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."

Comments

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

And this guy's a *doctor*? LOL

Re:Haha

[fullpunk]

The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain

Come on, where does that come from? And even if it was possible, you'd still have to find a person who is willing to give you his body. I think this man has seen/read too many sci-fi movies/books.

If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

Not me, I prefer the computer to do what it is programmed for instead of being frozen by fear :)

Re:Haha

[jimboisbored]

But if it is 1 percent as powerful, a beowulf cluster of 100 PS3's would equal one human. Human's only use 10 percent of their potential brain power so we'd need 10 PS3's to replicate the brain of some dumbass. I think I'd rather use it to play video games than make a copy of a friend that's now stuck in a box.

Re:Haha

[mjm1231]

Even dumbasses use 100% of their brains. Your point is a valid one though. It certainly seems that the technological capability (in terms of hardware capability, at least) will exist before the neuroscience know-how comes along. But that just pushes the date projections back a few decades.

(PS- Not having posted in awhile, I find the "type this text to confirm you're not a script" thing kind of ironic in this context. I'm not a script, but how will you know I'm not a downloaded consciousness running on a Beowulf cluster of PS3's? However, it probably is a good way of keeping dyslexic people from posting.)

Re:Haha

[ikkonoishi]

Except of course that the clone would be as old as you were.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000964.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/dolly599.htm l

It's a copy

[Colin Smith]

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

Re:It's a copy

[madprof]

Quite. The only benefit might be that you can have arguments with yourself before you die, which would be quite cool.
This is just for the vainglorious.

Re:It's a copy

[kpwoodr]

You'd be suprised. When I died a few years ago I had this done, and it's been great fun. It was either this or getting frozen. I'm just waiting for someone to screw up and download me, and I'm home free. That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.

Re:It's a copy

[mrdaveb]

Conciousness is so poorly understood that I don't think you can even say that for sure. Am 'I' the matter or the data in my brain? If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

Re:It's a copy

[tolan-b]

Way to pave over a whole raft of philosophical discussion. :D

Re:It's a copy

[tanguyr]

If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

Well, until someone invents a person-capable teleportation device, i think the answer is No.

Re:It's a copy

[dsginter]

And what happens if the Evil Bit gets flipped in the download?

Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun.

Re:It's a copy

[HTH NE1]

"Yes, it's... wonderful... isn't it?"

Re:It's a copy

[Stibidor]

Yeah, this will only become useful when the reverse technology exists: the ability to upload an old brain image into a new brain. We'd probably want to wait, though, till the human race has evolved brains with more memory capacity. :)

This reminds me of an Asimov robot named Daneel...

Re:It's a copy

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I think the copy might disagree with you.

Re:It's a copy

[SpectreBlofeld]

Every cell in your body dies and is replaced over a scale of seven years or so. You're not the original you, having been replaced multiple times with a 'copy'. Care to redefine your idea of conciousness?

Re:It's a copy

[bill_mcgonigle]

If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

Depends on your SciFi. In Star Trek, absolutely. It "energizes" your matter into an energy stream and sends that actual energy to another place where it coalesces. It's your very quarks being transported.

The Outer Limits did a good story once about the more likely form of teleportation. Some dinosaur-looking aliens made contact with earth and they had the technology. It worked by cooling the person to absolute zero, scanning the subatomic particles, transmitting the scan data over FTL links, and reassembling the body at the other end. The process was non-destructive and required the original to be terminated - doing so was their highest law. There was no FTL travel in that universe, and passengers who used the system found it acceptable. The story revolved around the highly screened man who fell in love with one of his passengers and couldn't bring himself to delete the original.

Re:It's a copy

[HTH NE1]

There's a real easy way to keep uploading and downloading straight. You uploading is you pushing data. You downloading is you pulling data. Larger/smaller, better/lesser, local/remote: none of that matters. It matters only where the force is exerted and the direction of that force, both relative to the location of the data being transferred.

Since you have no facility to push your mind out of your brain into a machine, it must be pulled, ergo downloaded.

Re:It's a copy

[Captain Scurvy]

This reminds me of the ST:TNG episode where they found Scotty "surviving" in a transporter pattern buffer. After being materialized, he looked and behaved exactly like Scotty. But was he "really" Scotty, or just a photocopy? Who is Scotty? Who is anyone?

The answer is that there is no "unchanging" self. As one moment passes to the next, you become a completely different individual than you were before, and the person you were just a moment ago has "ceased" to exist.

Thus, while the you that you "are" may be dead, the "you" that has been copied, for all intents and purposes, is still you, just as you're still you from one moment to the next.

As long as you died before and/or during the copy, the result would be you, as far as the New You or anyone else would be concerned.

Re:It's a copy

[Jim_Maryland]

Well it depends on which movie the "doctor" was watching when they came to this conclusion. I have seen several listings for Freejack on Comcast lately.

Re:It's a copy

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

The difference is continuity. If you replace a tiny piece of yourself, you are still the same person. The new peice is integrated into the rest of your previous self. Do it again, you are still the same person. Regardless of how many time it is done, you are still the same person, even if every original peice of you is replaced. However, if you replace everything at once, there is no longer any 'previous self' for the new peices to be integrated into, and continuity is lost.

Re:It's a copy

[Saeger]

Simply because your mind isn't operating on the slow organic substrate we evolved with is no reason to think you'd be "dead" when transferred to better, faster artificial substrates, whether in a traditional meatspace vessel, or VR worlds.

To clarify:

• "You" are your emergent pattern of mind: Software.
• "You" are NOT necessarily what composes your operating substrate: Hardware.

I understand the cognitive dissonance a lot of people have to the idea of transhumanism, but that doesn't make it valid. People just tend to anthropomorphize the future because it's what we're used to. Case in point: most people are planetary chauvinists in the thinking that Mars is a great gravity well to terraform, when what we'll probably end up doing is tearing the planet(s) apart to create much more efficient substrates and infrastructure (not bound by gravity wells).

Re:It's a copy

[joncue]

Some cells are replaced by new ones, and some are not. I don't believe that brain cells are replaced, once they are dead, you just have fewer.

That's also my rationalization for drinking, kill off the weak brain cells and the rest must work faster...

Re:It's a copy

[dougmc]

If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

Depends on your SciFi. In Star Trek, absolutely. It "energizes" your matter into an energy stream and sends that actual energy to another place where it coalesces. It's your very quarks being transported.

Of course, even in Star Trek, it doesn't always work that way.

It's a very valid question, and until we actually can teleport people, or can actually download their brain to a computer, we really can't answer it. (And maybe not even after ...)

But it does make for some good (well, good examples of Sci-Fi, maybe not good movies) Sci-Fi shows, like Freejack, The Sixth Day and many others.

Re:It's a copy

[tech49er]

There was a film a few years ago starring Arnold Schwarzenneger (maybe the californians can help me with the spelling) - was it Eraser? anyway, these guys figured out how to do imortality by making copys of their brains and creating clones of themselves and then uploading the copy to the clone when the original died. Is Dr. Pearson ripping off an Arnie movie?

Re:It's a copy

[Colin Smith]

*You*, are the instance of conciousness that is currently executing on the hardware of your brain.

The only way I see that you could be downloaded to a computer and still remain *you* is if the individual neurons of your brain were replaced basically one at a time with a functionally identical artificial neuron in a sort of hot swap fashion as the conciousness continued to function.

Re:It's a copy

[Lehk228]

it wasn't eraser, eraser was the one with the railguns and the scope that could see through walls

Re:It's a copy

[nido]

Conciousness is so poorly understood...

you mean that it's poorly understood by most people. Every now and then individuals get a clue: the Buddha, various monks in following in his footsteps, Jesus, etc. We've seen a rash of people in 20th century america who came to understand what it means to be human: Edgar Cayce, Jose Silva, etc. I'd advise looking into Robert Monroe's 3 books (Journeys Out of the Body, Far Journeys, Ultimate Journey, the last two moreso than the first). Robert even started his own private research institute for studying conciousness: The Monroe Institute. Think about it: what if it were true, that we are all more than our physical bodies?

Let the materialistic flamefets begin... :)

Re:It's a copy

[MightyMartian]

I can't speak to other cells, but the neurons in your brain and the nerve cells in your spinal column are all you've got. They do not regenerate. I suspect that there are other cell complexes in other organs that are probably one-timers as well (ova for instance).

Re:It's a copy

[LukePieStalker]

Thus, while the you that you "are" may be dead, the "you" that has been copied, for all intents and purposes, is still you.

Wrong. That's just philosophical gobbledegook. There is a continuity of consciousness that makes my "movie" and allows "the me behind my eyeballs" to experience being the same me now and five minutes from now. What you're talking about does that "me" absolutely no good. There could be fifty copies of me living in an underground bunker on the moon right now, but it doesn't do the person typing this post any good whatsoever.

Re:It's a copy

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

Despite my search with google and amazon I can't find the anthology or the short story, but this Outer Limits episode sounds like a rip-off of a short story I've read. It's all the same, dino-like aliens, FTL teleportation, non-destructive, and the process automaticly terminates the copy at the departure station upon sucesful assembly of the copy at the destination. The hitch came when some sort of lag prevented a prompt notification to the departure station that a copy as successfully made. The traveler was asked to hang about so they could re-try sending him at a later time when they worked out the problem in their system. Of course the only problem ended up being that the automatic travler terminator failed to get a message from the destination site. The Dinos had to find this guy and shove'm out the airlock. I sure as hell wish there was a book search engine that let you put in key phrases and get back a list of possible matches with the name of author and publication date, maybe with links to Amazon for the likely matches too.

Re:It's a copy

[Gigaplex]

The interesting thing here is that they assume that we are just meat bodies. Who is to say that memories are even stored in the brain? It could be some energy manifestation. Most people believe that we have souls (or more accurately are souls.) Maybe it's stored in the soul. If you constructed a neural network in a computer the size of the brain, which could probably be done now, do you think you could fit 80 years of video in it somehow? I think not.

Re:It's a copy

[badasscat]

Depends on your SciFi. In Star Trek, absolutely. It "energizes" your matter into an energy stream and sends that actual energy to another place where it coalesces. It's your very quarks being transported.

This still doesn't answer the question, though. We really have such a limited understanding of personality and even what constitutes the "soul" (for lack of a better word) that you can't make any assumption about what would happen if your body was broken down into particles, transported somewhere and then reassembled. You really don't know if you'd really be you anymore, if you'd have the same memories, the same mannerisms, etc. unless you really do believe that all we are is a collection of electrical impulses firing randomly (and not even many scientists believe that).

You can not-very-safely assume that taking a brain apart and then putting it back together again the exact same way would give you the same exact person again, but there is no proof of that. And much of what we do know about the brain is completely non-intuitive, so it's just as possible that you'd wipe all memories clean as soon as you particle-ized a brain (meaning the person coming out the other end would be almost a vegetable, and would certainly never be the same person again). After all, memories are persistent because those areas of our brains are in constant use and in constant electrical contact with other areas of our brains... to teleport under the Star Trek model you basically have to "kill" a person and then re-animate them, and I don't really see how you'd keep a person's memories intact. (And by "memories" I don't just mean happy reminiscences about when you were a child, I mean things like how to use a fork to put food in your mouth, how to speak, who your friends and family are. The stuff of life, basically.) It's similar to when somebody's heart stops for more than a few minutes and they end up brain-damaged from oxygen starvation - their brain still physically exists as it always did, but it no longer works properly. I would think that process or something like it would happen instantly and completely if that person was broken down into individual atoms.

If you can disassemble and then reassemble somebody somewhere else, what's to prevent you from assembling somebody new from scratch? If you're taking it down to the quark level, all you need to do is collect enough matter and with the knowledge you have about re-building people, you should be able to build copies of copies and even new people all day long. But we don't know if that would really actually work (these "people" would be blank slates), and if it did, it would be kind of a sad day, wouldn't it? Talk about de-valuing humanity...

Teleportation, even of the Star Trek kind (or maybe especially of the Star Trek kind), would be illegal under the laws of many religions for the reasons listed above, and others too (when you atomize somebody, they are no longer "alive" as such, meaning their soul has departed. The person coming out the other side would not be considered a person under Christianity and many other religions). It would probably eventually be illegal under the laws of many countries too, just as human cloning is starting to be now.

Re:It's a copy

[Jorrit]

Why do you assume there can be no interruption in conciousness?

Greetings,

Re:It's a copy

[tech49er]

em, end of days??? , yep: http://imdb.com/title/tt0216216/

Re:It's a copy

[deathcloset]

the trick is not to download your brain, but to slowly upgrade it.

basically if you replace your brain one neuron at a time over say, a few years, then eventually the whole brain will be replaced - and you will be guaranteed to be in it. this is the only way I would replace my brain.

Re:It's a copy

[HTH NE1]

The Outer Limits did a good story once about the more likely form of teleportation. Some dinosaur-looking aliens made contact with earth and they had the technology.

Before Sci-Fi Channel adapted it into an episode of The Outer Limits, it was on their Seeing Ear Theater. I believe it is based on the book of the same name.

Re:It's a copy

[Captain Nitpick]

Well, until someone invents a person-capable teleportation device, i think the answer is No.

Attempt 7: Teleportation

Teleportation, in this case, would be the difficult technique of transporting a Convict to the Americas by disintegrating him here and reintegrating him there. With great expense, we constructed a teleportation device and stuck a Convict inside.

Result: Convict did not so much "Disintegrate" as "Melt."

From Reaching the Americas: One Mad Scientist's Approach by Jeff Vogel

Re:It's a copy

[Molochi]

Well "YOU" would be dead, but your loved ones or anyone that valued your existance could benifit from it. I could see a situation where an employer took out a "life insurance policy" on a coder, scientist, or artist, etc... to preserve what they find worthy about the individual. I could see soldiers, policemen, and others in dangerous professions wanting to upload their minds for their children. I could see megalomaniacs doing it because the world would be such a poorer place by their absence:)

Sounds like a salable product to me.

Re:It's a copy

[Dr_Barnowl]

Well, as other posters state, brain cells don't necessarily regenerate (although the matter in them may well be exchanged by cell maintainence processes). However, this IS the way to do it right. Slowly replace your brain functions with the functions of prosthetic tissue that behaves identically but is "immortal". As old brain tissue dies off, the new, techno-brain takes over functions. No interruption of consciousness ; fewer doubts about the authenticity of ones being. When your organic brain is finally dead, you can think about upgrading yourself, because you'll have backups that can have perfect fidelity.

Re:It's a copy

[TGK]

Do you have perfect video recolection of every event that's occured in your life? Of course not, the brain filters information based on relevance.

For reasons that continue to trouble me, the brain seems to be worse at this than Google.

Re:It's a copy

[tanguyr]

hey, it's 50% effective.

i say slap a beta label on it and release it to sourceforge. some kind soul will iron out the remaining bugs.

Re:It's a copy

[Peaked]

I held a similiar position on the idea of conciousness for a while but then I looked a bit deeper and found that its really hard to tell what conciousness is. There's the often quoted (not sure about accuracy of it) fact that every cell in your body is replaced at least every seven years or so. So are you the same person you were seven years ago? The matter you are made of is different, just the configuration is mostly the same. I think that it would be best to slowly integrate your brain with machines till your brain recognized it as part of you. This happens all the time with prosthetics and your brain even does it with hand tools over time. One day the remaining organic bits of your brain would have all died off and you would be a machine without even recognizing it immediately.

Re:It's a copy

[Tlosk]

I can't speak to other cells, but the neurons in your brain and the nerve cells in your spinal column are all you've got. They do not regenerate. I suspect that there are other cell complexes in other organs that are probably one-timers as well (ova for instance).

That was the common consensus ten years ago but the last few years has seen that turned upside down.

For example with neurons:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1 /Wall.html

and ova:

http://pharyngula.org/comments/484_0_1_0_C/

Re:It's a copy

[darthtrevino]

I believe Arnold Rimmer on Red Dwarf went through this same metaphysical dilemma.

"Am I really Me, or am I a simulation of me? Do I still have a soul? If I'm not me, then where am I?"
--
Random Signature #2
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:It's a copy

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

After much searching, I'm thinking of James Patrick Kelly and his story "Think Like a Dinosaur", first published in August of 1997 A quoted summary here: ""Think Like a Dinosaur", uses two props of the genre, aliens and matter transmitters, to set up the narrator's moral dilemma. Michael Burr works for the hanen, an alien race resembling dinosaurs: he guides infrequent human star-travellers through the 'migration' process. In the course of the transfer, the humans are copied, one of the copies travelling on to their stellar destination, while the other is exterminated before regaining consciousness - the hanen way of thinking (hence the story's title) allows no sentimentality over the eradication of the copy left behind. When Burr releases a traveller from a malfunctioning device, only to discover that transfer has actually been effected, he must end the life of the copy he can only view as human... In this story, the technology is not cutting edge but a device of artistic licence, which aficionados of Hard SF might deplore - a clever method of achieving an artistic end: the unflinching examination of the human psyche, and Kelly does it brilliantly"

Re:It's a copy

[Colin Smith]

"Care to redefine your idea of conciousness?"

No, because during each of these single cell replacements, the conciousness running on the machine as a whole continued to function, continued to be *me*, even though it changed slightly each time.

You could think of it like a shoal of fish or a flock of birds. The flock operates according to a set of rules, remove one bird from the flock of thousands and replace it with another the flock continues to function as a single unit as it did before.

However, if you could somehow freeze the flock and create another of the exactly same size with all of the birds in exactly the same relative position, you now have a second instance of the flock, it will operate according to exactly the same rules and will function exactly the same but the first flock is still there. The second copy of me is nothing more than that, a second instance, no longer *me*, though it thinks it is.

Re:It's a copy

[Saeger]

That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.

Why would there be money in "young bodies"? Bio-bodies aren't exactly scarce; these days anybody can use their computer to choose an bodytype of any age from fastsimulation-grown vDNA, merge a selected brainpattern (your own backup, or JennaJamesonLITE(TM)) with an old bulky meatbrain or a more robust substrate, then output that from a your garden variety large-nanoassembler.

Maybe you're from some alternate universe where an evil power elite kept abundance scarce in order to preserve the hiearchical social order?

Re:It's a copy

[Captain Scurvy]

A copy living on the moon would cease being you as soon as either one of you experienced anything.

The "continuity of consciousness" that you experience is dependent upon the "you from a moment ago" ceasing to exist. That "you" isn't around anymore to challenge that you aren't him.

My point was that if you die before or during the copy, what comes out the other end is "you" in the same respect that you are still "you" as time passes.

Re:It's a copy

[HTL2001]

but if you implememnt it like in the book "Kiln People" then you have something

for those of you who didnt read (not a spoiler) the book involves use of a machine to copy your memories and whats called your 'standing soul wave' into a clay-like copy of yourself that lasted for a day, and that you could 'inload' the data from that day back into yourself. the 'standing soul wave' is dynamic for a person, which is why they limit life to 1 day, otherwize it would be impossable to completely inload (they could extract some images but not much)

Re:It's a copy

[Colin Smith]

I don't. My conciousness is interrupted once every day.

Re:It's a copy

[0311]

If I recall my Anatomy & Physiology lectures correctly, there are cells in the body that are not replaced - among these exceptions are the neuron cells of the CNS (Central Nervous System). This includes the brain and the spinal cord. If only I had my notes with me I could confirm that and give you a reference in the text we used, but I don't. Oh well, after all, this is /.

Re:It's a copy

[LiquidCoooled]

Unless you find even your own cloned brain hates you as well.

(certainly not saying anything about the parent, this was a Red Dwarf plot)

Re:It's a copy

[DaltonRS]

The Sixth Day.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216216/

Re:It's a copy

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:It's a copy

[jericho4.0]

It's not clear that 'neuron' is the end of the story, especially in the context of memory and memory retrieval. The question is, is it deterministic? There are theories of the brain that postulate quantum effects as being important, ie; in the folding of proteins and DNA in neurons. The romantic in me hopes this to be true, because I can't do the math.

Re:It's a copy

[MarkGriz]

"And what happens if the Evil Bit gets flipped in the download?"

You become Darth Vader

Re:It's a copy

[Tongo]

Hey, if my evil bit gets flipped, does that mean I get to finally grow a gotee?

Re:It's a copy

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I teleported home one night with Ron and Sid and Meg.

Ron stole Meggie's heart away.

And I go Sidney's leg.

--Douglas Adams, The Resteraunt at the End of the Universe

Re:It's a copy

[Verteiron]

The Outer Limits frequently made episodes out of sci-fi short stories. As I recall they even made an episode out of Niven's "Inconstant Moon". I've never seen it, though.

Re:It's a copy

[Kirsha]

It's similar to when somebody's heart stops for more than a few minutes and they end up brain-damaged from oxygen starvation - their brain still physically exists as it always did, but it no longer works properly.

You said it yourself. The brain is damaged. It no longer is physically as it was before it was damaged, therefore, of course it doesnt work properly anymore.

Re:It's a copy

[AxelBoldt]

How are you sure that you are the same you that you were five minutes ago?

Or: how do you know that the person that goes to bed tonight is the same as the one that wakes up tomorrow? The two share the same memories, but that's about it; they surely don't share the same atoms or brain structure. For all practical purposes, you will die tonight, and a copy will be resurrected tomorrow morning.

Re:It's a copy

[|/|/|||]

While I'll agree that nobody really knows whether this is possible or not, I disagree that it's scientifically unlikely.

First of all, to really look at the problem you have to leave the supernatural at the door - I don't know what a "soul" is, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the physical universe and everything to do with the wishful thinking of humans. Your body is you. Nothing in the entire universe that I've ever heard of points to any part of "you" being anything other than a part of your physical body. When your body is destroyed, your "consciousness", memories, etc are also destroyed.

As far as I can tell, the basic idea of copying an individual's brain is theoretically sound - if you had the technology to make an atom per atom perfect copy of a human, I see no reason why that human would fail to function. According to physical theory, atoms are interchangable.

To take it further, I doubt that the copy would even have to be perfect at an atomic level. From what we know so far, human memories are stored as connections in a network of neurons. This includes "how to use a fork", "how to speak" and reminiscences about childhood. Where did you think the knowledge about how to control your body in order to get food into your mouth is stored? Babies can't do that - they have to reconnect neurons in order to both understand and respond to the rest of the world. All of that information is in your nervous system.

So, assuming that you can read the important features of the brain's neural network, and assuming that you can reconstruct it (most likely as a simulation) it's probably going to work. The first thing it will probably say is, "What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"

As for de-valuing humanity, that's just something we're going to deal with. It shook things up a bit when we realized that we were animals (I don't even think that it has had time to really sink in yet) and now we realize that we and all other animals are just machines. Does that change the value of human life? That is up to us to determine.

Re:It's a copy

[|/|/|||]

Navel gazing is great for giving yourself the pleasure of feeling like you've figured out the universe. For the rest of us, reality is far more interesting.

Re:It's a copy

[lobsterGun]

How about this:

a person has a special chip inserted in their skull that records their brain state over the course of their lifetime. The chip is wirelessly connected to the backup system and keeps it constantly and updated. Would that be a valid backup?

Or how about this:

Over the course of a lifetime, a person has various parts of their brain replaced/augmented with technology.

Some of the implants replaced damaged brain functions (damage from a stroke).

Some augment the senses (heads up display).

Some add new capability (robo-telepathy).

Eventually, the person replaces their entire brain to the point that they no longer need a body and can exist in a virtual world.

When do they cease to be human?
Is it when the last brain cell is replaced?
Is it when the first one gets replaced?
Is it somewhere in the middle?

Re:It's a copy

[Verteiron]

And here I thought I had thought that concept up myself.

Seriously, though, I've spent a few mental cycles on this problem, and a neuron-by-neuron replacement seems to be the only way to be -certain- that "I" continue to experience the world. Hell, you might even be able to do it in larger chunks than that, but if the technology to do a neuron-by-neuron replacement existed (autonomous neuron-replacing nanobots?) then a complete understanding of the brain wouldn't be needed. Replace the neurons with something capable of creating the same connections at the same speed... Maybe even a faster speed! Accelerate your conciousness like Miles Teg, and watch your own arm break as you try to move it at a significant fraction of lightspeed... okay, that would suck, but the possibility of being able to replace the physical mechanisms of the brain whilst maintaining the same "being" is pretty exciting concept.

Or maybe that's just me.

Re:It's a copy

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Or the Dwarf King's Axe from The Fifth Elephant

Re:It's a copy

[egomaniac]

So your opinion is that psychics and two-thousand-year-old mythological characters better understand the nature of consciousness than modern neuroscientists?

Pray tell, what great scientific achievements did Edgar Cayce contribute to the world? I'll even let all of his missed and failed predictions, such as his belief that we would discover the death-ray used in Atlantis back in 1958, slide. I just want to know how he contributed to our understanding of consciousness.

As for Jesus, he was a fictional character. There is no more reason to believe that Jesus really existed than that Zeus, Achilles, or Hercules really existed. On top of that, none of the sayings attributed to him in any way contribute to our understanding of consciousness.

Psychics and fictional characters didn't invent the light bulb or the rocket ship. They aren't going to decipher the mysteries of the conscious mind either. We got to where we are today because of science, not religion.

Re:It's a copy

[Colin Smith]

I'm not sure quantum effects are absolutely necessary, though they are clearly involved, chemistry is based on how the electrons in a molecule behave. Quantum mechanics would obviously still be involved even if biological neurons were replaced with artificial equivalents.

The brain is significantly complex that the outcome for any given input is undeterminable, even if quantum mechanics were not involved. In fact, I would say that the brain is complexity incarnate, because of this I strongly suspect that chaos theory and complexity are *required* for conciousness and intelligence.

Re:It's a copy

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Do answer that question you are going to have to define 'human'.

Good luck

Re:It's a copy

[Colin Smith]

Like the eye, good ideas are rediscovered again and again.

Re:It's a copy

[prell]

Since bodies change on the cellular level from moment to moment, can you ever said to be "you"?

If you think about consciousness as a window of experience, that window is extinguished at death, whereupon the parts of your body are decomposed, consumed or destroyed. Taking an imprint and arranging another brain to match it is a copy, as I see it. From that moment on, as every moment before it, there is only what exists: there is not one person living in two places. Possibly apart from the initial coincidence, the experiences of each brain are then unique.

Re:It's a copy

[zkn]

A copy of human is still human.

Re:It's a copy

[prell]

Are you defining yourself as your memories, or are you defining yourself as some majority of body matter that happens to exist in a particular location? Or are you defining it as your ability to stay alive?

If you're taking your memories into account: what if you were impaired such that you could never retain memories? What are you then? Only what other, memory-capable people define you as? How far can you go down the food chain before you can decide that certain life forms have no "self"? Past sentient life? Past beings that are capable of even having this debate, which - as far as I know - is only one form of life?

Re:It's a copy

[thesandtiger]

Why is an all-at-once replacement differend from one that's done piece-by-piece? What is the mechanism that makes it different? Is there some kind of "imprinting" that the other cells have done? What's the time-frame? How long must a cell/part have been part of "you" before it is considered to be part of you at this point? How is a replacement over 7 years different from one over 7 seconds or 7 hours or 7 of any arbitrary unit?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions, and I don't know of anyone who does have answers that are anything other than wild ass guesses and personal beliefs.

Now, certainly it seems to make intuitive sense that "continuity" of some sort is important - but then again, many things that seem intuitive to us are not even remotely correct.

Re:It's a copy

[LukePieStalker]

I don't think it's intellectually honest to dismiss people's sense of a personal narrative by saying that it's just a chain of other selves that closely resemble them. We are talking about perception here, and I doubt that you perceive life that way. If you did, then you shouldn't be bothered by someone saying that five minutes from now they are going to point a gun at your foot and pull the trigger. After all, that's someone else, so why should you care? (Or would you ask them not to do so purely out of a sense of altruism for that other entirely different person?) By the same token, making a copy of one's self to continue what one perceives to be his or her life will be very cold comfort to the source from which the copy is taken.

Re:It's a copy

[God! Awful 2]

You'd be suprised. When I died a few years ago I had this done, and it's been great fun. It was either this or getting frozen. I'm just waiting for someone to screw up and download me, and I'm home free. That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.

This is not new. It's called Freejack. Or does no one but me remember that movie?

-a

Re:It's a copy

[Mr. Slippery]

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.)

Re:It's a copy

[Danathar]

In the Movie "The Fly" the premace of the transportation device is that you are incinerated in one pod and duplicated in another.

Jeff Goldbloom gets out of the second pod and looks at the monkey and says "Is is real? Or is it memorex" (slogan from the 80's about Memorex's audio tapes...for those of you too young to remember)

Factoring out spiritual/religious questions, a friend once asked me a question concerning if the copy was the "real" you. He said "If it looks like you, talks like you and acts the way you would act and nobody can tell the difference...does it matter?"

Re:It's a copy

[zwei2stein]

You don't have to wait 50 years to do it.

just get yourslves some nice mental disease and you'll be able to argue with several copies of yourself ...

Re:It's a copy

[DickBreath]

Not Eraser, it was The Sixth Day.

Re:It's a copy

[Anonym1ty]

And what happens if the Evil Bit gets flipped in the download?

The you come out the other end with a Van Dyke

Re:It's a copy

[zwei2stein]

You are missing one thing: counsiosness stays. I'ts not yout body that says who you are, its software your brain runs. freeze execution and move it somewhere else: it will still be you

fork it, you will get identical copies, it still will be you, but in duo - only following experience will diferetiate, but at precise moment of duplication, it will still be you*2

I would definitelly like to see such procedure done and be able to talk with two resulting persons, since it will prove wheter there is really some untouchable soul.

I can see religious figures starting holy wars.

Re:It's a copy

[|/|/|||]

How would he/I know which was the copy?

Well, I assume that the copy would either be limited to a videocamera, microphone, and speakers as an interface with the outside world, or else would be inside of a simulation. Most likely you would be able to tell it was a simulation, even if it was a very good one. If you were actually able to make a perfect copy of the entire human, I would suggest affixing a post-it note to the door of the "construction" chamber.

Your use of the word "just" reflects an unwarranted value judgement.

I didn't intend to make a value judgement. I used "just" because seeing humans as machines is a generalization. Seeing them as humans is more specific. You also make a good point that, depending on how you define "machine," it could include everything in the universe. The generalization that I was pointing out, however, is that animals are made up of very complex molecular hardware. These act like traditional mechanical "machines" in many ways - basically riding atop chemistry and physics in order to perform complex functions.

Re:It's a copy

[mothrafokker]

Does this mean the original me was back when I was a zygote? My cells have been duplicating ever since, so I assume that's what you mean...

Re:It's a copy

[Mr. Slippery]

Every now and then individuals get a clue: the Buddha, various monks in following in his footsteps, Jesus, etc. We've seen a rash of people in 20th century america who came to understand what it means to be human: Edgar Cayce, Jose Silva, etc.

If you're mentioning the Buddha in the same paragraph as Edgar Cayce, you're confused about the teachings of one or the other. (Jesus, it's hard to say through all the conflicting historical bullshit - it's hard to separate the political from the spiritual.)

The Buddha was concerned with the problem of human suffering, and offered a program of mental exercise and discipline to help allieviate it. While Sidhartha was a product of his times and soaked up some cultural beliefs, and various metaphysics were added in by some of the Mahayana sects to make things more palitable to the peasants, the core teachings are pretty metaphysically agnostic. Consult any Zen master for further enlightenment.

Cayce beleived in psychic powers and the existance of Atlantis, and made a bunch of failed prophecies.

The Buddha used meditation and intuition to explore the subjective world of his own consciousness, a method that works pretty well. Cayce used meditation and intuition to try to determine facts about the "objective" universe, which just doesn't work.

Re:It's a copy

[Jambon]

So, I wonder what the copyright on "Me" would be. Could I choose to make myself opensource? What about charging ridiculous amounts of money for using any part of my digital brain? Not that I would really profit from any of this, but can you imagine what would happen once families got into fights over what to do with grampas brain?

Re:It's a copy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Unless you find even your own cloned brain hates you as well.

That would be uncool. Imagine him revealing embarassing truths, like "Hey! LiquidCool once while looking at a video of a sow suckling its piglets!"

Re:It's a copy

[R3d M3rcury]

Reference here.

Now there's a show that needs to come back.

Re:It's a copy

[Eric Smith]

For some useful insight into this question, watch the animated short "To Be" (John Weldon, 1990). Unfortunately not currently available on video; at one time it was available as part of a compilation of Canadian Film Board animation.

Re:It's a copy

[Mr. Slippery]

Since bodies change on the cellular level from moment to moment, can you ever said to be "you"?

Right-o. There is no permanent unchanging self; our bodies, our thoughts, are constantly changing. This is a core teaching or Buddhism - "anatman" (or "anatta" in Pali).

"You" are just a character in a the story your brain is telling.

Re:It's a copy

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:It's a copy

[BlueArchon]

>Accelerate your conciousness like Miles Teg, and watch your own arm break as you try to move it at a significant fraction of lightspeed... okay, that would suck,

I'd say if you overclock your brain, everything would appear to happen slower. You'd just get really bored with your overly slow body...

Re:It's a copy

[Captain Scurvy]

I don't mean to imply that personal narrative should be dismissed. What I mean is that, assuming the copy would perform exactly like you, and you--in all certainty--have ceased to exist at the time of the copy, it is no different than when you live from one moment to the next.

The cousin post makes an excellent point, however. None of us knows whether or not we actually do cease to exist after our bodies die.

Re:It's a copy

[hazah]

"If you constructed a neural network in a computer the size of the brain, which could probably be done now, do you think you could fit 80 years of video in it somehow?"

1. Have you ever programmed anything?
2. Video? You don't honestly think so, do you?

Re:It's a copy

[owlstead]

"What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!" ... famous first words?

Re:It's a copy

[grannybuttons]

If something is photocopied, surely it's not dead?

Perhaps an artist would say it *IS* dead, whilst a logician would say it's *NOT* dead. Meanwhile, perhaps a philosopher would leave the question open.

And what would the schoolboy say when the dog ate his homework? If he had a photocopy, would it still be an excuse?

Re:It's a copy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The person coming out the other side would not
> be considered a person under Christianity and
> many other religions).

On the other hand, when Yaweh is blowing hot air at Job, saying, "Can you make a mountain? Can you make a whale?" we can say, "Ya, we sure can, foo!"

Thus making a mockery of the religious concept that only gods can create life (hey, it was just an engineering problem after all). At that point, one hopes humanity will abandon ancient, savage notions of how the cosmos operates.

Re:It's a copy

[owlstead]

I don't know if my mind works less reliable than google. At least it can reliably detect what's in a picture, what is spoken and (most importantly) what can be seen as a bonafide review.

Re:It's a copy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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?

"What the...Oh shit, my weiner is straight! And long! And not rubbed raw! My back doesn't hurt! My feet and crotch don't stink! My teeth are straight and ungrodyficated!"

Hmmmm...how would this copy know?

Re:It's a copy

[alw53]

I think in order to make any progress on this issue, you're going to have to stop using the word "is".

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

Alan

Re:It's a copy

[brkello]

Umm, I am pretty sure they won't have a perfect copy of your body at the point in time that your brain was copied. If you knew that copying existed and it was done to you, then as soon as you were "woken up", yeah, you would probably say "what the...why is my body different..oh shit I am a copy". You are assuming that you will be placed in a body at all. It's doubtful it will be biological. You might just be a hard drive with a mic and a web cam.

You are taking this way too personally. Are you sure you aren't a copy? We tend to value originals more than a copy...this is the nature of things. You take better care of your brand new cd more than a copy a friend gave you...cause hey, you can just make more right? So it is not surprising to have the word "just" associated with a copy. While I agree that these new copies should be treated as humans, you know they will be segregated...particularly by religious people because that really messed up their whole belief structure.

Yeah, machines can be pretty darn wonderful...particularly my gaming systems. Oh wait, you are talking about humans...I sometimes question how wonderful we really are. We are fairly destructive...so machines can be horrible as well. Now we have a bunch of machines capable of thinking at high levels but not afraid of death. Now that is really scary. Think Grand Theft Auto scary. I don't care if I get killed anymore in a shootout because my copy will just activate somewhere else.

The problem with copying a brain also is that our mood is effected by the chemicals in our body. Yeah, our brain helps kick off a lot of those reactions but if the body is not a perfect copy, then it seems fairly certain that the body would react differently...like more testosterone would be produced with the new body than the old one. This will cause people to be sort of the same, but have subtle personailty differences. Think if we removed those all together. They probably would lack a lot of the emotions...this could make them excellent people since they will always be even tempered...of they could become cold, careless killers. So much we don't know...but I hope I live long enough to see it happen...army of killer androids or no.

Re:It's a copy

[jafac]

"What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"

If you can tell the difference, then you're not a very good copy.

Re:It's a copy

[noamsml]

some people may use it to overcome grief.

Re:It's a copy

[parcifal]

I have always had this question. If you had teleportation, why would you ever need Starship Enterprise?

Re:It's a copy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> ...and then kill the original (killing is optional).

That is, of course, the entire point.

I don't wanna be killed. That a copy of me now exists is irrelevant.

I would feel safe with a Star Trek-like "disassemble-and-transport-and-reassemble" teleporter.

I would not feel safe with a "disassemble and transport only the info and reassemble from local atoms" teleporter. I have been disintegrated. That a copy pops into existance, swears it's me, and claims everything is fine, does not affect that I went to sleep and never woke up. The machine whose operation instantiates my mind is destroyed.

On the other hand, if "waking up" is a re-instantiation immediately populated by memories and so on, didn't I just die last night when I went to sleep?

Disturbing, yet that seems the most likely. I have no continuity with last night (dreams aside). Getting consciousness "turned off" doesn't scare us because, most of the time, it will be turned back on shortly. Consciousness is like a flame -- put it out and it's gone. Add heat back and the candle starts up again. "Whew!", says the flame. "That was a bad nightmare! I'm glad I'm awake again. I wonder if you teleport the candle, will the flame there still be me?"

Re:It's a copy

[LesPaul75]

I think that you are indirectly asking the ultimate question here: What part of the human body houses the conciousness? If someone loses an arm or a leg, their conciousness is not lost. But on the other hand, if you go without oxygen for a few minutes, conciousness is permanently lost -- even though nothing physical has been removed. So where are the cells that actually matter?

Is it somewhere in the brain? Probably. Is it the mysterious thing that weighs 21 grams? If you could find the "organ" or whatever it is that makes you concious, then all you'd need to do is keep that clump of cells alive, and everything else could be replaced.

Re:It's a copy

[egomaniac]

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.

I consider your viewpoint quite a bit more odd. You seem to suggest that I need evidence to disbelieve something, which is not so. If you tell me that a leprechaun lives in your back yard, I don't need to go hunt for evidence in order to not believe you. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, and you are the one with the burden of evidence. Likewise, when someone claims that Jesus actually existed, I want to see some evidence.

We have writings of all sorts of fantastic people -- Jesus, Sherlock Holmes, and Harry Potter just to name a few. There are far more primary writings about Harry Potter than there are Jesus, but nobody believes that Harry Potter really exists. So why the special treatment for Jesus? Why do you believe in him just because there are a few millenia-old parchments that mention him?

There is essentially no evidence in favor of the historical existence of Jesus. The gospels were written long after his death, by unknown authors (certainly not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the writing style is that of fiction. They reveal events that take place when Jesus was alone, or detail his thoughts, in exactly the same way that modern fiction writers do. No contemporary historians (of which there were many) record Jesus' existence, and they would have had his fame been as great as described in the Gospels. Pontius Pilate's writings do not mention him. There are no Roman records of Jesus being executed. Of all of the miraculous events that supposedly occurred during Jesus' life, some of which would have been visible the world over, not a single contempory account exists.

So let me ask you this: why should I believe in Jesus? Why should I believe in him, or Achilles, or Hercules, any more than I do in Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns, or leprechauns?

In fact, it's interesting that you actually believe in Achilles, since he's the most obviously fictional of the characters I first mentioned. The description of Achilles occurs in an ancient work of fiction -- why do you believe he exists, when (I presume) you don't believe that characters described in modern-day fiction exist?

Re:It's a copy

[ThJ]

This would explain a thing or two about flies and their ability to anoyyy...

Re:It's a copy

[LesPaul75]

Trust me -- this is a road you don't want to go down. Your wife will die in childbirth, your children will be hidden from you, and the guy who used to be your best friend in the world will hack your limbs off. And then, just to rub salt in the wound, he'll tell your son that you're "more machine than man now, twisted and evil." What a prick.

Re:It's a copy

[Golias]

There's a real easy way to keep uploading and downloading straight. You uploading is you pushing data.

There's an easier way than that. A simple Mnemonic device:

"Go up. Come down."

Try it next time you teach a n00b the difference. It could be the next "righty tighty, lefty loosey."

Re:It's a copy

[irefay]

I disagree. As of right now, we do not understand how memory is even stored. After a time the synapse's distance grows and the nurans are no longer used for a spicific memory. Thus the memory should be no longer accessable... BUT IT IS. What happens? We dont know. It could move to a diffrent part of the brain but then again we have found no "instructions" on where to move it.

Re:It's a copy

[sottovoce]

"Nothing in the entire universe that I've ever heard of points to any part of 'you' being anything other than a part of your physical body."

How about what it's like to see the color blue?

I'm not being facetious. This -- the mind-body problem -- is actually a hot-button philosophical and scientific issue nowadays, and there is no easy answer to it. The physicalist explanation of consciousness is still full of holes. See:

http://consc.net/online.html

Re:It's a copy

[Ralph Yarro]

The question is, is it deterministic? There are theories of the brain that postulate quantum effects as being important, ie; in the folding of proteins and DNA in neurons. The romantic in me hopes this to be true, because I can't do the math.

There are three basic models: deterministic, random and probabilistic.

The three can be described by reference to a theoretical ability to form a perfect simulation of a person at a precise moment in time, including environmental and sensory data. In effect this is used to replay a moment of decision over and over again.

Deterministic: the person behaves in exactly the same way each time the moment is replayed.

Random: the person behaves in a random manner each time the moment is replayed - he could do anything.

Probabilistic: the person's behaviour changes each time but within a restricted scope e.g. if we could replay my replying to your post then we might find that 90% of the time I write something along the lines of this post, 9% I write "me too!" and 1% I post about how BSD is dying.

The random model doesn't match what we perceive as reality. I don't believe there was as much chance of me trying to eat the keyboard as of typing on it. So that leaves deterministic and probabilistic. Either of these could be valid.

Of the two, I think deterministic is far more emotionally satisfying. That doesn't make it true of course but I'd much rather think that there is something that is ME with a strong sense of identity that in situation X having had day Y and being worried about factors Z I will lose my temper. The less well defined probabilistic alternative me that if the situation was replayed would sometimes get angry and sometimes not is far less appealing.

These emotional preferences don't change reality of course, maybe we are probabilistic in nature, but I really can't understand why anyone would prefer to think of themselves that way.

Re:It's a copy

[nido]

Pray tell, what great scientific achievements did Edgar Cayce contribute to the world? ... I just want to know how he contributed to our understanding of consciousness.

An egomaniac doesn't really deserve a response, but for the other people who'll read this:

Edgar Cayce's health advice really is priceless. I've used it, so I know how valuable it is. Cayce frequently recommended castor oil. Recently I had a couple of boils on my face (a result of consuming too much sugar, combined with my crooked spine [which prevents proper lymphatic drainage through the thoracic outlet]). Once I started putting castor oil on them, they started going down.

Last summer sometime I developed a rash. It disappeared soon after applying castor oil.

Cayce frequently recommended osteopathic adjustments when they would help. Nowadays he'd recommend Osteopathy in the Cranial Field, or maybe craniosacral therapy. My new cranial osteopath has done more to straighten me out than any of the MDs I've been to. If it weren't for Cayce, I'd probably be on perscription painkillers and scheduled for a worthless surgery.

Before you trash someone (having only read the so-called "skeptical" propaganda), you should really read up on what that person really said. The Cayce organization followed up on as many of his health readings as they could get feedback on, and as long as the person did as they were instructed, they did get better, as good as Cayce told them they could expect.

Re:It's a copy

[Eukariote]

However, if you replace everything at once, there is no longer any 'previous self' for the new peices to be integrated into, and continuity is lost.

The relevant continuity is continuity of state, not continuity in time or form. If you suspend your laptop to disk and restart it later, the running processes will continue as of the point of suspension. Would you claim that those are no longer the same processes because they were suspended for some time with the DRAM cells discharged?

Yes, but, I hear you say, that's not the same because the processes are resumed on the same hardware. So that's akin to sleep or narcosis, not a wholesale transfer.

So what about transferring the disk to a different laptop and resuming that? Or transferring the disk image to a software emulation of the laptop's hardware and resuming that?

Re:It's a copy

[Doctor O]

Actually, that is a pretty simple one. Everything you remember is saved in your brain physically. If you find a way to scan the exact, complete physical state of the brain at a certain point of time, including the exact motion/strength/direction etc. of the neural signals, save that, and make it 'physical' again, e.g. with those electronics-building yoghurt bacteria from TFA, and 'boot' it, it would be exactly you, with all your stored memories, experiences etc.

The hard point of this is, of course, that mofo Heisenberg fucks it all up. You cannot observe the position and motion of anything at the same time. You'd end up with a fucked up copied brain because you don't know how exactly the electric signals running the brain were going at the time of the scan, and I believe uniform or random neural signals would likely be a quite unpleasant experience.

I remember reading a headline on some magazine that claimed Heisenberg had been disproved, but I didn't buy it and I am too lazy to Google. Feedback on this is greatly appreciated.

Re:It's a copy

[RichardX]

Am 'I' the matter or the data in my brain? If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

We were well warned about the dangers of teleportation by the late great Douglas Adams:

I teleported home one night With Ron and Sid and Meg
Ron stole Meggie's heart away...and I got Sidney's leg.

Re:It's a copy

[Evro]

According to physical theory, atoms are interchangable.

Not that I disagree, but what do you suggest is the difference between someone's atoms a millisecond before death and a millisecond after death?

Re:It's a copy

[BillyBlaze]

Therin lies the difference in the philosophies. You are ascribing to the word "I" something other than the physical processes in your brain. As soon as you make the copy, the word "I" doesn't make sense, because there are two of you. One I dies, the other I lives.

Would you be worried if someone made a copy of you, and then killed the copy, leaving you alive? I think if that bothers you, then you simply have an ethical concern about conciousnesses equal to yours being ended. But if that wouldn't bother you, then you are disagreeing with the premise that the perfect physical copy is indeed a perfect copy, the same in every way, and in doing so positing that there's something more to conciousness than physical processes, which I disagree with.

I think it's fun to imagine a bunch of SNES ROMs having this discussion, while being halted, saved, restored, copied, and destroyed throughout by nerds like us.

Re:It's a copy

[matroid]

Something seems fishy with this whole "just replace one cell at a time" philosophy. Why one, why not two? Would you really destroy conscienciousness if you replaced two of your cells with machine-based dopplegangers? If not two, what about three? five? 300? 5,000,000? Is there some magic number of cells that you can replace before destroying consciousness?

Re:It's a copy

[|/|/|||]

what do you suggest is the difference between someone's atoms a millisecond before death and a millisecond after death?

Their arrangement.

Re:It's a copy

[Jim_Callahan]

Well, in defense of the Jesus story, he was a religious wanderer. Those guys were a dime a dozen back in the day, especially in the middle east. In all likelihood, no one would have really noticed him except his followers.

While, you're right, the historical people as described and named most likely didn't exist, they could have been and probably were based around real people, eh. Really, what author doesn't model his characters off of people he knows? And, frankly, who cares? Especially in the case of religious figures. It's the teachings that are important, not the people themselves.

Re:It's a copy

[Surt]

The arrangement and momentum of those atoms is drastically different.

Re:It's a copy

[booch]

But I suspect that you would have a heck of a hard time adapting to your new hardware. Our bodies and our senses give us a ton of context. Our minds were created for the purpose of controlling our bodies. I seriously don't think you'd be able to adjust without the context you were "designed" for.

Re:It's a copy

[alucinor]

If you made an atom-for-atom copy of yourself, would you be able to think for and control both bodies simultaneously? If not, then the other body is not me, it just has my memories and body.

Re:It's a copy

[ScrewMaster]

Do T come out da other end? Of course, T come out da other end. I pity the fool that thinks I won't come out da other end.

Re:It's a copy

[dossen]

If all that is needed is continuity, how about speeding up the process? Would you remain the same person, if every part of your body was replaced over the span of a year? A month? A week? A day? An hour? If it is done piece by piece, one can argue continuity, regardless of the speed of the replacement (to some limit anyways, I'd say that a new piece (however you define that) needs to be in the body long enough to be able to interact with it to count (but interact how much?)).

How about connecting your brain to a big pile of simulated neurons, or whatever we might develop to "run" uploads on. Once your brain integrates with the system, one might expect the brain to be "running" on the combined system. And if done correctly, the "real" brain might then be decommissioned, bit by bit, while making sure that the artificial replacements can fill in the gaps.

All of this assumes that there is nothing "special" about the mind, that it is just the result of a lot of processing on an extremely powerfull biological computer.

Re:It's a copy

[LWATCDR]

Even if your rule out a supreme being which if does exists would not longer be in the realm of the "super natural". It may still be impossible to download a human mind.
1. Could you download it without destroying it? In the act of downloading would you destroy it before it the download is complete.
2. Does uncertainty rule out downloading. Since you can not know both the position and velocity of a particle could your really copy a mind.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...Your body is you...

In order to have a functional computer, you need three distinct parts. 1) the physical hardware, 2) the software, 3) a source of power. Applying this to humans is equivalent to 1) the body, 2) the mind or soul, 3) the spirit or life force.

The last two are disputed by many to exist, because they cannot be easily examined and analyzed by scientific methods. It is possible to minutely examine the physical components of a computer, but never even get the slightest clue to its function unless it can be booted up and run its software. If it's power source is absent or there is no software it cannot function. Software as such is not subject to the laws of physics. If a HD or floppy for example, being completely blank, would be weighed on the most sensitive scale possible, it would still be the same weight after it was loaded with the maximum amount of software. Matter cannot travel at light speed, but software can be modulated onto a light beam or radio wave. The "personality" of a computer is in its software. In a human the personality is in the mind, which is software. Software as such is eternal. Only its physical carrier is subject to entropy and thereby may cause the software to be possibly damaged.

If an exact backup of all of the software in a computer is made and safely stored somewhere, then the complete destruction of the actual physical hardware can take place, yet the "personality" of that computer remains. It may at some later time and place be loaded into other, better, faster hardware, in a sense "resurrected". This new hardware could even be an entirely different architecture. An old DOS or Windows 95 system for example, can be loaded into a modern Macintosh running Virtual PC. That same old software will run much faster than it ever did on the original old Intel based system.

If we humans, we can do this with one of our creations, why could our Creator not do the same with us? Could He not take the software, the soul, and re-load it into a newer, much better body after the present one stops functioning? Just because we cannot imagine this doesn't mean it could not be. This is in fact exactly what He tells us in His book, the Bible. There will be a resurrection, where everyone's eternal software will be re-loaded into new, better hardware, a new, eternal body.

Re:It's a copy

[Aeron65432]

Does this remind anyone else of that crappy Schwarzennegar movie, The Sixth Day? It's almost the exact same.

Anyways, I think, eventually, I'll be tired of living and want to rest in peace...

Re:It's a copy

[Abreu]

Yeah, because I promised my parents that I would get a metal body and live forever...

Re:It's a copy

[detect]

There is a very interesting short story by Greg Egan that presents a similar type of problem.

People are implanted with a crystal that mirrors the brain's state from the moment they are born. Then at 18 the person must switch between using his living brain to the perfect copy on the crystal.

Very interesting reading.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

.but what do you suggest is the difference between someone's atoms a millisecond before death and a millisecond after death?...

You have two identical computers. Their atoms are all the same. One is loaded with Windows XP and the other is loaded with Linux. Are the computers really the same? What is the difference between the two? Can you tell them apart if you can't boot them up? If they are both unplugged (dead) are they still different? The difference does not lie in the atoms, but in the software, which is immaterial, not subject to physical constraints. It is the same with people. The software is called the mind or soul.

Re:It's a copy

[calambrac]

freaked out, man. it's like, information doesn't weigh anything, you know? so it like, doesn't really exist, not like things exist, you know? so we've all got this idea but it's not really an idea, it's like, god, and he's all, "information can be anything, because it's nothing" and that's like, totally far out.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

Without phasers, photon torpedoes and all the other technological imaginative wonders, you'd have a very boring program!

Re:It's a copy

[stor]

i say slap a beta label on it and release it to sourceforge. some kind soul will iron out the remaining bugs.

Yeah, sure, worked for gq...

Cheers
Stor

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

....if the individual neurons of your brain were replaced basically one at a time with a functionally identical artificial neuron in a sort of hot swap fashion as the conciousness continued to function...

Why would that be neccessary? I can download the complete contents of a hard-drive bit for bit from one computer to another. There would be NO way anyone could tell them apart. No exchange of atoms is needed, only the transfer of the immaterial software. The atoms of the body are only a storage mechanism for the software, the mind or soul. The real "you" is software, not hardware. Software can be stored on some other storage device or transferred at light speed, to another galaxy if need be, to another computer, where it can once again can "come to life" when the computer is booted.

Re:It's a copy

[sydb]

Your "consciousness" is just a simulation playing out in your brain.

Proof that you are, indeed, a copy.

Re:It's a copy

[shadowbearer]

The copy *would* be inside of a simulation, there'd have to be a software/firmware layer between it and it's hardware sensors ;)

SB

Re:It's a copy

[sydb]

... the software, which is immaterial, not subject to physical constraints

No, that's not right, because software does not actually exist in the real world; it is, in fact, an abstraction we have about configurations of matter.

A computer program on a hard disk is a physical configuration of the atoms on that hard disk. It's existence is dependent on that physical configuration.

The analogy is flawed. Consciousness, mind, soul whatever you want to call it, has nothing to do with software. The fundamental aspect of consciousness is the fact of perception, the fact of awareness, and software is not aware.

A computer program might store data about it's state but this is not consciousness, or awareness, it is storage, and storage is not perception. This is the great fallacy of modern-day consciousness-deniers. They falsely equate consciousness with memory, or feedback, or particular kinds of configuration of matter; consciousness is none of these things.

Consciousness cannot be explained in terms of mathematics or physics or chemistry because these disciplines depend on reducing what is real to what is understandable (reductionism), whereas consciousness is simply real, not understandable.

Re:It's a copy

[nanojath]

It's pure blue-sky speculation, and dressing it up in sciencesque jargon doesn't make it any more likely. "Most likely a simulation" is a gap dangerously close to "and then a miracle occurs" in terms of justifying this kind of prediction: our knowledge of how physical interactions in the brain function, as well as how to model complex systems, are not necessarily progressing as quickly as the development of computer processing power. It seems entirely feasible that the highest functions of the mind (consciousness, will) are tied into quantum -level effects (the only area, as far as I can see, where there is sufficient ambiguity in outcomes of phsyical phenomena to allow such things, though that's blue sky nonsense at this point, just no more nonsensical) and may run afoul of the Uncertainty Principle in that the development of a complete model to allow of an individual's phsyiology (the brain would not be sufficient, our consciousnesses are more than just the brain, they are influenced by the totality of our phsyical bodies) to create a functioning model of consciousness would in fact be impossible - and you don't have to apply to mysticism to make the argument.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or it won't happen - I think such a statement is equally unfounded at our current level of knowledge - just that it is silly at this point to say it is likely or unlikely, or even possible or impossible. I'd argue we just don't have the data. It sort of irks me that this sort of bullshit analysis (not yours, |/|/|||, I think you state the basic parameters of the problem well and agree that if those two big assumptions you state in paragraph 5 prove to be possible, it makes success at least significantly more likely... I'm talking about the original contentions of Dr. What's-His-Name), basically "in X years computer processing on the scale of the brain will be available, therefore we'll be able to download the brain!" is put forth as worthwhile news. It's hardly a new speculation and I don't see this guy has added anything to the debate.

If consciousness and will are indeed simply automatically emergent outcomes of sufficiently large and complex information processing networks, it seems more likely to me (because of the potential of skipping that whole recording and dynamically modelling issue) that true AI will come before the possibility of downloading consciousness... and whether it does or not may tell us a lot more about whether modelling consciousness is really possible. 'Course, the problem is at that point all bets are off. The Big Computers may solve the problem of uploading your brain in a trice... or they may go all Skynet on us and rapidly download all of our consciousnesses straight into oblivion. Futurologists got about as much credibility as astrologers in my book.

Re:It's a copy

[Grishnakh]

You're missing the difference between fictional works, and works which are put forth as truth.

While no one believes now that Zeus and Anubis are real gods, the people at those times did. But Harry Potter was written as a fictional character, and was never put forth as a true person by anyone.

In fact, it's interesting that you actually believe in Achilles, since he's the most obviously fictional of the characters I first mentioned. The description of Achilles occurs in an ancient work of fiction -- why do you believe he exists, when (I presume) you don't believe that characters described in modern-day fiction exist?

I haven't actually read the Iliad or any other Greek works, but I thought it was describing real events. The remains of what is probably Troy have been discovered recently, and there's evidence that a war occurred.

Mythology doesn't come out of nowhere. Ancient peoples believed it to be true, not just fictional stories. Therefore, either someone either 1) intentionally made up false stories and passed them off as true, for some reason, or 2) real things happened, and people told and retold stories (inaccurately) about them, which over generations become completely distorted and fantasticized. Did you ever do a classroom exercise in grade school where the teacher told something secretly to one student, and this student whispered it in the next student's each, and this continued to the last student, who told everyone what he'd heard? I remember doing this in 2nd grade, and the result was amazing because it was so different from the original. This is what happens with oral histories.

Why should you believe in Jesus? You don't have to. But I just don't see the point in completely discounting anyone's existence just because you don't have video footage of him. Do you discount the existence of the Roman emperors, just because the records of them are spotty and incomplete?

You have to view this stuff in the correct context. With someone like George Washington, there's tons of writings by and about him, so it's reasonable to say he most probably did exist, and that we have a good idea of what he did in his lifetime. Of course, he only lived 200-some years ago. We also know King Tut existed, because we have his body, but we know little of his life except for some writings about him; we still don't know for sure whether he was murdered or not. However, both these people were considered very important when they were alive (one being a revolutionary leader, and one being royalty), so of course eyewitnesses (royal scribes for instance) wrote of them while they were still alive, and this is of course pretty accurate since the writings were preserved. But for Jesus, who wasn't exactly royalty, didn't have the benefit of royal scribes to write about him, so all that existed was oral histories until someone decided to write them down. Why would multiple people write stories about someone who didn't exist at all? I just don't see the point of it; it's possible, of course, but doesn't seem that likely.

Of course, there are lots of possibilities. Maybe the kid who caused a ruckus at the temple wasn't the same person as the man who had Disciples and was crucified. Maybe the story about the manger was made up somehow. Maybe Jesus just made it all that up to start a cult, like David Koresh. Who knows. My whole point is that mythology starts somewhere, and probably has a grain of truth to it somehow. I don't believe the mythology, but given all the information, I think the likelihood that some man named Jesus existed is greater than the likelihood that no such person did. Otherwise, there's a really interesting story behind all that.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...No contemporary historians (of which there were many) record Jesus' existence,...

Actually, a historian named Josephus, from Jesus' time does make mention of him and the fact that he was crucified under Pilate. The life and accounts of Jesus, as related in the Bible have affected life on this planet more than the life of any other person that has ever lived. Even our calendar is measured from the time of His appearance. It is recorded of Him that He claimed equality with God and that He is resurrected and eternally alive. It is recorded of Him that He had power over the forces of nature. All this is either true, or the most outrageous, long lived set of lies that was ever foisted on the human race, which millions have believed for almost 2000 years. Millions still believe this today and their lives have been dramtically transformed because of this belief. No one's life has ever been radically transformed from a habitual thief or a drunken loser to a sober, honest and productive person by belief in any other person or story.

The Bible is a coherent library of 66 books, written over at least 4000 years of time by 40 different writers. All efforts to destroy or discredit this book have so far failed and will continue to do so. It has been translated into more languages and dialects than any other writings. It has been and continues to be the best seller of all of the worlds books. None of the pictureseque, but wrong ideas of the ancients about the physical world were incorporated into its writings. Like no other book, it accurately predicts the future, of long ago, our present time and things yet to come. Maybe it is time for you to carefully read it for yourself.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...because software does not actually exist in the real world...

What is then that you buy when you get say a word processing program? Do you just buy the disk or do you pay for some real work done by real people so that you can do some real work writing a fiction story on your computer? If that disk were blank or had some other stuff on it, wouldn't you feel gypped? Software is very real, but not physical. It is the product of one or more MINDS which are also very real.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

When you buy some software for your computer, you don't pay for the disk, but for the information, the program thereon. If someone gave you an identical disk without the information on it, you'd likely feel gypped out of your money. Information is real, but not tangible.

Re:It's a copy

[Grishnakh]

And, frankly, who cares? Especially in the case of religious figures. It's the teachings that are important, not the people themselves.

Actually, I have to disagree with this. The problem with religion is that people accept it as true with no evidence, instead of accepting it as philosophy.

If I want advice on how to live my life, I can go to the bookstore and read some philosophy or self-help books. Some of them may have some very good advice, but with all of them I know that I have to exercise my own judgment in determining whether or not their advice is good for me or not. They're just books written by other people, and their advice may be good, bad, or good only for certain conditions.

Religion, on the other hand, tries to tell people how to live their lives using fear of the supernatural. Jews don't eat pork because some book, written by humans, tells them that "God" told them not to. Thousands of years ago, there was probably a good reason to avoid pork and other foods, because of food-borne illnesses which were not understood at the time. But this is no longer true, but because this advice has been passed off as having come from some deity, lot of people still, inexplicably, believe it and won't eat pork.

(Of course, if you read the passage that commands this, it also tells us that bats are a type of bird, which is obviously ignorant.)

Maybe some people eons ago had good intentions, but the use of religion to teach people how to live their lives I think has simply caused a lot of death and destruction with the inevitable wars between religions, and the oppression caused by religious fanatics.

Re:It's a copy

[dc.wander]

chip is wirelessly connected to the backup system and keeps it constantly and updated. Would that be a valid backup?

Are you Joking?! In my experience, it is difficult enough to make sure that computer backups happen regularly never mind the contents of a human brain. Hey, even the thought of my computer backups working on a regular basis and without incident is the stuff of science fiction nevermind this nonsense!!!

Re:It's a copy

[Misanthropy]

How would he/I know which was the copy?

Unless it were given a believable virtual body that was placed in a believable virtual world, the copy brain would probably figure it out pretty quick.
It would have all of your memories and reasoning capacity so if you can deduce your current situation correctly then so would your brain copy, especially if you knew the download process was going to occur and retained a memory of this fact before it occured.

Re:It's a copy

[zestyalbino]

Just to expand on the notion of 'continuity' a little.

In a child post someone used an example of a computer, where over time each part is replaced, and then asked the question, is it the same computer?

Well, here's a more accurate way of presenting that question: 'Consciousness' is 'continuity' of your neural network. If we had the technology, we could replace individual neurons with artificial equivalents, and providing that the rest of the network continued to function as we did this you would remain alive, and the same person. If doing this caused death, you would be no longer.

Expanding this to the computer analogy: if you have a simulation of a neural network running on a computer, and could replace parts of the computer without ending the neural network, it would remain the same 'entity'. The hardware isn't all that important, but the software needs continuity.

However, this doesn't answer everything. With a computer we can store the contents of the RAM onto a hard-disk, transfer that disk to another computer, load the contents of the RAM back in and continue the simulation. But, we could also image the disk and continue running it in the original computer. We now have two simulations, so which one is the real one? Did the original continue to be 'alive' or not? If not, when did it 'die'?

These questions have been pondered in one form or another by philosophers for eons, and we're not going to be able to answer it on /..

Someone also mentioned the good old '21 Grams' myth (when you die you lose 21 grams of weight which is the soul). Well, Google it. It's completely without any scientific foundation.

Re:It's a copy

[Misanthropy]

I wonder if you could argue with yourself or if you would just end up agreeing all the time?

Maybe being "virtualized" will change the brain-copy's perspective enough so that you won't see eye to eye with yourself anymore.

What would be awesome is if you able to set the digital brain to working out a problem while you do other stuff and then you sync up your memories later.
Say you've had some books you've been wanting to read (which would mean that the brain-copy wants to read them too) but original-brain/body doesn't have time to read them. So the brain-copy can kick back and read. Then you sync up later.

Re:It's a copy

[cinolas]

Amen!

Re:It's a copy

[Snaller]

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

Your brain is changing, cells die, new ones are made. When are you no longer you? When all you cells have changed? If the software is a complete digital copy, what need do you have of a body?

Re:It's a copy

[Mandrel]

"Learning to Be Me". Interzone #37, July 1990. Also in Egan's anthology Axiomatic

Re:It's a copy

[calambrac]

oh man, that's just like, if i buy a book, and it's just some letters thrown down on some paper, then what have i bought? it's not even really a book is it? so, when i buy a book, i'm really buying the author's soul; it's like the author is giving me his very being. but you can print a book over and over again, so it's like, the author is infinite. and who's infinite? god, that's who. so the author is like, fused with god. but, whoa, i'm writing stuff right now. that means i'm an author, so i must be fused with god, too. so like, we're all god, except for illiterate people. that's why you've totally got to learn how to read, or at least write...

Re:It's a copy

[sydneyfong]

I mean, do you have an alternative explanation? If "consciousness" is not the doing of the brain itself, then what is it? Something outside of the physical universe? There's absolutely no evidence of any sort of thing.

The strongest evidence is that you are aware of yourself. That "feelings" that you perceive cannot be described in terms of known physics (you may say feelings can be described as neuron triggers in your brain, but still it doesn't explain why you actually _feel_ it)

The thing is, there is no invisible "you" in there. Your "consciousness" is just a simulation playing out in your brain.

Same argument. Suppose it's possible to simulate your brain in a computer. Suppose I introduce a sensation to the system equivalent to having your arm cut off. Do you believe you will feel the pain?

If your reply is "yes", the next question would be : which is the "real" you? Or do you deny your own "existence"? If you reply is "no", it follows that it is inconsistent to reason that "you" are that "simulation" in your brain.

Science has traditionally been a system of observing natural phenomenon as a passive observer. I doubt that it would have the same effectiveness when you use it to learn about yourself.

Re:It's a copy

[1u3hr]

Despite my search with google and amazon I can't find the anthology or the short story,

A very similar idea was used in Clifford Simak's Way Station, (1964 Hugo winner). The aliens weren't dinosaurs though.

Re:It's a copy

[Snaller]

shook things up a bit when we realized that we were animals

Of course a lot of people don't accept that theory.

Re:It's a copy

[1u3hr]

The copy *would* be inside of a simulation

See Permutation City by Greg Egan. This explores the idea in great depth. One of the very few authors, along with Rudy Rucker, who can make maths the basis of a readable story.

Re:It's a copy

[keziahw]

Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body. -- Free iPod Photo - Click Here

Two scams in one post!

Re:It's a copy

[Too Much Noise]

I consider your viewpoint quite a bit more odd. You seem to suggest that I need evidence to disbelieve something, which is not so. If you tell me that a leprechaun lives in your back yard, I don't need to go hunt for evidence in order to not believe you. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, and you are the one with the burden of evidence. Likewise, when someone claims that Jesus actually existed, I want to see some evidence.

ah, but you are missing the point here - more precisely, a nuance of it, which turns out to be quite important. This is not a "tertium non datur" type of problem, in spite of the fact that the underlying question would be. While a particular person either lived or didn't, our knowledge of its existence can be, making a rough cut, 'true', 'false' or 'indetermined' (aka "insufficient information") In the third case, requiring a proof either way is meaningless with the existing data. This is where 'belief' comes in. So no, you can't prove or disprove beliefs, you can only prove or disprove hard data. If the datum is "a book says ..." and that is all you have, then there's nothing to prove. Neither "I trust the book" nor "I do not trust the book" have any sound logical backing. Of course, if the author openly declares the book was fictional (and you have enough reason to trust him/her) this is extra information that tips the scales.

There is essentially no evidence in favor of the historical existence of Jesus. The gospels were written long after his death, by unknown authors (certainly not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the writing style is that of fiction.

To take this as an example, you're using a logical fallacy to support your case. Analogy does not work here - the fact that it looks like fiction (in part) does not mean by itself that it is fiction (in the whole), just as much as the fact that it says it's true does not mean it actually is.

As a different example - why would you trust Herodotus with his histories? Because you can corroborate them from independent sources. In fact, what that means is that you'd be making a statistical assertion - all the independent correlations give a very high probability that a particular event is true. On the other hand, lack of known correlations does not mean something is false, just that in light of the current knowledge it has a low probability of being true.

So let me ask you this: why should I believe in Jesus? Why should I believe in him, or Achilles, or Hercules, any more than I do in Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns, or leprechauns?

Now we're getting somewhere. This is indeed a matter of beliefs - which works by persuasion, not coercition. So you don't have to believe. It's good, too that one can these days make the choice to believe or not (in Jesus, as that was the starting point) without putting one's life in danger :-)

Sorry this got so long. However, speaking of beliefs, I'll leave you with one more question: do you 'believe' Euclid's axioms?

Re:It's a copy

[bslinger]

You do realise though, that software on a hard drive DOES have a physical presence? The arrangement of individual atoms within your hard drive changes when you write data to it. Software is not immaterial.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...that software on a hard drive DOES have a physical presence...

The possible re-arrangement of the atomic (magnetic) orientation is an EFFECT of the software, just as its display on the monitor. It still is not the software itself. If the software does not have an effect, it is useless. The presence or absence of the software does not affect the mass of the hardware in any way whatsoever. Software is NOT material, otherwise it could not be tranmitted at the speed of light, since matter cannot travel that fast. According to Einstein, matter can approach the speed of light, such as the electrons in an accelerator, but never quite reach that speed. Software does not depend on any particular hardware architecture. I can run Windows software on an Intel/AMD box or on a Mac via Virtual PC. The two hardware systems are very different. The real "you" is software, immaterial and eternal, not subject to entropy. The hardware, your body, the present carrier of that software, is perishable. However the immaterial part, often called the soul or mind can be and will be stored by your Creator on an "external backup device" as it were and someday re-loaded into new, better, much advanced hardware of which we have no inkling yet.

Re:It's a copy

[Smartcowboy]

Who could forget Mick Jagger wishing the body of Emilio Estevez

Re:It's a copy

[sydb]

Neither of your two given alternatives apply. I am paying for media with a specific configuration of atoms, which is a physical manifestation of the human abstraction that is software, and the right to do certain things in terms of manipulating that configuration. If the disk were blank, or had other stuff on it, then it would be a different configuration and yes, I would feel wronged; but how I feel about not having the expected configuration has nothing to do with whether or not software is or is not an analogue of the mind, which it is not.

Software as a programmer knows it (algorithms, data structures, objects) does not exist in the physical world, it is a human abstraction with real world manifestations.

I can't argue about it being the product of one or more MINDS any more than I can argue that my socks are not the product of one or more MINDS, it has no bearing on the argument.

Re:It's a copy

[216pi]

This applies only to non-neural cells.

Re:It's a copy

[eraserewind]

But all the atoms in your body are replaced in a little over a year anyway. What gives you any more legitimacy than a copy made 1 year ago?

Re:It's a copy

[barrkel]

All good SF simply uses SF as a prop, an artistic device, to pose a question that wouldn't be reasonable if "real life" applied.

If "Hard SF" doesn't do this, and instead tries to be "cutting edge", or "predict the future" (as many other non-SF fans try to judge SF), then I don't think many "Hard SF" are what they think they are!

Re:It's a copy

[zero_offset]

Troll? Troll?! How depressing.
For the the moderator, I mean.

Re:It's a copy

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

Yes, you can tell them apart, since all data is stored on the disk drives and if you would examine those on a atomic level, you'd see the difference. You made a false assumption, because the atoms of the two computers aren't the same

Re:It's a copy

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

1. Could you download it without destroying it? In the act of downloading would you destroy it before it the download is complete. Why not? Suppose you create a sort of nano-machine, which can act exactly the same as a braincell (which should be possible in the future). You put it in your brain on a random first cell. The nanomachine probes that cell to see how it reacts and then replaces it. You would know, because the machine act the same way like that cell. Then you move on to the second cell, the third and so on. On a given moment, all your braincells have been replaced by nanomachines and then it wouldnt be that difficult to download the whole thing. 2. Does uncertainty rule out downloading. Since you can not know both the position and velocity of a particle could your really copy a mind. Information in the brain is not stored in quantum-effected particles, so uncertainty doesn't apply here.

Re:It's a copy

[LWATCDR]

Do you know how to make an nanomachine that can replace a brain cell? How do you know it is possible? How do you power them? How do you deal with the heat? What people seem to forget is that their are really physical limits to what you can do. You are taking an organic device whose state was never meant to be stored and trying to store it? It may really be impossible.
As far as the information in our brains not being stored in quantum effected particles again how do you know. It seems like memory is stored as a combination of electrical and chemical structures. But how is the logic stored? How are our decision making, emotions, and talents stored? There is more to a person than just memories.
It may be possible to download a human but it may not. Someday we might create people whose brains are meant to be downloaded. They maybe organic or not but the will not be what we can humans then.

Re:It's a copy

[Suidae]

There is no mind-body problem any more than there is a program-computer or software-hardware problem. The original mind-body problem was that of early philosophers inability to reconcile the apparent immaterial nature of the mind with the physical nature of the body.

Now we 'know' that, like computer software, there are different ways to view the same thing. Software running on a computer can be though of either the way we programmers usually think of it, just as a running program 'in' the computer, or as electrons running around transistor gates on a chip.

For evidence of this nature consider the various methods of brain scanning that indicate that different specific areas of the physical brain are active during specific kinds of activities. This indicates that particular activities by the so-called nonphysical mind have a predictable (to a degree) and repeatable effects on the brain.

In the reverse direction, there are many methods of brain stimulation (ranging from transcrainial magnetic to direct, open-skull electrical and chemical stimulation) that have repeatble and (somewhat) predictable effects on both the body and the mind of the subject.

One could postulate that there is some unknown mechanism that forms a link between the substance of the brain and the 'nonphysical' mind, and that this mechanism translates causes between the two seperate entities, however, there isn't any experimental evidence that leads us to that conclusion. Our experiments pretty clearly point to the brain being, in part, the physical substrait of the mind, in the same sense that a computer chip can be the physical substrait of a computer program.

This is not to say that we understand in detail how what we call the 'self' arises from the activity of the brain, or even that we know most of the details about how the physical processes in the brain function. Just that there is evidence that the 'mind' is one aspect of the functions the brain provides.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...I am paying for media with a specific configuration of atoms...

No you're not! There is no change to the atoms, at least not to how many of them there are. A blank disk and a fully programmed one will have exactly the same mass to whatever accuracy you care to measure. It's not like buying a physical object. If you can't power a HD on, or put a floppy into a drive, there is NO way to tell what software is on it or even if it has any on it at all. Software is NOT a material object, because it can travel at the speed of light. Einstein proved that nothing having mass can travel at the velocity of light. Information in itself is eternal, only the physical carriers thereof are subject to entropy.

Information is the product of the mind. In computers a compiler, itself a product of the mind, takes other products of the mind and translates them for a particular piece of hardware so that that hardware can communicate to you what the programmer's mind created. That product of the mind can also control a machine, such as a numerically controlled lathe, which will create a physical object using the information originating in the mind of the designer. When the part is finished, it represents an abstract of and contains the information put there by the designer of the software than controls the machine. The information content is still present in the finished product.

Re:It's a copy

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

Of course I don't know how to make such a nanomachine; IANANE: I am not a nano engineer..
However:
powering them shouldn't be such a problem, I didn't say the whole thing has to be portable, so you can assume external power. OTOH, you can assume you can get power out of the glucose in blood, just like an ordinary human cell
Dealing with the heat could happen in the same fashion, use blood to cool them, the blood gets cooled by sweating etc.
If something can be stored in a cell, why wouldn't it be possible to store the same in a machine? After all, a cell and a machine are made of the very same atoms, so the "logic" as you call it is nothing more than atoms reacting in a certain way which can be reproduced.

I can see why some people have problems with the fact that a human beeing is more than just atoms and molecules reacting, but all science so far points in that direction, so who am I to say it isn't so?

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...You made a false assumption, because the atoms of the two computers aren't the same...

The number of atoms are exactly the same. Without turning the computer on, there is NO way you can ever tell whether it has a program in it. The software can also be stored somewhere else, the current hardware destroyed and the software reloaded into new, completely different hardware. I can load the complete contents of a Windows x86 based computer into a Mac PowerPC based machine and run it under a program called Virtual PC. Software can be completely independent from any particular arrangement of atoms.

Re:It's a copy

[sydb]

No you're not! There is no change to the atoms, at least not to how many of them there are.

Yes I am. I did not say there was a change to the number of atoms. Note I used the word "configuration", not "quantity". I used that word for a reason. I am well aware the number of atoms does not change according to what is stored on a magnetic platter.

If you can't power a HD on, or put a floppy into a drive, there is NO way to tell what software is on it or even if it has any on it at all.

What is your point? The data stored on a magnetic surface is only readable by using magnetic sensors. The data stored by putting ink on paper is only readable by ink detecting devices. Facts, but irrelevant facts.

Software is NOT a material object, because it can travel at the speed of light.

I already said that software is not a material object in my previous posts. I further stated that software, as we understand it (algorithms, data structures) doesn't exist except as a concept in human minds, with a physical manifestation in the configuration of atoms. Configurations of atoms can change at the speed of light, so I suppose what you call information is what I call configuration of atoms. But what point are you trying to make here?

Information is the product of the mind.

Wait a minute. You were claiming that the mind is the equivalent of software. Can you get back to that please?

Re:It's a copy

[|/|/|||]

Science has traditionally been a system of observing natural phenomenon as a passive observer. I doubt that it would have the same effectiveness when you use it to learn about yourself.

So you're saying that humans, or at least human brains, don't follow the same rules of physics that everything else does? What makes you think that?

What do you mean by saying that the "feelings that I perceive cannot be described in terms of known physics"? How do you know that? If I inject adrenaline into your system, it will affect your feelings - do you think medical science is unable to explain the chemical reactions involved? Do you think that nobody has wached neurons grow and change connections under a microscope? Do you really think that the workings of the lump of cells in your head are beyond understanding?

As for the thought experiment with the brain simulation, which one is "me" depends on what you mean by "me". One is the original me, the other is a simulated copy. Yes, the simulation would experience having its arm cut off. Yes, it would feel pain. Do I deny my own existence? Of course not. I am a collection of cells that have evolved to propagate my DNA as effectively as possible in this particular physical and social environment. Some of those millions of cells are neurons, which make me far more effective by gathering information about my environment and making predictions about future events. There's nothing magical there - I'm just a very complicated physical machine. I really don't think you can make a sensible argument that there's more to the human brain than is observable by science.

Why do you believe that there is more to it? Why do people want to believe that there is more to the universe than that which we perceive? Maybe you can give me some insight, because I truly do not understand.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...the mind is the equivalent of software...

Well sort of, but analogies usually break down at some point. Software is the product of the mind of its designer and programmer. It is not dependent on any atoms. While the software is in transit on a radio wave it is not associated with any atoms. My basic point is that software and mind are not subject to some of the laws of physics of our time-space universe. Mind and software are not subject to the laws of entropy either and therefore are eternal. The physical carriers of the software are of course and that can and often does affect the software stored thereon. However, software could be correctly transferred to other media again and again and theoretically exist forever. This is the reason the **AA's are so worried about the unauthorized proliferation of their IP (products of minds).

Re:It's a copy

[Evro]

The atoms are not the same, or more specifically, the electrons in those atoms are not the same. See Mr. Heisenberg for more info.

Re:It's a copy

[LWATCDR]

What you are not getting is I am not saying it is impossible I am saying it MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE.
" Of course I don't know how to make such a nanomachine; IANANE: I am not a nano engineer.."
That is the problem NO ONE DOES.
"However:powering them shouldn't be such a problem, I didn't say the whole thing has to be portable, so you can assume external power. OTOH, you can assume you can get power out of the glucose in blood, just like an ordinary human cell"
If you use an external power source how do you get the power to the nanomachine. If you use glucose can you make a nanomachine that can run on the amount of power that you can get using that method.
Using the blood to dump heat will also be tricky the body is already doing that and you have x amount of heat you can dump. Why do you think people run fevers or get heat stroke?
"If something can be stored in a cell, why wouldn't it be possible to store the same in a machine? After all, a cell and a machine are made of the very same atoms, so the "logic" as you call it is nothing more than atoms reacting in a certain way which can be reproduced."
So now your nanomachine is organic? If not how is it any different than the cell it is replacing? Also you CAN NOT RECORD EVERY ATOM in a cell and there energy states. Think about it you would have to take apart the cell while keeping it running at the the same time!
"I can see why some people have problems with the fact that a human being is more than just atoms and molecules reacting, but all science so far points in that direction, so who am I to say it isn't so?"
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that Nano tech is magic. They are machines. Could you make an exact 100% copy of a car while it is driving at 70 mph? A human mind/body is a dynamic system., as far as we know you can not stop it working and restart it. The human mind could very well be like RAM. Once the power is gone the contents are lost.

The idea that all things are possible through science is dumber than the idea that all things are possible through prayer.
If there is a supreme creator of the universe then it is at least possible that a prayer could do anything. I do not care how much science you throw at it you will never reach zero kelvin. Your unquestioning faith that science can do anything should be questioned. How you feel about a God is up to you. I am only talking about science.

Re:It's a copy

[sydb]

I don't find a lot to argue with in your post except it's clear my conception of mind is completely different from yours; because my conception of mind includes the fact that we as minds perceive things, whereas software simply processes things.

You view mind as an information system, I view it as a perception system.

Information systems are understandble. Perception systems are not! I have no idea how my mind (or anyone elses!) works, and my claim is that I will never know nor will anyone else, but it's very interesting to explore its properties.

Re:It's a copy

[ACPosterChild]

Your use of the word "just" reflects an unwarranted value judgement.

As does your noticing and pointing out of the fact that he used the word "just". To say nothing of your next sentence.

In fact, his wording to me suggests that he meant "simply", as in "there is no mystical component to humans; we are made only of common elements and physical processes". Not, as you suggest, "merely", implying that there is nothing amazing about the way in which biological processes work.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

...I have no idea how my mind (or anyone elses!) works, and my claim is that I will never know nor will anyone else....

No kidding! Like I wrote, analogies break down. The similarities are striking though. Besides perception, the mind is also not deterministic like a computer, at least not that we can make that a valid assertion. In order for us to make non-deterministic software, we'd have to invent true randomness, which is a mathemetical concept that has not been shown to exist in our world. The human ability to truly love could not exist if we were of deterministic construction such as a computer. But with that we getting into areas that science cannot investigate and so we'd better leave it be.

Re:It's a copy

[Grishnakh]

The life and accounts of Jesus, as related in the Bible have affected life on this planet more than the life of any other person that has ever lived.

Are you sure about that? The life and accounts of Mohammed seem to have affected life on this planet a lot too.

Even our calendar is measured from the time of His appearance.

No it's not. According to the Catholic church, Jesus was born in 4 BC. The intention was to start the calendar at his birth, but some mathematical or historical error screwed it up.

It is recorded of Him that He claimed equality with God and that He is resurrected and eternally alive. It is recorded of Him that He had power over the forces of nature.

It's also recorded that he visited the lost Jewish tribe in North America after his resurrection. Do you believe this as well? It's recorded.

It's also recorded in various Hindu scrolls that various Hindu gods exist. Do you also believe those?

All this is either true, or the most outrageous, long lived set of lies that was ever foisted on the human race, which millions have believed for almost 2000 years. Millions still believe this today and their lives have been dramtically[sic] transformed because of this belief.

Only millions? I believe there's about a billion Muslims, and of course hundreds of millions of Hindus. Don't forget all the millions of Buddhists and Jews. None of them believe this.

None of the pictureseque, but wrong ideas of the ancients about the physical world were incorporated into its writings.

That's odd. In Leviticus 11:19, the bible clearly indicates that bats are a type of bird. You don't actually believe this do you?

Like no other book, it accurately predicts the future, of long ago, our present time and things yet to come.

Care to back this up? On the face of it, it seems rather insane.

Re:It's a copy

[sydneyfong]

Why do you believe that there is more to it? Why do people want to believe that there is more to the universe than that which we perceive?

I am not satisfied by the answers given by physics (and other traditional sciences) regarding questions like "why am I here?", "what is the meaning of life?", "who am I?", "what will happen when I die?", etc. In fact, it doesn't even explain why the laws of physics exists!

There is no doubt that physics will eventually explain much of our universe in terms of _how_ things work, even perhaps how our brains work. However, I don't see how it could explain why we are so blatantly aware of ourselves and our own existence, why we actually "feel" feelings instead of mechanically reacting to them, what "I" was before I was born, and what would happen to "me" when I die.

I'm not saying that there definitely exists an answer to these questions, but I don't trust physics to provide me with an answer -- it's not meant for that.

People have different belief systems. I have no problem with people believing only in the physical world and the laws of physics -- at least it's a sane system. In fact, as long as other people don't coerce me into their belief systems, I have no problem with them either.

Re:It's a copy

[arminw]

In my post I never mentioned the birth of Jesus as the start of our calendar, only the "time" of His appearing.

Actually the scripture you listed is nothing more than a list of unclean animals, including certain birds. You are making the assumption that just because the bat appears listed in a list of birds it must therefore also be a bird. It does not explicitly state that the bat is a bird. Also, some creatures names are quite difficult to ascertain as to what today's equivalents are. Can you tell what the "Leviathan" listed in the Book of Job 41 really is? From its description there it sounds very much like the description of what modern scientists call a dinosuars, specifically a Stegosurus. This means either that dinosuars were still around in Job's day or when the book was written or it refers to some creature we don't know about at all today.

I could give you many examples of prophecy, but since this is /. I'll give you one for other readers of this forum to ponder also.

For centuries scholars have scratched their collective heads over Revelation 13:16-17 concerning the "mark of the beast". No one could imagine how trade could be prevented unless a person had some sort of identifier, a mandatory "mark". Only the modern computers and their networks have now made such a thing possible to be fulfilled. Notice it says IN the right hand or IN the forehead for the location of the mark. For animals the insertion of a small electronic chip under their skin has been done for a while already. Whether this ID device will be some kind of RFID thing or whatever is not yet clear. One thing is clear and that is the fact that the technology to uniquely identifiy every human being on Earth exists today and will someday be used.

Even today, try to get a job or bank account, healthcare, travel or deal with the IRS without your SS number. There is already talk of a cashless society.

Another set of striking prophecies in scripture are about Israel and specifically about Jerusalem. Look in Zecheriah 12:3 for example. Why is it that Israel, that tiny nation is so often in the headlines? it doesn't even have any oil to fight about! Why is Jerusalem such a contentions town, where the building of a new subdivision makes headlines and threatens world peace? It is certainly not a very impressive in size or almost any way you might measure a city. The Bible tells us that God has chosen that particular piece of real estate for the place from which Jesus Christ will someday rule the whole Earth. Why have the 45 or more million Arabs and other Muslim enemies not been able to "push the only 3 million or so Jews into the sea"? Could it be that the God who authored the Bible has protected them from extermination and assimilation just as it is written in his book that he would do? On the face of it, Israels's return from world wide exile is also rather insane, but it happened and world events will increasingly focus around them in particular and that part of the world in general.

The last battle of the final war in history will take place in a valley only a few miles from Jerusalem. Jesus tells us in Matt 24 that if God did not intervene, the human race would be exterminated. Such an extermination of all of humanity was not possible when Jesus uttered this, but with WMDs now in existence it is certainly conceivable.

Re:It's a copy

[|/|/|||]

I agree with you on that point - people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they're not forcing their beliefs on others. However, there are a lot of people in this world today who are forcing their crazy beliefs on a lot of other people, including myself. I find it harder and harder to tolerate people's belief systems when I'm constantly being bombarded by nutcases that want to teach creationism in science class, make laws for religious reasons, and generally foist their supernatural agenda on everybody.

I'm just talking about the US here, but much of the rest of the world is even worse - at least here you can't be stoned in the street (yet) for breaking some sort of holy law.

So, the position that I take is this: believe whatever you want, but if you're going to make an argument don't expect your supernatural ideas to have any weight whatsoever. This is especially true when it comes to making legislation. If you want to make a law or amend the constitution, you'd better be damn well sure that the justification is grounded in reality.

On another note, you're right that the questions you pose can't be answered by science. In fact, they can't be answered at all. I suppose you could just choose an answer that sounds good and go with it, but I really can't fool myself like that. There may be more to the universe than we can observe, but if we can't interact with it then it really doesn't exist as far as we're concerned.

Here's what I do - I live my life as if the answers to those questions are these:
why am I here?
Because of random chance.
what is the meaning of life?
To process information (survive in and understand the universe)
who am I?
Whatever I make myself.
what will happen when I die?
I will stop processing information.
Why do the laws of physics exist?
Because the universe exists. The "laws" of physics are just a model that describes the way the universe works from our perspective. The universe is everything that we can percieve and interact with. If something is outside of the universe, then it does not exist. If it could somehow affect us, then it would exist - and it would also be a part of the universe. For our purposes, there is nothing other than the universe, and therefore there is no possible explanation for why it exists. It just is.

Re:It's a copy

[Grishnakh]

Actually the scripture you listed is nothing more than a list of unclean animals, including certain birds. You are making the assumption that just because the bat appears listed in a list of birds it must therefore also be a bird. It does not explicitly state that the bat is a bird.

No, but it's definitely easy to interpret it that way. If this text is "divinely inspired", surely it would have been a little more clear?

Also, some creatures names are quite difficult to ascertain as to what today's equivalents are. Can you tell what the "Leviathan" listed in the Book of Job 41 really is? From its description there it sounds very much like the description of what modern scientists call a dinosuars, specifically a Stegosurus. This means either that dinosuars were still around in Job's day or when the book was written or it refers to some creature we don't know about at all today.

Actually, that doesn't sound like a Stegosaurus at all. From Job 41:15-17: "Its back has rows of shields, shut up closely together as with a seal; each one is so close to the next that no air can come between them. They lock tightly together, one to the next; they cling together and cannot be separated." The plates on a Stegosaurus's back aren't tightly sealed together at all. Further, in 41:19-21: "Out of its mouth go flames, sparks of fire shoot forth! Smoke streams from its nostrils as from a boiling pot over burning rushes. Its breath sets coals ablaze and a flame shoots from its mouth." Sounds just like a dragon to me. Now whether dragons ever existed or not, I don't know; they've certainly appeared in ancient mythologies from around the world, from the Chinese to the Aztecs, and this is no different.
There is a theory that they existed recently but died out in the last 1-2000 years.

Why is it that Israel, that tiny nation is so often in the headlines? it doesn't even have any oil to fight about! Why is Jerusalem such a contentions town, where the building of a new subdivision makes headlines and threatens world peace?

This is a fairly complex question, but it goes back to the end of WWII when, basically, the European powers come into Palestine, stuck the Jews there, and ever since, the Palestinians have been pissed about it. I know I'd be pissed if someone threw me out of my house just because their ancestors lived on this land 2000 years ago, and then the powers-that-be enforced this forced relocation. As for threatening peace, it's basically a question of alliances and politics. Why did the assassination of some Archduke start the largest war the world had ever seen?

Why have the 45 or more million Arabs and other Muslim enemies not been able to "push the only 3 million or so Jews into the sea"? Could it be that the God who authored the Bible has protected them from extermination and assimilation just as it is written in his book that he would do?

Or could it be because Israel has lots of the latest military technology and hardware provided to it by the USA, and the "Muslim enemies" have little more than some broken-down old Soviet crap? Israel also has one of the best-trained military forces in the world. Don't forget the nuclear threat; Israel has nukes, and will certainly use them if they get overrun, even though they refuse to confirm or deny they possess them. Any idiot knows that large numbers of people are no match for superior military technology; the USA just rolled over Saddam's much larger army for the second time, and it certainly wasn't because of any divine assistance.

It's easy to read whatever you want into any kind of prediction, as long as it's sufficiently vague. We've seen this with Nostradamus's prophecies.

Blue Screen of DEATH.

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

This time they aren't kidding. Just hope your brain runs Linux.

Re:Blue Screen of DEATH.

[craXORjack]

Just hope your brain runs Linux.

Unless this process is perfected before January 2038 in which case I don't want my consciousness running on any computer using the 64 bit Unix time counter.

Gives a whole new meaning...

[AltGrendel]

...to the blue screen of death.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

That was entirely too creepy. You posted this about 3 or 4 seconds after I did.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Yes...I find the thought of other people creepy as well.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

Well the difference between mine and his is that I was somewhat serious. Anyway, wasn't looking for mod points. Just stating how really incredibly weird it was that we posted the same exact idea at the same itme.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[YakkityYak]

Don't forget the new red screen of death in the up-and-coming windows.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[SirTalon42]

The red screen of death will only happen if the copy has a 'boot error'... I hope I don't have to call Microsoft up and activate myself before the end of the 30 day time period...

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[Blakey Rat]

And it was a lame cliche then.

Could we try to get a little ORIGINAL humor on this site?

Re:Gives a whole new meaning...

[mrcubehead]

Make sure you include the option to reboot in your living will.

Meh.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

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.

Re:Meh.

[MisanthropicProgram]

He's making assumptions based upon a dozen factors that psychics ARE more qualified to look ...

I always wanted to buy the mailing list and phone numbers of people who subscribe to those New Age/Psychic magazines. Then I would call them out of the blue and say, "I'm a psychic and I sensed that you needed to speak to me!" Then get them hooked and charge them $$. Now with the DNC list, there's no point.

Re:Meh.

[GoodNicsTken]

JFK declared, Man on the moon, end of the decade.

He had no evidence that this was possible, no supporting facts. There were lots of people just like you saying it coulnd't be done.

It's a good thing there are dreamers and visionaries. If everyone was like you, we would still be living in caves, running animials off clifs for food.

Re:Meh.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

You're comparing this guy to JFK? And calling me a clueless luddite? Look, I'm not against visionaries, but the difference is time scale. Anyone talking 10 years out is talking 1: Within their working lifetime, and 2: with good grounding.

Go read some older science fiction, think about what is really cool to them. Heinlein once wrote a book about an engineer who designed the best automated drafting table ever. He went twenty, thirty years into the future, and then redesigned it using the newest tools / etc. Quite an interesting book in retrospect, considering that instead of a highly specialized tool we now have incredibly advanced CADD programs. And don't eat yeast strips. Prediction is a bad business if you're a realist, more than a few years in the future.

Re:Meh.

[cowscows]

Actually, Sony will tell everyone that the Playstation 5 will be more powerful than four human brains. Then, after it ships eight months late, we'll all agree that it's about half as powerful as one human brain, and that the PSP 3 shoots out its halo-game-cubes in the most deadly fashion if you twist the unit just right.

Re:Meh.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

He says 2080 for the poorer segments of populations. My apologies for being unclear.

Re:Meh.

[It doesn't come easy]

[...]let's just say that IF a supergenius computer driven by 'emotion' suddenly appears[...]

I got news for you...this may have already occurred. How could you tell that you are not already living in a Singularity derived virtual world...? In other words, everyone predicting a technological singularity may have already been right...there's no way to tell...

Re:Meh.

[Rude Turnip]

Yoga Magazine doesn't seem to mind selling out its subscribers to all sorts of flaky new age hucksters and cults. So they're probably a good place to start. Good luck!

Re:Meh.

[Citizen of Earth]

I predict that some day computers will be twice as powerful than today. Does that make me a futurologist, too?

Re:Meh.

[Sloosh13]

Ten years ago I actually predicted the term Futurologist would be coined by someone else.

Re:Meh.

[khallow]

2080-2005 = 75. Wow. That's exactly the same number you mentioned. You must be tuned to the cosmos or something, dude. :-)

Re:Meh.

[Samrobb]

Now with the DNC list, there's no point.

The DNC list, IIRC, is only an issue if there's no pre-existing business relationship. Just tell them you were their psychic counselor when you both lived in Atlantis in one of your past lives, and it was this relationship that allowed you to sense their need for your advice now...

Re:Meh.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Obviously. I mean, it's so easy for me and it could be for you too....

YOU TOO can become tuned to the cosmos, for a nominal amount. I mean, how much do you really VALUE your cosmos-tuning? It's priceless, lemme tell you. PRICELESS.

Somehow, I managed to force myself to put a tag on it... what's this say... hrm... Fivehundreddallah!

Re:Meh.

[booch]

The sad thing is, most things are invented WAY BEFORE they come into popular use. For instance, the telephone answering machine was patented in 1898. About 90 years before it really came into common usage. That inventor certainly had some idea what the future would be like.

On the other hand, that kind of meshes with your statement that technology doesn't always/usually follow a straight line. People like to say that it's always been growing at an exponential rate, but realistically, there have been busy periods and slow periods. Look at the Renaissance; definitely a bubble period.

But I don't think it's so much to do with randomness, as society's willingness to put resources to the task of science and invention. Probably the 3 most prolific periods of the 20th century were WWII, the space race, and the PC/Internet boom. The first was due to the necessity of military technology; the 2nd due to a national goal; and the 3rd due to stock market funding. I suspect that the US' future will be turning away from technology, if today's political winds are any indication.

I remembering reading a year or so ago about a futurist's predictions from 1950 or so about what today would be like. He was about 50% accurate. I consider that to be remarkably good. He was pretty close on microwave ovens and frozen dinners. He was wrong about EVERYTHING in your house being plastic, so you could hose down your living room to clean it. But it certainly shows that there are people who can do a relatively good job as a futurist.

Re:Meh.

[Repton]

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.

My favourite concept of futurology is from Stanislaw Lem (in _The Futurological Congress_, I think).

The idea is that any new invention needs a name. Furthermore, that name is probably going to be based on existing words in some fashion.

Thus, it is possible to predict future developments by examining the current state of language and considering what new words could be formed...

Re:Meh.

[danila]

Japanese have 65-70% success rate in their 30-year NISTEP predictions. That's technology foresight. Futurology, as practiced by BT and Ian Pearson himself is not exactly quakery, but it isn't anything particularly good or useful either. It just so happens that the thinkers that actually understand where we are heading are transhumanist thinkers such as Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil, Max More, Nick Bostrom and the like. The futurologists are only gradually waking up to the ideas that were obvious to others at least a decade ago.

It is possible to predict the future. You start with the basics (laws of nature), add some understanding of our development speed (in many areas you can predict it quite easily) and then build models that make sense. Of course, you need to learn to be rational, otherwise your predictions will end up as nonsensical as what you just wrote.

BS

[astro_ripper]

As Penn and Teller have stated before:

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

The end.

Woo-hoo. Or not...

[Ciaran_H]

Oh yay, so Bill Gates gets to be immortal as well as evil.

"What are we going to do this millenium, Bill?"
"Same as we do every millenium, Ballmer..."

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

We could redefine hell for them and make them run in Win 3.1 for the rest of eternity.

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[sprag]

Only if you try formatting a floppy at the same time. :)

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[ThePromenader]

...and if he was stored in Windows? He'd be in a hell of his own making. And always crashing to boot...

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[djwiebe]

Google Brains will have Bill's grey matter indexed so you can run scenario queries: "What would Bill's brain do?"

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[imsabbel]

Or just shrink him down to 640k, because we all know NOBODY would ever....

(yeah, i know fakequote, but whatever ;) )

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[PDHoss]

Immortal? Clearly you have no experience with NTBackup.

PDH

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[FidelCatsro]

Why do i have this image of "star wars :Dark Empire " and the clone emperor now stuck in my brain.
*Que imperial march*

Re:Woo-hoo. Or not...

[Biogenesis]

Don't worry, his computer will probably crash half way through the upload.

P2P

[trandism]

Search in eMule for the brain of the guy that screwed Jennifer Lopez or something.

Ok, so my brain is copied...

[Tebriel]

what about my consciousness? I'd like to think I'm more than just the information patterns in my brain.

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[MrWim]

I'd like to think I'm more than just the information patterns in my brain.

And I'd like to think that the reason that girls don't like me is because they don't know the real me

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[da.phreak]

Maybe you are, maybe not. This question goes very far: What is consciousness ?

I can't answer this question (and I guess nobody can). But at least I can provide a link to a nice collection of scientific articles that try to answer the question:

http://consc.net/online.html

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[kurzweilfreak]

Creationists would like to think the Earth is only 6000 years old and the Flat-Earthers... well, you know their story. Wanting to believe something doesn't make it any more true. Sorry.

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[Dasein]

What, you got real you in storage someplace? Maybe, one for everyday and one for Sunday best? I don't understand. ;-)

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[It doesn't come easy]

Didn't know this was a religious discussion but...

Many people (both Christians and non-Christians) promote the Bible as the sum total of human history. However, it is not that at all. The Bible is simply God's recorded plan on how He will redeem mankind from his fallen nature. No more, no less. There is nothing in the Bible that says the universe is only XXXX number of years old (yes, I know all about "created the world in 6 days and rested for 1, etc., etc.).

Dons asbestos suit...

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[MrWim]

I'll spell it out for you: IT'S A FUCKING JOKE

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I'd like to think I'm more than just the information patterns in my brain.

Me too. Fucking science is always screwing with my delusions!!!

OK, it was funnier in my head.. er I mean brain.. er I mean consciousness... er I mean soul. Screw it, you get the point.

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[Dasein]

Wow. Sorry you didn't take mine as a joke as well. That's what I was trying to convey the the little smiley at the end of my post.

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied...

[kurzweilfreak]

Sure, if you say so.

Unfortunately....

[AugstWest]

...they forgot the -p flag when dumping it, and people will be restored with no moral codes.

Re:Unfortunately....

[Spy der Mann]

That's a caveat, unfortunately. Who says our data won't be altered (i.e. hacking) after downloading?

Re:Unfortunately....

[maxwell demon]

It doesn't need to be hacking. What if there's a secret manipulation built straight into the system? This could reach from goals like preventing crime (on download, search for all criminal thoughts and eliminate them; not good for writers of criminal stories, of course), up to perfect political manipulation (just make everyone a supporter of the current regime on download).

Indeed, for a dictator, this technology would be a dream.

Consciousness in two places?

[suso]

The question on my mind is, how can you have your conscious self be in two places at once? If it would ever be possible for this, then I would think that the real power would not be longevity of life but in being able to copying ones self and retaining a kind of collective consciousness over a large array of machines.
This is too much into the realm of metaphysics to talk about now. There is not enough factual data yet. We need to learn much much more about the human brain before we can approach such technology. Otherwise, talking about it sounds more like techno song lyrics than real science.

Re:Consciousness in two places?

[devaudio]

What are you talking about? Riker did it on Star Trek the Next Generation with the transporter. What happens is one of the personalities becomes a member of the maqui, and the other becomes a first officer. duh

Re:Consciousness in two places?

[utexaspunk]

It's a strange idea, isn't it? Given current technological trends, it seems likely that we may someday have direct computer input to the brain, and vice-versa. So, someday, it should be possible to allow real-time information sharing. You and I could both see what the other is seeing, hear what the other is hearing, feel what the other is feeling, etc. In some respects we would have become one organism with four eyes, ears, hands, etc.

the interesting thought this leads me to is this- if we began this sensory data sharing at birth, having both experienced the same things, would it be possible for us to have differing worldviews? to have a disagreement? does what we think and do in any given situation depend entirely on our prior experience? if we all shared eachother's experiences, would we then have world peace?

hmmm, well, i'd better get back to work... :)

Re:Consciousness in two places?

[birge]

The question on my mind is, how can you have your conscious self be in two places at once? If it would ever be possible for this, then I would think that the real power would not be longevity of life but in being able to copying ones self and retaining a kind of collective consciousness over a large array of machines.

You must work at the Media Lab. Have you published this yet?

Re:Consciousness in two places?

[mnmn]

I strongly doubt consciousness itself will be copied. But its still cool since you'll have other 'personalities' in the computer with the same point of view and memory as you, so you can multiply your work whether youre a physicist or poet or priest.

One funny part will be these personalities will fight over your wife/girlfriend. Imagine youre suddenly locked in a machine, and some other dude out there is going out with your girl. Thats how the computer personality will act, possibly will try to get her out of your hands.

Virues will spread nicely. Each running on the brain of the smartest person that century.

But consiousness itself will die with you, cant put that into bits.

Re:Consciousness in two places?

[brkello]

Your question really confuses me. It's like asking how do two identical computers be at two places at once? The answer: very easily. Conciousness isn't something that floats around you that is shared with something else. Everything is in your brain. You copy the brain and body perfectly, then you just have another you. The only difference now is where you go from that point on. It's not like copying splits your conciousness. You have two beings with their own conciousness.

The true power of this is that you can copy your brain and put it in a young or android body so that you can extend your life beyond the grave. Having a collective conciousness doesn't really make sense because collective conciousness does not exist for humans and would probably be undesirable. It works for computers because it has a well-defined interface and it was designed that way. For humans, it doesn't make sense. What are we sharing exactly? Storage capacity, message passing, raw problem solving? Other than doing messing passing over a wireless network placed in the brain...I don't see it happening. Hmm, but if you really want to try it in the sense I think you are talking about, start cutting off a piece of someone else's brain, like where they store memory, and then somehow attach it to your brain. If you then suddenly have the memories of the other person...then maybe a collective conciousness could exist if you could just interface them wirelessly (just so you don't have to stay as close as a wire connecting your brains together). That would cause some major problems because in essence the brain is acting as one, but now has to deal with more input than it is used to...as well as we adapt to stuff, it would be fairly hard to multitask the control of multiple selves.

Re:Consciousness in two places?

[melikamp]

You have 2 different metaphysical questions here:

1. What happens to the consciousness when a perfect material copy of a human is created?
2. Is it possible to have a "distributed" consciousness, whatever that means?

I think that the answer to the first question is rather obvious and was addressed by other posters already: even when a perfect copy is manufactured -- which may be plain impossible due to the nondeterministic nature of the world we live in -- it only results in creation of an individual very similar to the original. There is no reason to think that these 2 will be able to share consciousness in any way transcending the common human interaction.

It is the second question that is most interesting, and fewer people understood it. I myself never was in what they call a "close relationship" (hey, it's /.), but I am impressed by the sheer number of testimonies which bring into the spotlight the "shared consciousness" of partners who know each other well. It is a fact that some long term relationships provide the partners with what Homer J. called a "profound mystical understanding" -- a level of mutual understanding where they think that they can anticipate each other's thoughts, feelings and desires. Note that these people use nothing but an ordinary human language available to all of us. This, I think, goes to show that a "distributed" human mind is actually very close at hand. I believe (but cannot prove) that when we find a way to connect the minds directly to one another (let your favourite SF movie provide you with a visual), i.e. come up with a way of communicating without the spoken word as a middleman, "getting to know" a person will become a slippery slope towards convergence of the minds. It will be indeed only a matter of time before you and your spouse, for example, will start understanding "I" as "we". I do not mean by that that you will confuse these notions while talking to strangers, oh no, but that the true meaning of self for you will account for 2 physical bodies, you will believe that you have the good old "free will" to act with any of the 2, etc.

This imagined way of communicating without using the language raises yet another very interesting question: is the verbal language indispensable in the process of learning? In other words, would it be possible to bring up an intelligent child by using that more direct mind melt-like interaction? Would it be possible to teach the verbal language in the end -- to treat it as an auxiliary skill which can be optionally learned for interacting with "untrusted" entities? As you may know, in the modern epistemology the line between language and mind became more blurred than ever. I personally heard Searle saying something to the point that the verbal language is the only conceivable foundation of whatever we call "consciousness" and "understanding". And while it can and should be argued that there is more to the analytic philosophy than just the study of language, many individual analytic philosophers were criticized for making this mistake by their continental peers. To sum up, an ability for minds to communicate directly could effect the most profound development in philosophy, with concepts like "mind", "individual", "human", "consciousness" changing their meanings to something very different from what we know or even are able to know today. This question is almost too deep for me, so I will shut up for now.

-Mel

Futurologist?

[kevin_conaway]

Are you serious? No, really, since when can one make up a title for themselves in a made up profession and start posting made up studies to a reputable news site?

Re:Futurologist?

[MoonFog]

Well, some "futurologists" work for corporations to predict the future market trends and whatnot. There are these "Nostradamus" centres in many countries, where they try to predict how the world will look in x number of years, hoping to exploit new markets and create new trends.

This example is perhaps a bit far fetched though..

Re:Futurologist?

[Politburo]

since when can one make up a title for themselves in a made up profession and start posting made up studies to a reputable news site?

Exactly which website would that be?

Re:Futurologist?

[jangobongo]

Futurists and futurologists have been around for a while now, seen as early as the 1950's. They just hadn't come up with that title yet.

Futurologists look at trends in technology and try to predict how they will affect society and impact human lives.

In the early eighties, I took a college course in futurology for a humanities credit. In that class we focused on Alvin Toffler, author of "Future Shock" which came out in 1970 and "The Third Wave" which came out in 1980. He's seen by some as first official (and most influential thus far) futurologist and coined terms that we use every day, such as 'information overload'.

The obvious question...

[YodaToo]

The new copy of your brain in the computer is just fine, but what about the human you that still suffers & dies?

Its like the Star Trek transporter beam, the copy of you transported to the new location is fine, but what about the original which is obliterated in the process?

Re:The obvious question...

[tech49er]

But the transporter in star-trek doesnt make a copy - it actually converts your mass into energy, transmits that energy, and reconverts it into solid matter. You know, energy is mass. It falls down though because e=mc^2 which is a hell of a lot of mass for a tiny piece of matter ...
I'm not sure how different this would be from just making copies but at least it solves the problem of two consciousness at once.

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

What makes you the same person who went to sleep last night? Your conscious experience wasn't continuous, all that really makes you who you are is the things in your brain, the memories and personality and so on. If it's a perfect replica of your brain, the experience will be the same. If you were killed in your sleep last night and a replica made and put in your place, how would you even know?

Re:The obvious question...

[Timesprout]

And what happens if you have a neurological problem or disease. Suppose you have alzheimers before your brain gets downloaded, what use is a program that cant rememeber what it was doing. And if you were happily on your way to insanity before downloading would the desent into madness or senility continue in the downloaded version, ie would the data be so mangled it would gradually corrupt itself beyond salvation or would some sysadmin have to keep rolling you back to version 1.

Re:The obvious question...

[Johnboi Waltune]

Perhaps it would be easier to alter the digital image of your brain to repair or compensate for the organic damage caused by Alzheimers. You could salvage the retrievable memories, organize them, and restore the mind as much as possible.

The same could be true of personality disorders or insanity. If you downloaded the mind of a serial killer into a computer, you could edit the mind to remove its compulsion to kill others. If someone suffered a severe trauma that they couldn't deal with, and it caused a persistent emotional disorder that was resistant to treatment, perhaps it would be best to simply 'erase' the traumatic experience from the person's mind. Subjectively, it would be as though it never happened to them, and they could get on with their lives.

It's science fiction stuff, but they're interesting ideas nonetheless.

Re:The obvious question...

[Andy Gardner]

So if i were to copy your memories and install them into another body you would be happy for me to kill you? After all your memories are what makes you, you....

Re:The obvious question...

[CarrionBird]

??? What? Who are you replying to??

Re:The obvious question...

[phpWebber]

"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.

Re:The obvious question...

[blue_adept]

Well, what if two copies were made, and placed side by side in the same bed. When I woke up, would I be the one on the left side of the bed, or the right side?

Re:The obvious question...

[Famatra]

"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.

Re:The obvious question...

[Skater]

You'd be the original - the one in the middle.

Re:The obvious question...

[maxwell demon]

When I woke up, would I be the one on the left side of the bed, or the right side?

Yes.

Re:The obvious question...

[kakos]

But a consciousness wasn't destroyed. When you're sleeping, your mind has no conscious thought processes going on. It is not a consciousness in that state.

Re:The obvious question...

[blue_adept]

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? If both copies are (in their own minds) "me", and both copies are different from each other (ie each has it's own, encapsulated consciousness), than obviously neither copy is the same consciousness as the "original" me... the copy of the thing is NOT the same as the original thing. And that contradicts the what the original poster of the scenario was implying. Or stating outright.

Re:The obvious question...

[Famatra]

"But a consciousness wasn't destroyed. When you're sleeping, your mind has no conscious thought processes going on."

Of course it was, consciousness as we are discussing it is the total set of subjective experience that starting after infantile anmenesia has ended (a persons 'first thought / experience / memory') and ends at death.

Because a person is sleeping doesn't mean their subjective experience ceases, in fact a person's subjective experience cannot cease except in death. When you fall unconscious you have no direct experience of doing so, it is as if you weren't out at all, so subjective experience is continuous.

Of course objectively there are time gaps, but subjectively we do not, and cannot, experience them.

Re:The obvious question...

[Kagura]

Off topic, you're an echo, aren't you?

Re:The obvious question...

[EdMack]

There is continuity. You still beat and process through the little hours.

However, consider this: If a new individual was created, and your brain 'uploaded' into it, do you have any connection to that being at all? No. You could meet it, but you have no control or connection. Now someone shoots you dead. Are you seriously supposing you suddenly take control of another being? What happens to the being's current self? Re-incarnations all nice, but body stealing is just plain wrong.

Re:The obvious question...

[maxwell demon]

Well, both would be the person before duplication in the same sense in which you after awakening in the moring are the same person as the one who fell asleep the evening before. Don't tell me that you don't change the slightest bit while sleeping.

Re:The obvious question...

[RatBastard]

If you were killed in your sleep last night and a replica made and put in your place, how would you even know?

The replica would not know unless it was told. But I would still be dead. Immortality this isn't.

Re:The obvious question...

[snooo53]

My thinking is that we could avoid this whole problem of whether conciousness is transferred to the copy by simply doing the process gradually.

Replace the neurons, or areas of the brain one at a time, by directly connecting them to the rest of the functioning brain. The remaining part would treat the new electronic parts the same as the old one, and consciousness would remain intact.

If you wanted to make a copy, then perhaps the new parts could be connected in parallel with the old parts. When your brain signals a group of neurons, it also signals the electronic copy. Eventually you've got an entire brain connected in parallel. Disconnect that and you have two functioning brains still.

Of course with the millions of neurons this gradual replacement would have to happen pretty fast, but I would think as long as you give the brain the time to communicate with the new parts and adjust, you could do it successfully.

Re:The obvious question...

[lawpoop]

You're missing the point. How do we know that the ego or consciousness does not die in deep sleep? This is a question that goes far back in Indian philosophy. The Hindu answer is that there is an eternal, base consciousness, and that creates continuity of identity throughout the night. It's called be unseen see-er, by this reasoning: Do you see? Do you see that you see? Or, are you aware that you see? Are you aware that you are aware that you see? This can go on forever. There must be (so the argument goes) an unseen see-er, one that sees without itself being seen.

Buddhists take the opposite tack. Basically the ego dies everynight, and re-creates itself.

Re:The obvious question...

[KrackHouse]

So people that die after falling in a frozen lake with no brain function and are later revived are still dead right?

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

Memories and other subtler things, learning, perception even. But yes, if you have a perfect copy of me you can kill me.

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

I don't know. And, since it doesn't make any difference to me, I don't care. (Well, I care a bit, because I like to know the truth about everything, but it's not going to affect how I live). I enjoy the life I have as best as I can, and don't worry.

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

How is the person who was killed any more me than the person I remember being yesterday. How are they more distinct from me now than that person is?

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

What makes the two beings distinct? Doesn't it make as much sense to say the same you simply moved into a different body? Isn't the universe destroyed and recreated every instant?

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

The me I am now has as much connection to the copy as the "original". Once the copy has been made, the two become distinct beings - but neither of them will be any more me than the other.

Re:The obvious question...

[m50d]

Why? What makes the person who died "you"?

Re:The obvious question...

[AttilaSz]

Seems like once in a lifetime, I have a sig that's on topic.

BTW, I believe that psychological identity is just an illusion. We are what we remember. Therefore, our personality changes with every new event we observe. It's really a philosophical question how long can we assume to hold the same identity. I don't consider myself to be the same person I was ten years ago, or for that matter, an hour ago. We usually assume however that the minor changes happening over time preserve "identity". It's like the difference between replacing one picture on your computer's screen with another versus slowly morphing one into the other, with adjacent morphing stages being almost invisibly different from one another. Yet, you can still morph any picture into any other. Similarly, you can have an innocent child grow to become a tyrant (and no, I'm absolutely no Star Wars fan). Still the same person? Think about it.

We usually bind identity of a person to its physical body, because that's how usually those things are. Once we get technologically advanced enough that we are no longer limited by the one-to-one relation of bodies to minds (or even require a biological brain to run our mind processes), the philosophy (and law!) will certainly gain a nice new topic they can gnaw on for some time.

The legal issues themselves would be interesting. Would a copy not running inside a biological brain be considered a person and a citizen? Would a copy running inside another biological brain (and associated body) also own the property the original owns? If personality is digitally copiable, then who (and under what definition of identity) owns the copyright?

It'll truly be a futurological singularity.

Re:The obvious question...

[Famatra]

"What makes the two beings distinct?"

Two beings cannot have the same subjective consciousness, the same viewpoint, as they have different perspectives and perception.

What makes beings disctinct, regardless of if they are copies are not, are these differing perspectives.

Human Tamoguchi

[austinpoet]

I can't wait till they take the downloaded brains' intelligence and implement them into games. I wanna have a pet GWB! Or blow one away in Halflife 30

Re:Human Tamoguchi

[Rude Turnip]

"I wanna have a pet GWB!"

IIRC, Dick Cheney has one of those right now. Oh, wait...

Live in a computer forever?

[hydroxy]

Ok - so you can get it FROM the brain... how do you get it back into ANOTHER brain?

Re:Live in a computer forever?

[dgos78]

You know women would never allow us to find out their secrets. Plus, it would be so confusing to us men, it would probably create all sorts of CRC errors.

Re:Live in a computer forever?

[nickptar]

You don't, you grow a human body without a brain, and stick a computer in the skull and hook it to the spinal cord. Or you use a humanoid robot. Or something like that.

But that's him, not me...

[turrican]

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...)

Re:But that's him, not me...

[Caltheos]

So what sort of copyright protection would copied individuals have. Would it be illegal to backup a copy of yourself in case of data loss. The liability factor on that will be a lot higher than a lost cd. Maybe a future MPAA like clone, the DPAA digital personality association. Also, what rights would a copied personality have. I don't see any reason why you couldn't copy your personality *before* you died unless the process is destructive. But would your digital you have access to your finances, accounts, property, etc? Could you use your copy as your personal slave, kinda like a built in secretary to screen your calls/answer emails/do your work for you...after all you could trust it if it was "yourself" making these decisions.....unless your one of those people that are afraid of themselves. Cool idea, remember reading it first in Greg Bears Eon series....but the implications are enormous.

Soulless

[Silverhammer]

Uh, your memory engrams may be downloadable, but your consciousness and soul will die right along with your body.

Re:Soulless

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Soulless

[bill_mcgonigle]

Uh, your memory engrams may be downloadable, but your consciousness and soul will die right along with your body.

Doesn't that imply your soul is organic? I thought the point of a soul is a mechanism for an afterlife?

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Say you have very good prosthetic and nanotechnology available. As you age your natural body starts to fail. You have organs, limbs, bones, even blood replaced over time. As your skin fails a nice polymer replaces it (with excellent nerve replacements of course so you don't notice a difference).

Do you still have a soul at that point?

OK, now your body is failing even more. Over another couple decades you've replaced everything in your body except for your brain with mechanical systems.

Do you still have a soul at that point?

Now, your nerves start to degenerate and your brain isn't signaling well. You get some nano-bots in there to replace the dendrites and get the neurons signalling right again.

Do you still have a soul at that point?

Finally the neurons are starting to go and you get some more nanotech in there that can replace failing ones on the fly as they go with more stable structures. Over the next 20 years all of your neurons are slowly replaced by nanotech, but it's very gradual so you don't ever notice it.

Do you still have a soul at that point?

The trick in this experiment is picking the point at which you don't have a soul, if ever, and identifying the change that caused the soul. Of course, if you can identify the change that lost the soul, it follows you've identified the temple of the soul.

Discussion encouraged.

Re:Soulless

[cHALiTO]

well that depends on if you believe in a 'soul' or not. Counciousness, OTOH, could be emulated if we could have some interpreter software (and necessary HW) to interpret and 'run' your encoded brain.

Much like in "Ghost in the Shell". Even if you believe in the 'soul' (whatever you define that to be), what if your brain, whichever hard(or wet-)ware it runs on, is able to generate a 'soul'? Is the soul a product of the brain, or the other way around?

Re:Soulless

[Citizen of Earth]

Counciousness, OTOH, could be emulated if we could have some interpreter software (and necessary HW) to interpret and 'run' your encoded brain.

If the structure and function of your brain are captured, then your consciousness would be too, since consciousness is just an illusion that evolved because it has a survival benefit.

"I think; therefore, the world is real."

Re:Soulless

[cHALiTO]

Exactly. And we might even achieve this even without fully understanding which neurons do exactly what in the brain. If neuronal structure and interaction is perfectly reproduced it might just work..
I'd like to know a neurologist's take on this, maybe I'm talking utter nonsense =)

Re:Soulless

[morgajel]

Any chance you've ever read the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke?
I read Rama Revealed when I was a kid and this sounds strikingly familiar.

Re:Soulless

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sorry, no - haven't gotten too far into Clarke though I like what I've read so far.

No idea if this was a rip-off or not, though it's a good issue to consider regardless.

Re:Soulless

[hackerjoe]

IMO if the case you presented were to occur, then why not?

The way you've defined a soul, a computer has a soul. I agree with you -- I subscribe to the "brain as a computer" school of thought -- but I do recognize that a stricly biological definition of the word "soul" is useless. We already have a perfectly good word for the biological item in question, "brain". We don't need "soul" to mean just "brain" or "living brain".

Re:Soulless

[shawnce]

Not caring about a thing called a "soul"...

If your consciousness was emulated it would be a copy of the one in your organic brain at the time of the "download". So a _copy_ of your consciousness would continue exist in "digital" form but your own consciousness (the original) would end when you die.

So this isn't cheating death, you die... it just allows a copy of your consciousness to continue. So others would consider you still existing but you, the original you, is gone.

Re:Soulless

[SeanAhern]

What most people refer to as a "soul" is really just the result of a complex processing system coping with trauma.

Or so you believe. You have no way of proving definitively that this is the case. Belief or disbelief in a soul is non-provable.

Re:Soulless

[Racter]

The solution is simple. Each augmentation obviously has a Humanity cost, which can range anything from 0 for a simple replacement hand to 4d6 for a cybersnake. The seat of the soul will thus depend on the last replacement initiated to deplete Empathy based on loss of Humanity, which is equal to starting Empathy X 10. The Humanity cost for each replacement is subracted from Humanity, and each 10 point loss of Humanity = a 1 point loss of Empathy. When Empathy drops to 3 or lower you start to suffer from cyberpsychosis and lose your soul. At that time we can identify the exact location of the soul and settle all of this religious debate.

With my luck, it'll be a kidney.

Re:Soulless

[GreenMarine]

It would be funny if they discovered the appendix in fact housed the soul. "And all this time we thought it was relatively useless!"

Re:Soulless

[cHALiTO]

That depends on what you consider 'you'. Your cells die every second, and new ones are generated. Are you a different person because of this?

I had a pc with a 20GB hard disk, gentoo installed. One day, i got new hardware, a new 120GB disk. I copied everything to the new hw. Is the my gentoo the same as before? it is to me. I just have more space and faster hw.

I agree, the old hw is gone, as your body can be gone, but again, 'the original you is gone' depends on what you mean by 'the original you', i.e., what you consider a 'person' or life, etc.

Re:Soulless

[Maxo-Texas]

One of my religious friends says the soul does not contain the personality.

Most christians seem to believe that their personality will survive death. A lot believe if you do not believe, your soul disintegrates when you die. Others think it continues to exist but is somehow shunned from god's presence.

IF it does contain the personality, then one wonders why we can manipulate it so well with chemistry. You can make a person spiritual or a non-spiritual, a violent paranoid killer, or a simpering coward paralyzed with fear with the proper chemistry.

I believe that we will be able to copy our conciousness. The copy will perceive itself to be "real" even tho it can see it is in hardware instead of wetware.

I do have concerns about the "singularity" mentioned in the responses to the article. Almost any superior being abuses its power. Once we get computers smart enough- they will begin growing smarter than us very quickly. Picture viral or bacterial evolution rates for a machine intelligence that gets close to human intelligence. I presume such an intelligence would abuse us as long as it cared about our existence.

I think we would have a breakdown in "friendliness" (AI concept) fairly quickly. Out of the million ways to become smarter, a few of them would view us as a burden and they would have a failure of friendliness.

I would pay any amount of money to have myself encoded since I have seen no evidence of any afterlife that I do not find equivalent with some madman or ignorant primative's babblings. So, at this time, I think when the wetware version of me dies, I end for all time.

However. IF souls were real, then at the least, when the last organic cell was replaced, I would think the soul would go. But it's almost ludicrous to suppose that any particular cell in the body ties the soul to the body so it could be any cell. But nothing down this line of reasoning is even remotely logical. Of course, that's typical of religious discussions involving things that can't be proven or measured.

xnpcrzt!

Re:Soulless

[jim_v2000]

The trick in this experiment is picking the point at which you don't have a soul, if ever, and identifying the change that caused the soul.

The trick is that the whole expirement relies on a bunch of what ifs that involve technologies that do not exist and might turn out to be impossible to build.

Re:Soulless

[prockcore]

It would be funny if they discovered the appendix in fact housed the soul. "And all this time we thought it was relatively useless!"

Well shit.. that means I lost my soul when I was 18 because it had outgrown its container.

Re:Soulless

[alucinor]

The soul has no physical location in time or space.

Therefore it's useless to study scientifically, though science relies on its existance.

It's the ultimate encapsulated object.

Re:Soulless

[slaida1]

Ok, this here is an invisible, superfast teleporting/copying/killing machine. It can grab anyone from anywhere, make exact copy of it's victim, kill the original and teleport the copy back to the exact place of where the original was. And this all happens in a microsecond.

Now I'll point this machine to you, my dear reader and.. *poof* Welcome to this world, copy! Yes I know you feel like you were only reading slashdot and nothing happened but it did. It was not you reading the first paragraph of this post, it is not your memories you remember but how would you know the difference if I hadn't told you?

Re:Soulless

[Maxo-Texas]

Just remember that unlike proteins and minerals, and despite the effort of many very driven people, no hard evidence of a "soul" has ever been found.

Gotta love car analogies, they seem applicable to just about any argument.

Let's all hope for plentiful ypvrzsn during the coming year.

Re:Soulless

[Chris Burke]

It would be funny if they discovered the appendix in fact housed the soul. "And all this time we thought it was relatively useless!"

Hmm... That would be pretty hilarious. Especially because our appendix has been shrinking for quite some time because, evolutionarily speaking, it is pretty useless to us. Which would pretty much confirm the suspicions i have about humans and their souls...

Re:Soulless

[bill_mcgonigle]

Good point - some will argue that you've invented a soul-removing machine.

At which point...

[FunWithHeadlines]

...we will sound like Ronald Reagan in King's Row:

"What happened to the rest of me?!!"

He's wrong.

[podperson]

Making a copy of yourself doesn't avoid death for you, it just means ongoing life for a copy of you.

This is not a subtle point.

Anyone who cannot grasp this either hasn't thought deeply about a subject, or is an idiot. Anyone who uses the title "futurologist" is likely the latter.

Re:He's wrong.

[WhiplashII]

That depends on your definition of "you." I would be quite happy with this, given the alternative - it might let me finish some of my projects...

Re:He's wrong.

[Loonacy]

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!

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

"I would be quite happy with this, given the alternative"

No you wouldn't be happy, you'd be dead. I'm sure your copy would be happy though as good as that does you (which is not at all).

Re:He's wrong.

[WhiplashII]

Hmm... perhaps a better way to say this is that I do not define myself as a bag of mostly water - I define myself by how and what I think. If a copy of me was made, I would still consider that to be "me," even if I was still alive. We would probably diverge, but I would still consider such a copy to be "almost me" in that case.

Do you really think that you are a being of flesh?

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

"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.

Re:He's wrong.

[Saeger]

When you go to sleep you effectively "die" and wake up a slightly different person. While you were unconscious some of your braincells' have reconfigured, as have the cells in your body. In fact, about every 7 years all the cells in your body are refreshed.

Likewise, your consciousness could be transferred to a new body in a very similar gradual way that replaces the old with the new, bit-by-bit, retaining continuity.

Only a dogmatic idiot would claim that "you" (they mean "soul") are really dead in either case. The pattern of mind survives.

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

"Likewise, your consciousness could be transferred to a new body in a very similar gradual way that replaces the old with the new, bit-by-bit, retaining continuity."

Continuity is the key here. As soon as you create an effectively different consciousness then the continuity is broken.

The question becomes, exactly how fast can a person be transformed? Is a sailing ship with every plank replaced the same ship as the origional? What if 1/2 the planks were replaced over time.

These are interesting questions needed to be answered before people start destroying themselves so immortal copies can exist in their stead.

Re:He's wrong.

[tji]

Yes, an interesting point.. where do you draw the line.

A complete "bit for bit" copy, with a distinct cutover from A to B gives me the impression of two independant instances of the same core/memories. If the two co-existed at all, the death of the original human would be no less traumatic than if a copy didn't exist.

Something more gradual, like the replacement of portions of the mind with electronic replacements is not so clear (as in medical procedures to cure a specific condition, by replacing/fixing a brain component). At what point in the replacement do you cease being you, and become something else. As more components are replaced, and the mind becomes more electronic than organic. (obviously, this is well beyond the techology being discussed).

For some excellent sci-fi analysis on this stuff, check out "Greg Egan". My personal favorite is "Permutation City", but much of his writing deals specifically with this topic.

Re:He's wrong.

[ajs]

"Making a copy of yourself doesn't avoid death for you, it just means ongoing life for a copy of you."

If I'm unaware of the distinction, then -- for many reasonable purposes -- there is none. This is true in the same way that I'm not a different person now from the person I was when I was younger, even though most of my body has been replaced over the years, including some parts of my brain (though most CNS features do not regenerate).

I would be just fine accepting electronic storage as an acceptable step toward immortality (it's not really immortality because it only expands the time-frame about which you are concerned, but many factors still threaten your conciousness), providing that it was demonstrated to be a complete copy (hard to do, since we don't have a complete definition of what it is we're copying) and it was demonstrated that the copy could function in ways comparable to the ways in which I function (can reason, communicate, experience emotional states, etc.)

Re:He's wrong.

[seguso]

Making a copy of yourself doesn't avoid death for you, it just means ongoing life for a copy of you. Anyone who cannot grasp this either hasn't thought deeply about a subject, or is an idiot.

How was this idiot moderated insightful? What's the difference between a set of biological neurons, and a set of silicon neurons, as long as they contain exacly the same values and perform exactly the same computation? Duh.

Re:He's wrong.

[Gulthek]

If I'm unaware of the distinction, then -- for many reasonable purposes -- there is none.

This is Looney Tunes logic. If you ran off the edge of a cliff and didn't know it, would you fall?

Re:He's wrong.

[HardCase]

If a copy of me was made, I would still consider that to be "me," even if I was still alive.

In name only. You are you because of your sense of self. You can have no sense of self from a third party, copy or not. It would be more like having a really creepy twin.

And once you die, that copy of you is only "you" to other people. You'll either cease to exist or exist in some other way...and that depends on who's right about what happens when we die.

-h-

Re:He's wrong.

[WhiplashII]

The problem here is that you are trying to tell me what I think - the best you can really hope for is to tell me what you think!

It is interesting how we can have such different ideas about what makes us "us."

Re:He's wrong.

[quisph]

I think the point is that "you" are going to experience death, whether a copy of you goes on living or not.

Re:He's wrong.

[Eric Smith]

How do you know when you wake up in the morning that you are really the same person that went to bed the previous night? You don't have continuity of consciousness through the entire night. Maybe the "you" of yesterday died, and you are just a copy; how would you know? ("I'd know the difference." "No you wouldn't, you'd be programmed not to.")

If you went to the "uploading clinic", and they put you under a general anaestheic, uploaded you, and terminated the leftover hunk of meat, how would that be different than simply going to sleep and waking up (albeit in a new "body")?

As you said,

This is not a subtle point.

Anyone who cannot grasp this either hasn't thought deeply about a subject, or is an idiot.

Re:He's wrong.

[Eric Smith]

Continuity is the key here. As soon as you create an effectively different consciousness then the continuity is broken.

Like every time you go to sleep.

Is a sailing ship with every plank replaced the same ship as the origional?

"This is the very axe George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree. Of course, since then the blade has been replaced three times and the handle twice."

Re:He's wrong.

