Slashdot Mirror
Download Your Brain
Nicholas Roussos writes "Futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson predicts that death will be avoidable in the year 2050 by downloading your brain to a computer. Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release. I guess we should all start saving our pennies now."
You know, like a photocopy. What's the point, you'd still be dead.
Deleted
Futurologist is a cool title. I wish I'd invented it myself. Looking at any prediction anyone makes upon the future that far out is, well, ludicrous. This man is 'looking' 75 years into the future. If you look 75 years back you see: The Great Depression The Rise and Fall of Communism The Rise of the Computer The creation of massive individualized transportation Just to name a few. Great. But projecting things that far out doesn't quite deal with the possibility that this was an anomaly in human history. He's making assumptions based upon a dozen factors that psychics ARE more qualified to look at. Example from TFA: The Playstation 5 will be as powerful as the human brain. How could this not be him talking out of his rear end? 2020? People, as a rule, don't follow lines straight enough that you can figure out what they're going to be doing tomorrow. When someone predicts a phenomenon like BitTorrent 20 years ahead of time, I'll listen to them. Until then, well, you're just blowing steam. As for avoiding death, well, let's just say that IF a supergenius computer driven by 'emotion' suddenly appears, I personally will convince it that immortal humans are the best companions for it from the command line. Then we'll wait a week and suddenly teh supar majikul mind-to-computer link will suddenly put me inside as wil_e_coyote_super_Genius.o I get the cool filename. You heard the dibs here.
My little site.
He picked those numbers for his theory because he'll be dead by then.
The end.
I don't think a COPY of yourself would give any kind of immortality to YOU...
It might do so to the COPY of you (assuming they also solve the problem of bit-rot...)
NEVER do a backup without a working restore !
After I have gone, young people will come with new ideas, new dreams, new problems. They will require the (intellectual) space fat ass rich guys will claim for their eternal life. I do not believe I have achieved enough in this world for my mind to persist past my body. All good things come to an end, and this includes me!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
No, download would be the correct term. You have no facility in your own brain to initiate its upload to a computer.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And once you have the chemical composition and the electrical composition, you ALSO need to know the wiring - the wiring between the neurons is unique to an individual, and isn't going to be easy to determine.
Ok, so now you have all of the core information. Is it still useful? Well, no. You now need to know the physical layout of the brain - all the folds, the exact proximity of A to B, that sort of thing.
Ok, is THIS enough? Still no. You still lack information on sensory input. You need to know what the range is on different nerves, because the brain is going to adjust to what the nerves deliver. If you don't know what the nerves deliver, then you don't know what sort of data the brain is expecting.
NOW, is that enough? No. You need to know what the data is that is being fed into the brain. For example, those with tetrochromatic vision will be getting data in a whlly different format from those with trichromatic vision, and both will be different from those with bichromatic vision.
Once you have all of this information, you MAY be able to reconstruct a person's brain well enough to be able to function identically. The keyword is MAY. As technology improves, our knowledge of the brain is improving. It is still seriously incomplete, but it is improving. There is so far no proof that we will ever know enough to actually duplicate the brain, although there is also no proof that we won't. All we have proof of, right now, is that we can't, right now.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...like this. It of course doesn't say anything about when brain downloads are likely to become available. But it does say a lot about how out of touch with reality so-called experts are. Of course when your job is such that closing the quality control loop takes longer than your lifetime it's only to be expected that your work might not have the same quality expected from people working in other fields.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Assuming, of course, that we have a soul. To me, the soul is nothing more than a projection of our conscious (and subconscious) mind. Much like a movie at the movie theater - where is the movie? Is it on the real, or on the screen? Logically, it's on the real. But the manner in which you view it is on the screen.
But that's just my own version of faith. Others doubtless have their own beliefs.
You're assuming that you have a soul floating around that is somehow attached to your body. Using that thinking a perfect copy of a body isn't the same because the soul is lost. Futurology is usually based on trends predicted by science, your conception of a unique soul is not scientific.
If a perfect copy of yourself was made and placed in a chair across the desk from you it would be as real and soulful and deserving of human rights as you. I'd love to someday be able to have a conversation with myself, narcissistic as it sounds. What we experience, if you want to call it that, is user illusion. It's kind of ironic that science is proving something as mythological as fate to be true.
Of course you can't go on believing the truth on a day to day basis and try to remain free of mental institutions so we (including myself) go on believing in free will and heaven and hell, a soul, god, etc. I think as a species we became smart enough that self delusion evolved as a survial technique because truth is subject to the law of diminishing returns when applied to philosophy.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
will be able to download their consciousness into computers by 2050 - the not so well off by "2075 or 2080", claims futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson, head of the Futurology unit at BT."
/. and got his other A&L buds to print it. Or perhaps it's his barber shop dipl0ma d0ct0rate in the social upheavals resulting from the simple overhand knot as misapplied in early French lamb gut scum bag manufacturing. Which reminds me of that fugs tune, Saran Wrap. But I digress and am not to thing the first yet, it being...
The second thing that comes to Senor Programmer, futureologistismo extroadinaires mind is...
Once again those who wait will benefit from the excursions and expense of early adopters. The first thing was tooo involved to type fast and follows with SP's predictions as coda.
Thing the first. Why is it that these arts and letters types, and Ian surely is one, Otherwise he'd be out working on brain loading rather than trying t get his arse in the history books as the prognisticating dude who ripped off my AC comments to
That why the heck is is always "the rich" or "the wealthy" with these A&L futurologists? I'll tell you why. Because it fits their hidden agenda of control through class warfare, that's why. Keep those brain loading researchers in their place by pointing out that they are working for THE MAN and not for the community good. But what does he care? He's a wealthy futurologist. Oh yeh, his position of wealth is both secure and non-suspect if he maintains his position as 'one who knows best' between the evil technocrats, scientists, engineers, and the 'po folk'.
Coda follows as it by definition must.
BZZZZTTTTTTT Ian's full of shit.
First. It's not a matter of 'loading' ones brain into some bit of hardware. It's integration of that hardware into the brain function to the degree that, as has been observed for decades with other prosthetics, the brain ceases to recognize the machine as distinct from itself. As brain function is slowly replaced and integrated there will come a point at which the brain is totally aware of it's self yet that self is totally contained within the hardware which replaced it. WIth the rapidly declining cost of hardware and synthetic diamond for physical interfacing, it's more likely that somone will discover that he has been a machine for many years rather than consciously set out to 'load' his self into that machine. See the machine. Become one with the machine. Be the machine. But in this case, machine becomes you instead.
PS
If anyone is interested in a FOSS hardware-software project that will show up THE MAN and put the first consciousness, I propose a dog because you never know with cats and monkeys tend to toss unpleasant stuff about, in hardware, please let me know. Seriously. Well maybe not the dog part but the ever growing in functionality brain prosthetic would be FUN.
PSS volunteers will be considered in order of descending donor ranking
Well what if you found out that every 7 years or so, you had a completely different body than what you had previously? Gasp! You're a different person! Change your name!
Until computers can smoke joints and get a buzz, drink beer and get a buzz, and have orgasms, I won't consider it "living".
Maybe they will restrict the operation to those who do things to their brain other than try to deaden it and give way to instinct.
As Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is someone who has found one thing that's more interesting than sex."
And EMP wipes electronics, but doesn't destroy the contents of hard drives. You would be safe as long as you weren't stupid enough to download your brain to flash memory.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Forty years ago, there was no plausible way for a machine sitting on a desktop to contain billions of bits of memory and hundreds of millions of logic gates, yet today such machines are commonplace, and even routinely get thrown away.
There is no plausible way for replicating the structure and billions of individual minute biological connections present in the brain. Making such a promise is a good way to garner interest and sell your books and speeches to a gullible public. Particularly, a rich gullible public.
(ca. 1880) FUTURIST CLAIMS MANNED FLIGHT WILL BE POSSIBLE BY 1930, though initially cost will limit it to the wealthy.
"There is no plausible way for replicating the structure and billions of individual, minute biological connections present in the wings of a bird. Making such a promise is a good way to garner interest and sell your books and speeches to a gullible public. Particularly, a rich gullible public."
Unlike ones and zeros represented on a medium for a computer's use, there is no steady-state representation for the human mind.
Three points.
1) Quantum computers (and their analogous storage media, if any ever exists) may not require a steady-state representation of the human mind. Certainly the biological computers we call our brains don't require such, yet they manage to store and compute our consciousness in realtime, and reboot our minds at least once a day (we typically call that "waking up").
2) You assume there is no steady state (binary) representation of the human mind. You do not know this for a fact (otherwise, please cite references and evidence). The fact that we may lack the knowledge and technology for captureing such a state today does not mean it is impossible, either theoritecially, or practically given a few decades development.
3) You assume the representation must be binary. That is not necessarilly true. Said computers could be nondigital (either analog hardware in the old sense of the word, or quantum systems manipulating complex waveforms and superpositions), or could represent their data in a non-binary digital format (though the latter would almost certainly decompose into a binary solution).
It may not happen, or it may, but for you to try and "authoritatively" nay-say its possibility demonstrates your own arrogance far more than it does the implausibility of the conjecture. Furthermore, history is littered with literally thousands of naysayers like yourself claiming X is impossible, only to be proven an idiot within a couple of generations.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"You" (the person who was killed) wouldn't know anything. "You" would be dead. The copy of you wouldn't realize anything however. I'm sure I am going to be torn a new one by someone more qualified though.
It's called writing.
And you thought philosophy was no fun. ;-)
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
"If you were killed in your sleep last night and a replica made and put in your place, how would you even know?"
I wouldn't know because I'd be a copy. That does not negate the fact that a consciousness was destroyed even though a new one (me) exists. Destroyed meaning that subjective experience would cease, as in death.
When a person his or her subjective viewpoint ceases irrespective if one or more copies exist to take its place. Having copies, each with their own conscious view point, does not negate the death of the original.
"Do you really think that you are a being of flesh?"
What I am is what I experience. When I no longer am able to maintain my subjective experience due to death then I no longer exist irrespective of how many copies may exist of me.
"If a copy of me was made, I would still consider that to be "me,""
Yes, it objectively be 'you' and have as much right to call itself WhiplashII as you do. However it has a experience viewpoint that is different than yours and the existance of its viewpoint does not stop the fact that yours would have ended.
Maybe they will restrict the operation to those who do things to their brain other than try to deaden it and give way to instinct.
As Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is someone who has found one thing that's more interesting than sex."
Huxley also thought mescaline was one of those interesting things. Quit being such a knee-jerk prude.
I do not think your parent poster's point requires a belief that drugs and sex are the only pleasures or interesting things in life for it to be valid. It merely requires a belief that both of those things are an integral part of living. Perhaps more broadly taken, the question is whether the computer that stores your brain will be able to engage in the multitude of physical pleasures and interactions we do every day. Would the computer housing your brain be able to go backpacking? Or skydiving, surfing, or driving really fast on a twisty road? The point is, living is more than thinking...it's also doing. Allowing your brain to keep functioning is one thing; to have a life worth living you must also be able to have a beer.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
This topic of self-copying should certainly be worth considering for every person, seeing as how we are all marching toward certain personal oblivion. But trust me, whatever the Outer Limits scripts have to say about this is hugely irrelevant.
Right, so you missed the whole point. The story deals with the person whose job it is to kill the original, not with the copying technology. I, for one, hadn't considered it before. It's worth thinking about.
You see, I have a contract with Alcor to have my brain vitrified in liquid nitrogen until I am able to be revived. I hope to awaken in a future where uploading is available as an option for superlong life and space travel....
How are they going to prevent ice crystal formation in your brain tissue? The ice crystals will break the dendrite connections - it's only those connections that define who you are as opposed to who I am.
And why are you so afraid of death?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You can copy the brain but you can't copy consciousness. For one, you don't know what it is. Until you do, you're up shit creek.
/usr/bin/gcc ./gcc_copy".
You don't need to know exactly how something works in order to duplicate it. Example: "cp
And when you find out what it is, you'll realize that it can be neither copied, nor created, nor destroyed.
And your scientific basis for this is?
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Consider the following sentence...
"It is not possible to understand why a rose is beautiful through any materialistic philosophy."
There are a few things wrong with this line of reasoning. First, the thinking is absolute. As if one way of knowing is any more important than another. Second, a rose only exists for you to ponder its beauty because of material processes. Its DNA design has no inherent beauty code. Beauty is a judgement made by the viewer. Third, is the assumption that the experience of feeling beauty isn't something that could be given to a machine. The experience of beauty is very likely to be simple reaction. The "qualia" of an observed thing definitely depends on many factors inherent in the design of the brain. And the design of the brain has been evolved through millions of years of evolution. A fly probably doesn't have the same qualia from a flower as it does road kill.
Now, I have a real problem with anyone who tries to discount "materialism" as being outright wrong. Most of the people who do have a very hard time understanding the interconnectedness of physical and electrical systems. Many people who talk about the mind being some kind of spiritual energy have no idea of what they are talking about. Spiritual energy of what? What is that energy measured in, and what are the opposites which bring about this manifested energy? And how does this energy interact with physical systems? I say BS. Most of the people you've mentioned and the books you've stated are all from armchair philosophers who have very little knowledge of the world. Their understanding of the world is from a fairytale perspective that predicts nothing, and doesn't change our state of existance one iota.
We humans are animals. We have arms, legs, hair, ears, eyes, a nose, and a mouth. We belch, have sex, and eat. There is nothing that makes us any more special than a baboon except some skills with our vocal cords and hands. It is completely disingenuous to create some kind of fluffy comfy chair world where we can fly around in our heads and withdraw into a state of self denial.
Get real. Wake up and smell the coffee. Learn how to perform some integral calculus or Laplace transforms. Definitely learn some engineering and computer programming. Then and only then will I give my time for debate with overzealous flunkies like Casey and Silva.
Thank you for posting that comment. Now, if we could just get more people to realize the simple truth of your statement.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
And why are you so afraid of death?
Most living things are afraid of death. Even an ant will quickly try to scurry away if your thumb misses it the first time. That's what keeps us alive. Sure, we can be trained not to fear death.. we have religion to give us a nice warm fuzzy about it, as one of the other posters noted indirectly by insinuating that the grandparent was afraid of hell rather than death. But it's a biological imperative that we fear death. We don't reproduce quite as fast as lemmings, so there's not much else keeping us alive as a species.
Some people accept old age and death gracefully. I have no problem with that; that's fine for them. Some of us enjoy the experience of life, and can think of things we'd like do with more time.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere