DOwnload your brain - never Die

GeorgeBailey

funky penguin wrote:

If I did that (and if I had the money, I would), I bet you anything that someone would accidently delete me.

So long as CTRL+Z still works in 2050 you'll be alright.

seamus

ionapaul wrote:

Anyone actually read the posts by Trojan and Repli? THE DOWNLOADED COPY OF YOUR MIND IS NOT YOU. It is only a copy. You will still die when you die, the copy might live on, but that is of no consequence to those wanting immortality. Cloning is equally as misleading - the clone is only an exact copy. If you were cloned on a Tuesday and were hit by a truck on a Wednesday, you are dead. The clone, a completely seperate lifeform, would live on, acting and thinking as you did (at least at first) but what does that matter to you? You're dead.

This and cloning are subtley different. Cloning creates a second person using the same genetic code as you, like identical twins, whereas copying your brain is a copy of *you*.

Whether or not this copy will actually be you (i.e. you will be aware) and not just someone/something who thinks, feels and remembers just like you, is a philosophical issue.

I have a belief that space-time and thought/consciousness are inextricably linked. As pwd says, you are not the person you were 5 years ago. In fact, you are not the same person you were 5 seconds ago. If I had stood up and gone to the toilet 2 minutes ago, I wouldn't be here right now typing this. In fact, *me* as a I know me right now wouldn't exist at all. I am the sum of all of my experiences up to this point. That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. It holds up (and actually supports for me) the idea of parallel universes. I'm just one of me, randomly choosing each path each time it comes to it.
My own theory does have *some* trouble with memory loss however. We've all been so drunk that we've forgotten what happened. Yet we're still here. So for me, it can't be just memory that makes up who we are - even if I don't remember being that drunk, the experience has made me who I am now...

ionapaul

Each individual's (even identical twins or clones) brain is physically different, and I believe (as I'm sure most do) that the physical dimension of our mind contributes to the way we think, process data and come to decisions. This physical environment cannot be replicated either by another brain (if we had the technology to download our consiousness from one human brain to another) or by any computer (at least, any technology in the current or near future). Replicating each individual's brain structure, down to the molecular level, in addition to data transfer, would be needed for an exact copy of your mind. Aside from that, as we mentioned above, after downloading (copying rather than transferring data) you are left with two individual minds and not one. No immortality for the original mind.

seamus

ionapaul wrote:

Each individual's (even identical twins or clones) brain is physically different, and I believe (as I'm sure most do) that the physical dimension of our mind contributes to the way we think, process data and come to decisions. This physical environment cannot be replicated either by another brain (if we had the technology to download our consiousness from one human brain to another) or by any computer (at least, any technology in the current or near future). Replicating each individual's brain structure, down to the molecular level, in addition to data transfer, would be needed for an exact copy of your mind. Aside from that, as we mentioned above, after downloading (copying rather than transferring data) you are left with two individual minds and not one. No immortality for the original mind.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but I don't think the physical dimension of our brain necessarily make up who we are. Sure, it does contribute to the way we think, but there are plenty of people who have suffered brain damage or had parts of the brain removed, and found themselves with new abilities, new strengths. Does this make them necessarily not the same person they were before?

(Moving to Humanities)

sleepwalker

this is up there with hover cars and robots in everyones house by 2001 to be honest. interesting to read all the same.

vibe666

hover cars are almost here, and robots in the home aren't far off now either.

http://www.moller.com/
http://asimo.honda.com/

the 21st century is going to be an exciting time to live in.

ionapaul

seamus wrote:

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but I don't think the physical dimension of our brain necessarily make up who we are. Sure, it does contribute to the way we think, but there are plenty of people who have suffered brain damage or had parts of the brain removed, and found themselves with new abilities, new strengths. Does this make them necessarily not the same person they were before?

(Moving to Humanities)

The argument is that the actual physical makeup of our brains (incredibly complex and something that will be impossible to exactly replicate for the foreseeable future) actually effects how our mind processes information and comes to decisions - you only think like you because of this unique setup of synapses, etc...in the brain facilitate this manipulation of data. You wouldn't think in the same way you do, if the physical location of the mind was completely different.

