) the body.

*\neo*\ whoa :Q
 

StopSign

Senior member
Dec 15, 2006
986
0
0
If mind uploading becomes a reality in my life time I would donate my own body/brain for such a project.
 

gerwen

Senior member
Nov 24, 2006
312
0
0
I'm going to open source my brain.

For a good (fictional) take on the subject of uploading your mind, Mindscan by Robert J. Sawyer is definitely worth picking up. Very entertaining while being true to the science of the matter.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: gerwen
I'm going to open source my brain.

For a good (fictional) take on the subject of uploading your mind, Mindscan by Robert J. Sawyer is definitely worth picking up. Very entertaining while being true to the science of the matter.

So anyone can make changes to you at any time and integrate them into you? Sounds dangerous... someone could make you an assassin or something.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: lyssword
if you could transfer brain functions/thought into a computer powered system, do you think that the said person would be able to think faster? Because all of the thought processes in brain are chemical, they are supposed to be a little slower than electrical as in computer/whatever system.

They would think much faster than a biological human for the reason you gave. Biological neurons are slow.

Originally posted by: lyssword
Now, I realize that there is no way that this will be even possible, since the human brain is so extremely complicated, but think of the possibilities..

Just like the desktop computer was impossible
 

HVAC

Member
May 27, 2001
100
0
0
Some thoughts:

I think the brain is just an interface/translator with housekeeping duties.

Emulation in a computer would also require proper simulation of all stimuli the human needs in order to prevent deprivation psychosis.
I would think all one would want to emulate is the conscious and subconscious thought processes anyway, but divorcing them from the housekeeping functions of the brain might not be trivial.

My initial reaction is that you can just forget about maintaining identity. People who have become maimed have a hard time dealing with the loss. I would imagine magnitudes worse would be total divorce of the brain (thoughts) from the physical body.

We would have to figure out how to connect a brain to a machine capable of supporting thought without forcing someone to download themselves into it. Then they could "explore" this new extension of themselves at their leisure (conditioning them to accept their new "home").
 

gerwen

Senior member
Nov 24, 2006
312
0
0
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: gerwen
I'm going to open source my brain.

For a good (fictional) take on the subject of uploading your mind, Mindscan by Robert J. Sawyer is definitely worth picking up. Very entertaining while being true to the science of the matter.

So anyone can make changes to you at any time and integrate them into you? Sounds dangerous... someone could make you an assassin or something.

I'll still retain CVS control, unless someone forks me and drops me into another body. Assassin sounds exiting, although i'd have to make some changes in my moral functions.
 

Gannon

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
527
0
0
I think brain to computer "uploading" won't be possible until you can transmit the quantum data in the brain. The brain is a special kind of quantum computer, and it isn't simply particles entangling electrons, it's highly specialized. In my mind we have to first know 1) How consciousness works and 2) Can it even exist outside a body and not decohere from a self reflecting process into bit-data on an what amounts to a complicated fractal oscillator
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Originally posted by: Gannon
The brain is a special kind of quantum computer

No, it's not. At least as far as we know.
I know that Penrose claims that QM effects (entanglement etc) needs to be taken into account to understand the brain but AFAIK he is the only one who thinks so. There is definitly no experimental evidence.

Moreover, there is simply no way the whole brain is a QC: It is too big, too warm and too well connected to the environment.






 

Gannon

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
527
0
0
Stuart Hameroff at the University of Arizona Center for Consciousness Studies has a theory of quantum consciousness. Together with Sir Roger Penrose he has developed a model of quantum computation in brain microtubules.

"Neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches. If we look inside neurons and other cells, we see highly ordered networks (the 'cytoskeleton') comprised of microtubules and other filamentous structures which organize cellular activities.. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin arranged in hexagonal lattices comprising the cylinder wall. Cooperative interactions among tubulin subunits within microtubules have been suggested to process information, as in molecular scale 'cellular automata'. As the states of tubulin are controlled by quantum mechanical internal forces (van der Waals London forces), they may exist in quantum superposition of multiple states ('quantum bits', or 'qubits'), and microtubules may be seen as quantum computers involved in cellular organization."

As he says, the theory has met intense criticism from scientific, computational and philosophical establishments. No big wonder. And whether it works exactly like that, I have no way of judging. But intuitively it makes a lot of sense if a brain is a quantum computer that potentially might function as a lens that can be tuned into many different realities. Makes a lot more sense to me than that it would be some kind of big ROM chip. Memory chips don't forget things and then remember them again later.
 

Gannon

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
527
0
0
Originally posted by: f95toli
Originally posted by: Gannon
The brain is a special kind of quantum computer

No, it's not. At least as far as we know.

Yeah and how much DO we really know? Hardly anything. Thats my point. You give limited human experts more credibility then they are worth: Entire generations of experts in history have been proven wrong thousands of times over, its just always that in the current generation they always believe "they have a theory good enough to answer the objections" bullshit. People thought autism was once caused by bad parenting, those "experts" certainly thought "they knew a lot". The knowledge we have about the brain is infantile. They don't even know how people add numbers.

 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Originally posted by: Gannon


"Neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches. If we look inside neurons and other cells, we see highly ordered networks (the 'cytoskeleton') comprised of microtubules and other filamentous structures which organize cellular activities.. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin arranged in hexagonal lattices comprising the cylinder wall. Cooperative interactions among tubulin subunits within microtubules have been suggested to process information, as in molecular scale 'cellular automata'. As the states of tubulin are controlled by quantum mechanical internal forces (van der Waals London forces), they may exist in quantum superposition of multiple states ('quantum bits', or 'qubits'), and microtubules may be seen as quantum computers involved in cellular organization."

But even if that description turns out to be correct, that STILL doesn't mean that the brain is a QC; all it means is that QM effects are important for individual NEURONS.
In order for the BRAIN to be a QC ALL the neurons would need to interact in a QM fashion which is, as I pointed out above, impossibe. I.e. according to that description you would have a situation where the neurons are QM but the interaction BETWEEN neurons is classical.



 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,278
126
106
I think the biggest problem with this is the fact that computers are extremely single task machines (you might not think that) and so, while It may be fast, it would overload the person who's thoughts where transfered to it. Imagine having to think "Pump heart once, breath in, pump heart, pump heart, pull 1 muscle in neck... etc" Even if it was hidden from the transferee, they would probibly have a slowed down thinking process as it would be a lot of information that has to go through.
 

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,131
21
81
Even if we were to discard all the quantam effects, I'm not at all convinced it's reasonably possible, at least not in the next century or two. Aside from the very simple problem of how you get the initial state data, I'm unconvinced it's as easy to replicate 'slow' neurons in software as it's being suggested. Somehow, I suspect if we're really going to get something that would produce results recognizable as the 'uploaded' person from this simulation, you'd need to accurately simulate the entire chemistry of the brain, not just a simplified version of it. Given how complicated one cell would be to do accurately, doing a brains worth....well, that's an awful lot of computing power. You might be able to cut corners here and there, but I don't think you can do so without distorting what you're simulating - ie, while you're uploaded brain may be conscious in some manner, possibly, it won't be like a twin brain for the uploaded person. Even if the initial differences were small, given the way all the parts of the brain interact, a small difference would very rapidly butterfly into huge differences.
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
No matter how fast the theory evolves and how early we think we're ready for it, computers won't come close to being able to keep track of every chemical reaction in the brain and how those reactions interact with each other for at least a hundred years.

Only then can we start researching how to begin.
 

Gannon

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
527
0
0
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
No matter how fast the theory evolves and how early we think we're ready for it, computers won't come close to being able to keep track of every chemical reaction in the brain and how those reactions interact with each other for at least a hundred years.

Only then can we start researching how to begin.

I agree, human brains GROW new kinds of "switches" and organize themselves in complex fractal patterns. No computer can do this. Not until nanomachines will we see computers destroying and re-organizing their own circuitry and even then, you'd need a "food source" / material source for the machines to work on a fully operating computer in real time.

No one here realizes the processes that go on in the brain while their brains are operating, trillions of operations per second throughout the body are going on without anyones conscious awareness of it. The brain is connected to every part of the body via nerve systems far beyond the complexity of the modern internet.

Real brains are growing new neurons and destroying old ones, with a complexity far beyond our current technology.

Some evidence for information processing by the microtubules comes from studies of paramecia which seem to show that they can learn:

For example, a number of studies have observed paramecia swimming and escaping from capillary tubes in which they could turn around. In general, results showed that with practice the ciliates took successively less and less time to escape, indicative of a learning mechanism ( French, 1940; Applewhite and Gardner, 1973; Fukui and Asai, 1976). Many other experiments suggest paramecia can learn to swim in patterns and through mazes and have a short-term memory, although some of these behaviors depend on their environment ( Applewhite, 1979. [Hameroff et. al. 1993]

If neurons are responsible for learning in multi-celled animals it is hard to explain how a one-celled animal with NO neurons can learn. The theory is that the cytoskeleton is the nervous system of the paramecium and the cytoskeleton is a miniature computer. The gist of the article quoted above is to explore ways of doing computing using microtubules without considering quantum mechanical effects. The authors of that article also estimate that a paramecium (or a neuron or some other cell) could move around bits at the rate of 10^13 bits per second. Thus every cell with microtubules (this is almost all cells) may contain a computer. A human brain counting only the use of 10^11 neurons and allowing for some redundancy would move around 10^23 bits per second according to this article. Another estimate I've seen is 10^28 bits per second. In either case this is rather a lot more than a digital computer can manage at this time and if this is what is going on then it will be a while before digital computers can compete with the brain. (There is an online article by Joel Henkel where he speculates how quantum effects could account for learning in paramecia, again more than I can follow but for the sake of people who may be interested I think I should list it.)
 

nortexoid

Diamond Member
May 1, 2000
4,096
0
0
Mind uploading might be plausible sooner than most think...it's just that people's heads will be larger than wheelbarrows.
 
Nov 14, 2006
50
0
0
So anyone can make changes to you at any time and integrate them into you? Sounds dangerous... someone could make you an assassin or something.

There are more dangerous things in this world, and the human mind, than assassins.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: iNGEN
So anyone can make changes to you at any time and integrate them into you? Sounds dangerous... someone could make you an assassin or something.

There are more dangerous things in this world, and the human mind, than assassins.

Oh, I agree, but you sound so... mysterious. Do tell?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |