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."

15 of 1,147 comments (clear)

  1. It's a copy by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, like a photocopy. What's the point, you'd still be dead.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:It's a copy by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the copy might disagree with you.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:It's a copy by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


      A sad scientist was once heard to say,
      To upload my brain, I have found a way,
      But my memory contains
      Things not public domain
      And I'd violate DMCA.


      Hello alcohol, goodbye Karma. 8) Seriously, I just got this image of the RIAA breaking into the lab 'cause the cloned brain remembered the Happy Birthday lyrics.


      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:It's a copy by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The first thing it will probably say is, "What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"

      How would he/I know which was the copy?

      If you're going to investigate personal identity via gedankenexperiments involving copying "minds", you have to consider cases where someone might be unknowingly copied.

      Consider: some dark stormy night, a stranger who looks a lot like you shows up at your front door, explaining how while you were under general anaesthesia getting your wisdom teeth out a few years ago, they made a copy - you - and sent the original off on a top-secret mission...

      (This would be especially interesting if you were someone who held the belief that a "copy" isn't really a person, or is not personally-identical to the person before the copy.)

      we and all other animals are just machines.

      Your use of the word "just" reflects an unwarranted value judgement. If I am a machine, it follows that machines can be pretty damn wonderful. (I'm sure that using the word "machine" in that sense of "something that follows the `laws' of physics" is useful or informative - there would be nothing material that wasn't a machine.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:It's a copy by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a rather odd viewpoint you have.

      While I don't consider myself religious by any means, I don't see any reason to disbelieve that Jesus, Achilles, or Buddha were real people. While there's not enough evidence to give me overwhelming reason to believe in their existence, as there is with, for example, Napoleon, there's not enough evidence to disbelieve them either.

      This is history we're dealing with here, not science. Things in history, especially ancient history, don't need to be proven with overwhelming evidence, simply because such evidence just isn't available. What's important is to be aware of the facts surrounding any historical evidence, and keep in mind that it may not be completely accurate.

      I believe that a lot of mythological things came from true happenings. Things happen, and people talk about them. Since we're dealing with ancient times, and primitive, uneducated people, they don't retell the stories very accurately, and the stories aren't written down immediately. Over time, reality turns into myth. For instance, Achilles may well have been a real Greek warrior, but certainly not with any supernatural powers. But he was so proficient that common people thought he had them. Over time, various stories are written down, and a guy who was just a great warrior turns into a demigod. Perhaps the reality of Jesus is similar.

      We won't know the real truth about these people until someone invents a device which allows us to watch the past on a TV screen (check out Arthur C. Clarke's "Light of Other Days"). But this doesn't mean we should just discount that they ever existed in any form just because we don't have Achilles' diary in a museum.

  2. Meh. by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. BS by astro_ripper · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As Penn and Teller have stated before:

    He picked those numbers for his theory because he'll be dead by then.

    The end.

  4. Not for me by e_AltF4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NEVER do a backup without a working restore !

  5. self centered by spectrokid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  6. Yeah, whatever. by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You may be able to download the electrical state - but that is FAR from certain, as the brain is very noisy, electrically - but how would you download the chemical state? Seratonin levels aren't exactly going to be trivial to scan, remotely.


    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)
  7. "The wealthy... by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

    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 /. 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...

    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

  8. Re:Not really living. by s20451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:The obvious question... by Famatra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  10. Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  11. Ok, I'll take this one... by rmdyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.