I would think when someone's brain gets damaged, they are obviously the same person but have changed. But transferring / downloading the contents of a brain to a completely different physical location results in a copy that is different from the very second the data transfer is complete, becuase the thought processes, etc...cannot be the same as before. To sum up, I do believe that the physical dimension of the brain is an essential part of who we are, and something that is mind-numbingly (:)) difficult to replicate.

ionapaul

As a short follow on, to go back to your earlier point about the philosophical issue here, it is my belief that unless the physical aspect of the mind is exactly replicated, the copy is not an exact copy. Only with an exact (to the very molecule) copy and with perfect transfer of data from the original mind to the new location, would I begin to consider the philosophical issue (is the 'new' you the same as the old you?)...which I can tell you now I would have much trouble working out!

Catsmokinpot

impr0v wrote:

I don't know about him but I wouldn't like the clusterfuks in BT's administration department to be looking after my consciousness, it would be preferably to die in one piece.

exactly i wouldnt like the same fukwits at bt copying my brain who couldn't even get my broadband order sorted

who would volunteer for such a procedure? they would want to be crazy

Sleepy

I think Trojan is right: that we're all streams of conciousness. I am the sum total of my biological makeup, my environment and my decisions (or those taken for me by parents before I was old enough to make them myself).

Hal1

I agree with Sleepy how can they replicate our exact consciousness, they couldn't co-exist during this process anyway. :eek:

Catsmokinpot

the only way to prove that it is possible would be to get your brain and get ur computer and hook them both up together and do a sort of a "live update" while the person is concious and see if that works, if they lose consciousness at all during the process, then i wouldnt trust it........

Eoghan-psych

MoeHawk wrote:

Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics,

If that said "psychology" I'd take it much more seriously.

Yes, the engineers and IT guys might be able to make an electronic person. Yes, a machine may be made which is essentially and electronic human. I don't, however, think there is any chance of this "downloading" malarky.

The brain works in a *fundamentally* different way to normal computers.

The most powerful supercomputers today work at about the same level as profoundly retarded small children. Talking yoghurts? I don't think so.

Ardent

Two words: Vanilla Sky

Eoghan-psych

Pet wrote:

Unless you find some way of making the databanks indestructable, then you're not going to be "immortal". War is always going to be present, and that'll see to it that you don't live for too long as a machine either. It would be just another lifetime, in a different form.

The brain is so far from indestructible as to make MS look stable - the only reason we don't get as many BSoD [Blue Screens of Death] is because of how we are wired up. In the brain, when memory access errors and page faults and 404's happen, it's no big deal - the brain just works around it.

Computers today work like A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K

The brain works more along the lines of:

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P
| \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /|
B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q
| \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
C-D-E-F-G-H-I-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S

Ardent

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The brain is so far from indestructible as to make MS look stable - the only reason we don't get as many BSoD [Blue Screens of Death] is because of how we are wired up. In the brain, when memory access errors and page faults and 404's happen, it's no big deal - the brain just works around it.

Computers today work like A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K

The brain works more along the lines of:

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P
| \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /|
B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q
| \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
C-D-E-F-G-H-I-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S

Are you a brain scientist or something?

Stark

Neural Nets can be easily simulated in software these days.

There are many alternatives being developed also, all taking ideas from how they think the brain "might work" but implemented at a higher level so it doesn't need to run on a neural net.

Eoghan-psych

Ardent wrote:

Are you a brain scientist or something?

I wish! I'm a psych postgrad with a penchant for neuro stuff.

Eoghan-psych

Stark wrote:

Neural Nets can be easily simulated in software these days.

Absolutely - but they're still only simulations, it is a purely software level net. There hs been some fascinating work on ground-up systems, and in processor design etc to mimic the way the nervous system works [anyone who's interested - SciAm has a really good review piece a few weeks ago if memory serves]. Currently, they can almost make a small retina work sort of a little bit as if it's kind of like a small part of the human retina.

Amazing, exciting, fascinating and rapidly advancing it may be - but all that development in 50 years? Methinks not. Technology does advance at astonishing rates - but not *that* astonishing. Remember all those "what life will be like in 2000" stories?

the_syco

25 years ago, people expected us to live on the moon by 2001:rolleyes:

Also, if you download your brain, it'll be infomation only. In the same way that in the past people wrote what they knew in books. Even if the computer could think, you and it would be "alive" at the same time, thus when you died, you would die. The only around this was if they found a way to hook your brain up to a server, and keep it alive. But you'd only be concious, and people would extract answers from you(proberly find a way to ensure you tell the truth), and then thats it. You wouldn't be alive, as to be alive means you can move, think, feel, etc. You'd be less than someone in a vegetable state.

Moriarty

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Amazing, exciting, fascinating and rapidly advancing it may be - but all that development in 50 years? Methinks not. Technology does advance at astonishing rates - but not *that* astonishing. Remember all those "what life will be like in 2000" stories?

The reverse is also true. If you asked well informed people in the 1960s if a large proportion of houses in the western world would each have a device capable of well over a gigaflop in computing power by the year 2005, they'd probably have giggled a bit and then locked you into the loony bin.

Technological progress is increasing all the time. We're progressing at a far faster rate now than we were 50 years ago. No doubt the same will be true in 50 years time.

Granted 50 years is probably rather optimistic, but I wouldn't rule it out.

voo-doo-wop

Do WE (y'know US) actually know enough to copy a brain? Could this end like synthetic milk? And are mind and brain truly the same, could awareness be altered by changing the location of our sensory receptors (or in fact creating/assimilating new ones).
Keep in mind I am battling between the hippie and the tech-geek in my own mind-cum-concious centre (or brain if you think so).

Eoghan-psych

voo-doo-wop wrote:

And are mind and brain truly the same, could awareness be altered by changing the location of our sensory receptors (or in fact creating/assimilating new ones).

Strictly speaking, no they are not the same.

The relationship between mind and brain is the same as that between digestion and the digestive system - mind is what the brain does.

So, they *are* essentially the same thing in practical terms.

kasintahan

mp3guy wrote:

Not 2050, maybe 2100. I still have a magazine from i think 2000 that said there'd be videos phones everywhere by 2005, sure there is.

They were right. Most phones designed this year will have video capability over 3G. You might not see that many 'till next year but if you want you could buy one right now.

But as for downloading ones brain. I, for one, have been accumalating data in the hope of one day doing this.

Just imagine. We could upload our brains to empty corporal entitys in Japan, send them hiking and then download the experience back into our brains.

Or backup a loved one (in a fully lifelike synthetic body replica) and wheel them out of the spare room anytime we felt like reliving the past.

Cool.

Stark

Or backup a loved one (in a fully lifelike synthetic body replica) and wheel them out of the spare room anytime we felt like reliving the past.

Wow that sounds so much better than kidnapping a lookalike a forcing her to wear your ex-lovers clothes.

Gilgamesh

Hail to the Asgard who do this already, Hurray!!!!

nesf

Eoghan-psych wrote:

If that said "psychology" I'd take it much more seriously.

Really? What would a psychologist know about computers, IT and the mathematical modelling talked about here?

Eoghan-psych

nesf wrote:

Really? What would a psychologist know about computers, IT and the mathematical modelling talked about here?

The guy is talking about simulating the human brain qua brain, which is a psychology issue, not an IT one. Had he been talking about creating electronic devices with the power of the brain, or based on mimicking certain aspects of the way the nervous system works and so on that is more an engineering issue.

nesf

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The guy is talking about simulating the human brain qua brain, which is a psychology issue, not an IT one. Had he been talking about creating electronic devices with the power of the brain, or based on mimicking certain aspects of the way the nervous system works and so on that is more an engineering issue.

I was being sarcastic.

My point was that a person's primary degree does not limit them in their professional life. A person is not measured by their qualifications but by the life they have lead and the experience they have gained.

Plus for all you know he might just be a spokesperson and the team could have many highly qualified psychologists working on the psychology side of the problem. It does span across multiple disciplines, it's going to need people from many different backgrounds.

Capt'n Midnight

You would still die.
If this worked you could clone your mind while you were still alive. With every experiance your clones would diverge from your self. You could die and they still live on. So like Star Trek Transporters you die and a facsimile of you is made.

I've an old 1930's encyclopedia at home. The brain is represented as a telephone exchange , the most largest and most complex mechanism known then. At almost every stage since the brian is represented as the most complex thing know and I reckon it will continue to do so for a while yet. Since the 80's we've had the technology to build an artifical brain, the only problem is that we still don't know enough about how a mamalian brain works.

Every cell in your body has the same DNA (with a few exceptions), but there are many different cell types and they are at various stages of their development. I reckon that uploading/downloading brains is similar to DNA in that it probably isn't enough just in itself to recreate the live person.