Putting Your Brain into A Computer

lovecraft writes "There is an article in the newest Psychology Today (and on their Web page) that talks about uploading the human brain into a computer within the next 50 years. Essentially this would mean immortality through virtual clones. Their description of how that the scanning of synapses and neurons would be done is really detailed and interesting. " Excellent article - and written by Ray Kurzweil, the author of The Age of Spiritual Machines, one of the more well-written texts on the growth of intelligence in computers.

Comments

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Nobel-prizewinning physicist Roger Penrose argues that human consciousness cannot be explained by classical physics at least (in his book The Emporer's New Mind, plus a couple followups that further clarify his arguments). A lot of people have skimmed over his book and gotten false impressions. His main argument has nothing to do with quantum physical effects in the brain (which is what a lot of people have thought). The argument, rather, is based on the mathematics of computability. He argues rather rigorously that 1) Human mathematical insight is noncomputable, and 2) No known physical laws can produce noncomputable results--ie any physical system can be simulated with a Turing machine, and no Turing machine can match human insight. Before slamming this view, it's best to read Penrose yourself--it's a detailed and precise argument.

Penrose speculates that since we don't have a theory that unifies quantum physics and relativity, it's possible that a complete theory could produce noncomputable results. He speculates on structures in the brain that might cause quantum effects to be involved in thought. However, he mentions that under current theory, someone has proved that quantum computers are still just Turing machines (albeit massively parallel ones).

So until someone comes up with a noncomputable physics, I'm keeping my consciousness right where it is!

Re:Hmm

[jejones]

The old continuity question, eh?

"I have a two-hundred year old axe!"
"Really? Wow!"
"Well, the head's been replaced a few times, and once Grandpa had to replace the handle, but..."

The above old chestnut points at one scenario for personality/memory transfer--if you were replaced one neuron at a time, just when would you lose your self?

I personally can't wait to get downloaded...as long as I'm not running under Windo--
[insert BSOD text here]

rant: evolution doesn't *go* anywhere!

[decomp]

This is the first time I have read anything by Dr. Kurzweil, and it seems like a perfectly pleasant piece of futurology (typed with slight hint of sarcasm). I enjoyed skimming through it, thinking, hmm...nothing seems really new here, until I hit something that really annoyed me:

What does it mean to evolve? Evolution moves toward greater complexity, elegance, intelligence, beauty, creativity and love.

...preceeded by...

Evolution, in my view, is the purpose of life, meaning that the purpose of life-and of our lives-is to evolve.

Both of these comments seem to show an egregious misunderstanding of evolution; the first being worse than the second since it is stated as fact. I am surprised that no one here has commented on these yet. I'm sure that some of you have read The Blind Watchmaker. Where are all you evolution-hawks when we need you?!

<Disclaimer> I A Not An Evolutionary Biologist (but I (think I) know enough biology to make the following claims) </Disclaimer>

1. Evolution doesn't go anywhere. It is the name we give to the phenomenon that inevitably occurs over time when mutably-reproducing entities live in a changing environment. Those that were able to survive passed on their genes. Sometimes more complexity is favored, sometimes less.
2. Evolution can't be the purpose of anything. Though I won't argue with Kurzweil on what he thinks is the purpose of life -- we're all entitled to some sort of theory about this (I may happen to think that life has no purpose, you live it or you don't) -- but I do think that it is incorrect to claim that evolution can be the purpose of anything. It happens; it is an end result; it goes one way or another, but to claim that an inevitable consequence of the existence of life is its purpose seems like a logical flaw, maybe even "begging the question" (? any logicians out there?).

</rant>

P.S. Note to creationists: I accept that you think differently, and I think that you have the right to do so. My comments here are not directed at you; I'm not trying to change your mind, so please don't get "offended" at/by me; furthermore, you are not going to change mine, so please don't waste your time. My comments assume an acceptance of the existence of evolution/natural selection, etc.. To those who do not share these assumptions, the comments are irrelevant; ignore them. So, please don't start an "evolution vs. creationism" thread here. There are other, more appropriate places for that.
______________________(
// ///#\)

Hmm

[Foogle]

This is something that probably every sci-fi fan has thought about. But just because you've implanted your brain into a machine and it is an exact duplicate of you, that doesn't mean you're really still living, does it?

I guess it comes down to the question of whether you believe a person is more than the sum of all their parts. The way I see it, it would just be a machine that got to live on with my personality/memory while I still got to die (eventually). Actually, unless you were killed at the very moment your brain-content was transferred, there would be an overlap in existance. Two me's?? No thanks.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Visible Human Project

[LucVdB]

The sliced-up person mentioned in the article has his homepage here. There's also a nice Java applet to view slices of him here.

Announcement: BrainEMU

[Brecker]

Slashdot Headline, 2030:

Today, a team of open-source programmers posted a new beta of BrainEMU, the open-source software that emulates the human brain. The head programmer explains that his motives are both political, as well as technological: "If we can manage to make BrainEMU the thought-extender of choice, all discourse and future thought will be deriviative works of a GPL work, finally ensuring the end to the encroaching Patent Machine.

"For that reason, we are struggling to provide the highest-quality in human biological emulation."

Release changes for the new beta:

* Emotional thought now supported
* Fine motor control optimized and vastly improved
* Support for Creative Environmental Voice included
* Bug fixes:
* No longer crashes when one tries to say "hello"
* Embarrassment turns face red, rather than eyes
* Colors correspond more accurately to closed regions in the vision module
* Taste seems to be working again (broken in beta 9)

Remember, BrainEMU is still beta software. The authors assume no responsibility for any personality defects, mental disorders, poor job performance, erectile dysfunction [check the power cable], shortness of breath of total failure experienced as a result of this product.