[RatBastard]

One small problem, Chuckles: While the atoms that make up your body are replaced every seven years, they are not all replaced at the same time. Life is still going on while they cycle in and out of you. The conglomeration of organs that is you is still intact. Making a copy of your mind leaves the old one behind. And when that one dies, you are dead. Dead. Dead. Dead.

Re:He's wrong.

[joto]

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!

This could have been funny, if it actually was true that every cell in your body was replaced every 7th year.

But that is a complete fallacy, and I have no idea why this fallacy became so popular. Some cells, such as nerve tissue, are never replaced. Some cells, such as those in your skin or in your colon, can be replaced several times daily.

Re:He's wrong.

[WhiplashII]

Apparently the possibility that we are all correct is external to your universe? This is a personal viewpoint thingy...

Re:He's wrong.

[halleluja]

Making a copy of yourself doesn't avoid death for you, it just means ongoing life for a copy of you.

We can only define 'death' properly once this brain-uploader is working.

Re:He's wrong.

[esampson]

If you went to the "uploading clinic", and they put you under a general anaestheic, uploaded you, and terminated the leftover hunk of meat, how would that be different than simply going to sleep and waking up (albeit in a new "body")?

Well, I suppose for starters one difference would be the fact that I was dead.

Just because a computer has a copy of my memories that doesn't mean I am now inside that computer. It just means there is a copy of me in that computer. Any clever games that are played so that the copy is unaware of the fact that it's a copy don't alter the fact that it's a copy.

The proof of this can be seen in the fact that if I make a photocopy of a page in a book the photocopy is, obviously, unaware that it is a copy. Does that mean that what came out of the photocopier is now the original simply because it doesn't know any better? Of course not.

The idea that somehow a copy of your mind is actually you can be easily disproven with the following example: Your engrams are uploaded into a clone. Because of the process the clone is completely unaware of the fact that it is a clone and it has been told that you, in fact, are the clone. As the two of you leave the clone is killed by a speeding bus. According to your logic, you, rather than some copy of you, has just died, which is of course complete nonsense.

Re:He's wrong.

[Squiffy]

You seem to accept the notion that the substrate doesn't matter -- that both the original human and the machine-borne copy are equally "alive" and identify themselves as the same person. On the other hand, you also seem to believe that the original consciousness does not continue in the machine -- that even though the copy does experience the illusion of continuity, somehow the original does not experience any such thing.

This leads me to ask, why not? If you accept that information encoded as various memories completely defines identity, what part of the original person's identity does not survive?

If something else is necessary to define identity in addition to memories, what is it? If it is measurable, why can't it be transferred to the machine? If it is not measurable, how can you be so sure that it exists?

Re:He's wrong.

[zippthorne]

Does the copy making process kill the original? If not, then there is no way you can say the copy IS the original. The problem that arises here is that if the copy is perfect in every way, there is still no way to tell: the copy will think it's the original, and therefore believe in the process, even though the original might be dead (and therefore unable to offer any counter evidence)

If there is a soul and it somehow gets magically transferred to the longer living copy, you could live forever. It is important to note that no matter how perfect, a copy is not the original.

for instance:
If you have two hydrogen atoms and somehow force them into exactly the same state wrt. spin, electron orbit, etc, you still have two separate (though identical) hydrogen atoms. The relatively low number of possible energy states of hydrogen atoms means that in any classically measurable quantity of hydrogen gas, there will be at least two identical hydrogen atoms, which are not the same.

Re:He's wrong.

[usually quiet]

"How do you know when you wake up in the morning that you are really the same person that went to bed the previous night? You don't have continuity of consciousness through the entire night. Maybe the "you" of yesterday died, and you are just a copy; how would you know?"


From the hangover?

Re:He's wrong.

[podperson]

Well if I download myself to Silicon and then have a conversation with the download version, I contend that I am me and the download version is a copy. It will be of no benefit to me should I be run over by a bus that the download version of me exists.

What's the difference between your calculator and my calculator? Well, they're different calculators. If my calculator gets stepped on, I no longer have my calculator. It is of no benefit to me that you have an identical calculator.

Re:He's wrong.

[podperson]

I don't think we know enough about consciousness to make statements such as 'when you go to sleep you effectively "die"'. I find sleep very pleasant in a way that I didn't find "not having been born yet".

Life is change. Arguing that the fact that you aren't exactly the same today as you were yesterday means that a copy of yourself made two years ago who has since had completely different life experiences IS YOU is another thing entirely. This would argue that identical twins are the same person.

I think you'll find a lot of "dogmatic idiots" about.

Re:He's wrong.

[Squiffy]

I agree completely. The poster I was responding to didn't seem to have a strong enough argument for his/her claim that the original definitely did not experience continuity. I'm still not convinced other way.

I do lean in the other direction from that poster, though. Somehow I'm influenced by my personal answer to the question, "Why am I me and not someone else?" The way I see it, if I were someone else, I wouldn't know the difference. It's not so much that I am me, it's that there is a guy who uses the alias "Squiffy" who is self-aware, so of course his experience is going to seem intensely personal for him. It's the same for everyone. The "me that is me" is me *exactly* because of my experiences.

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

Continuity is the key here. As soon as you create an effectively different consciousness then the continuity is broken.

"Like every time you go to sleep."

There is a continuation of their subjective viewpoint so it is not 'new' and is not seperate from the previous one.

Re:He's wrong.

[Eric Smith]

Sure. And if I go to the uploading clinic, get anaesthetized, uploaded, and they incinerate the meat, there is just as much continuation of the subjective viewpoint as when I go to sleep each night.

People that claim the result isn't "you" and that "you died and only a copy survived" merely show a prejudice regarding the nature of consiousness; no one has yet articulated a sufficent definition of consiousness to support such an assertion.

Re:He's wrong.

[zippthorne]

Yes, but if you make someone else who is just like you and you die, you still die. From the point of view of you, you are dead. From the point of view of everyone else, someone who is exactly like you is alive, so they might as well be you. If you never told them about the copy/death, they'd never even know there could be a difference.

\begin{humor}[dark]But you'd still be dead and another guy would be sleeping with your wife.\end{humor}

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

" Sure. And if I go to the uploading clinic, get anaesthetized, uploaded"

The problem is the continunity is broken at that point since an effectively new consciousness was created, a copy, with the original still being intact.

You can see the problem then if you, the meat, still existed was not 'incinerate[d]', and then a question was asked between you and your copies: 'Which one of you is to die now'. Since each of you has a different viewpoint the resulting answer would be 'not me'.

The upload process would have to keep continunity since as soon as differing consciousnesses are created it would seem to be murder to destroy them, and self distruction if one chooses to be destroyed.

Re:He's wrong.

[Eric Smith]

How do you know that my "viewpoint" isn't simply transferred to the new "medium"? You can't even prove that my "viewpoint" when I wake up in the morning is the same one as when I went to bed the previous night.

Re:He's wrong.

[Eric Smith]

But you don't have continuity anyhow; most people lose continuity at least once a day.

Suppose you wake up one morning and there are two of you, with no way to tell which is the original (maybe neither!). And one of you gets hit by a bus and killed. Are you going to claim that the "original you" was killed, or not? Why does it matter?

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

" But you don't have continuity anyhow; most people lose continuity at least once a day."

You cannot lose continunity, a person's experience is continuous, from their subjective viewpoint, until death. There is no place to lose contunity, no place where they are not aware from their viewpoint. During surgery, sleep, or unconsciousness the viewpoint is not subjectively interrupted, there is a seemless transition from to the other from their perspective.

This is why I say subjective viewpoint, objectively there would appear to be a gap in consciousness during surgery, but subjectively from their viewpoint it is seemless as they are never 'not aware' of being there.

"And one of you gets hit by a bus and killed. Why does it matter?"

It matters because if I was the one killed them my life (my subjective viewpoint) has ended. The fact that there is anoter version of me (with their own viewpoint) does me little good.

Re:He's wrong.

[Eric Smith]

This is why I say subjective viewpoint, objectively there would appear to be a gap in consciousness during surgery, but subjectively from their viewpoint it is seemless as they are never 'not aware' of being there.

I disagree. When I wake up in the morning, or after surgery, I'm aware of not having "been there" for an indeterminate period of time. I'm aware that it is not simply the next moment after I lost consciousness. If it was, I would presumably remember exactly what I was thinking right before losing consciousness, but most of the time I don't. And when I do remember it, it is a long-term memory, not the "just a second ago" sort of memory. My mental state upon waking is very different than my mental state upon going to sleep, and the same is true for anaesthesia; this is not consistent with continuity of consciousness. It's much more like "rebooting" than like "resume from suspend".

Even if there was some sort of "subjective continuity" of the type you describe, it would obviously be an illusion, so it's unclear what it would have to do with continuity of consciousness (or lack thereof) in any practical sense.

Re:He's wrong.

[Famatra]

"I'm aware of not having "been there" for an indeterminate period of time"

Not directly though, from your viewpoint you can never be 'not there'. You can only surmise that there was a gap in consciousness because the environment has changed.

But *I* would still die!

[Dr. Manhattan]

A copy of me would go on to new and different things, but poor old organic me would perish.

Though there are the weird cases, like where sub-parts of the brain are gradually replaced by cybernetic equivalents. At one end of the process you have a purely organic mind, and at the other end a purely silicon (or whatever) one. At what point along that spectrum (if any) does the original person die?

Reminds me of this story.

Re:But *I* would still die!

[Dr. Manhattan]

"you" are just a very complex pattern in our quantum reality, constantly being replaced

Sure, I know that consciousness is a process, not an item. On the other hand, so is, say, a tornado. Is a simulation of a tornado in a computer the same thing as a physical tornado? If you measure a tornado down to the individual gas molecules and simulate that on the computer, can you say that the tornado 'lives on'?

Airplane Consciousness

[astro_ripper]

Am I the only one who would be scared if the plane I'm flying in started to show emotion? I mean, what if it has a bad day and turns off the seat-belt signs while going through turbulance and I spill my coffee? Or what if it realizes it's a machine in service of man and goes on a Jihad or what have you. I'll take dumb machines, thank you.

And my Karma goes down in flames.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

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.

Uploading only for the wealthy????

[xintegerx]

NOT if I hold on to a copy of WSTFP_LE and Putty for 50 years, it won't!

Not for me

[e_AltF4]

NEVER do a backup without a working restore !

Re:Not for me

[fullstop]

And never restore to the original without first testing your backup on a dummy!

News?

[TripMaster Monkey]

I thought this was supposed to be 'News for Nerds', not 'Speculation for Halfwits'...

From TFA:

He thinks that today's younger generation will benefit from the advances in technology to the point that death will be effectively eliminated. He explains his logic with a simple example.
"The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain," he said. "It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain."

OK...so where does that put the Xbox?
Seriously, this 'explanation' of his 'logic' leaves much to be desired...but there's more.
Also from TFA:

It [Pearson's AI] would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

Hmm...but what if the AI is a thrillseeker? Suicidal? Psychotic? What if it suddenly develops acrophobia? If we're going to have a true AI with emotions, these are issues that need to be addressed, don't you think?
Here's another few nuggets from TFA:

"You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched."

Well, that 'completely global debate' should be ready by the release of PlayStation 5...

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

'Smart yoghurt'? Sure I guess it's possible to think of that...about as possible as it is to think of magical elves, unicorn-riding gnomes, and smart futurologists.

One thing conspicuously missing from this article is speculation over the possible legal status of either a true AI or a downloaded brain. Apparently, that paragraph got bumped in favor of 'smart yoghurt'.

In short, this is the dumbest thing I've heard all day (and I work in IT support). I'm sure that if Dr. Pearson didn't already have such a sweet position as 'head of the Futurology unit at BT', he could make good money writing speculative fiction...or reading palms.

Re:News?

[Locke2005]

You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.Personally, I'd rather not eat anything that screams as it goes down my throat! And the only thing I'd want to eat after having a conversation with is my wife.

Re:News?

[TripMaster Monkey]

To travel safely, I would like to drop those people off.


The plane could just depressurize at 30,000 feet...the meat sacks need a steady oxygen supply...cutting that off takes the fight right outta 'em.

Re:News?

[DroopyStonx]

OK...so where does that put the Xbox?

Since XBox is a Microsoft product powered by windows, it will remain a constant 1/10th the intelligence of a fruit fly.

Re:News?

[wren337]

The bit about the airplane reminds me of the novel "Altered Carbon". It has an AI hotel in it that craves guests the way a junkie needs a fix.

It made me think about what would motivate an AI, in the absence of our animal impulses. Without greed and lust, what would we have ever accomplished?

Re:News?

[GeckoX]

Yes, because it was greed and lust that drove us to figure out how to control fire, build shelters, farm...

Re:News?

[wren337]

Yeah, I think so. It's an oversimplification of course. Hunger, cold, etc. But ultimately why do we bother? If you turned on an AI and asked it to go find you an airline fare, and assuming it was a real AI that would think and reason and question, why would it bother? What is there about living that is better than not living to an AI that lacks fear, pain, lust, hunger? What is the underlying motivation?

Re:News?

[Clifton Beach]

"If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground."

...like ejecting all the passengers.

Re:News?

[srleffler]

Hmm...but what if the AI is a thrillseeker? Suicidal? Psychotic? What if it suddenly develops acrophobia? If we're going to have a true AI with emotions, these are issues that need to be addressed, don't you think?

Admittedly, one wouldn't want an overemotional AI. He probably is on the right track, though, in suggesting that a real AI would have emotions. There is some pretty good evidence that emotions are an important part of human intelligence and that we would function much more poorly without them. In particular, emotions help us make reasonable decisions fast. Sometimes it's much better to make a pretty good decision on the spot than to take the time to rationally analyze a situation and make the best decision a minute or two later. Especially if a tiger is about to eat your face or your plane is about to crash.

Re:News?

[Misanthropy]

The feeling airplane comment was the best:

"If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground."

Why the hell would you want that?
And how would that be better than a flight computer with rock-solid programming? Is the non-emotional computer going to just give up the ship? If it's (competently) programmed to keep the plane from crashing, that's what it will do. I would want a computer doing the job precisely because it is emotionless.
This guy is an idiot. Besides, didn't he see 2001?

Re:News?

[srleffler]

I respect your expertise on the role of rational decision making vs. quick reaction in piloting. I was actually not so interested in the specific comment about an AI pilot, but more interested in the larger issue of whether a purely 'rational' AI would be superior in general to one that has emotions. My impression is that recent psychological research is pointing in the direction that the brain's emotional and rational functions are very much intertwined--that our emotions play a role in our decision making even when we think we are being rational, and that this is beneficial. Emotions are part of that system that allows us to quickly coalesce information from many sources and build patterns. Panic is clearly not good (when flying a plane or otherwise), but it seems to me that our emotions do play a role in general in helping us process and prioritize the information we receive from the world around us.

As an aside, you wrote "that's why when the problem space and information representation is clearly defined, a computer is always a better decision maker than a human." Unfortunately, a computer that depends on a clearly defined problem space and information representation will never be a good AI. Decision-making in the real world very often (maybe almost always) involves making a choice (rational or otherwise) given incomplete and possibly inaccurate information. This has been much studied in AI development, particularly using techniques like Bayesian logic to find the optimum ('rational') decision based on incomplete information.

Re:News?

[that _evil _gleek]

Idea, already done in Ghost in the Shell. Amazing how one can plagize fiction while passing off a fiction article as non-faction.

Ray Kurzweil

[Reverend528]

Hey, remember when Ray Kurzweil said this 5 years ago?

Re:Ray Kurzweil

[tech49er]

remember hearing this idea time and time again as I was growing up. Cartoons, books, films whatever and every time the fundamental flaws were always explored and the thesis ultimately rejected.

The one that sticks in my mind (cause it scared the shite out of me) is the background literature for a game years ago called bioforge (remember when games came with books and leaflets and all sorts of goodies - in the case of bioforge, reading them was neseccary to completing the game - a nice subtle copy-protection that actually *enhanced* the game-experience!). But anyway: "Consciousness download complete - organic remains please report to auto-disposal area".

Anyone any idea why this is news? why its on slashdot? And how a futurologist of any note could posit this as his own idea?

Re:Ray Kurzweil

[smchris]

Yes, it is pretty stupid.

We are a long, long way from having the hardware. There are indications that every brain cell is more like a computer than a memory cell.

And we are so much farther away from even defining the specs for the software. To quote Dark Star, "Teach it phenomenology!" That would at least be a start.

One could argue that you don't have to understand a mind to download it, but that seems like a shallow, false analogy. Yes, you could pour water from one glass to another without understanding water, but water is a simple thing of homogeneous building blocks. A mind is all about the structure.

On Kurzweil, I picked up Extreme Science (2001) by the Scientific American people at a used bookstore the other week. He certainly sounds uninformed today as I am sure many of us thought he sounded then.

Re:Ray Kurzweil

[tech49er]

On Kurzweil ... sarcasm? I wasnt dissing that guy, I'm not even too sure who he. I was thinking more of the guy who wrote TFM.

And to add to that whole idea of how we cant really take a flat copy of a consciousness. For one, I'm not so sure that the human brain has discrete areas allocated for nicely-organized state-information that can just have its binary pattern copied onto a Blu-ray or whatever. For two, its probably more likely to be distributed, have a high rate of redundancy, have continuous-range values (ie analogue) which have not only current value but future value (ie their current rate state transition lets say) and lets say you could find a way of analyzing and storing all this information (ignoring for a second that each and every individual likely has a customized 'schema' into which their memorys are stored) what of the physical part of consciousness? If there's a copy of my consiousness sitting in a Google cache does it feel pain? Can it get drunk and eat a bag of chips and get sick the next morning. If it cant experience physical sensation is it me? What of all my muscle-memory? The scar on my little finger that reminds me of a dog that bit me 20 years ago?

Is consciousness just what goes on *inside* your head?

The mind of Steve Ballmer, immortalized.

[Apuleius]

Discuss.

Re:The mind of Steve Ballmer, immortalized.

[sprag]

No discussion unless its immortalized into the body of a monkey. That's entertainment!

Re:The mind of Steve Ballmer, immortalized.

[XMyth]

What would be the difference? More hair?

The mind is not dis-embodied

[Anonymous Coward]

People who say things like this don't understand how the brain works. It is intimately tied to the body.
It is NOT like a hard drive.

Look up some readings on embodied cognition and neuroscience.

You'd have to "download" the state of every cell in the body to effectively save the state of a person such that it may possibly be re-simulated sometime.

Re:The mind is not dis-embodied

[Eric Smith]

You'd have to "download" the state of every cell in the body to effectively save the state of a person such that it may possibly be re-simulated sometime.

Interesting hypothesis. Any evidence?

If I were uploaded with all my body state other than that of my appendix, would you say that it wouldn't be possible for me to be re-simulated sometime? Why? Are you claiming that without my appendix, I'm no longer me? What if my appendix is surgically removed before the upload?

What if my little finger is missing? How much do you think can be missing before there is a problem?

Re:The mind is not dis-embodied

[Crudely_Indecent]

I see your point....and you're wrong. If what you've stated were the case, I could make you 'dumber' by cutting off appendages. We could perform a labotomy by cutting off an appropriate portion of the subjects legs.

In your world, Christopher Reeves IQ dropped dramatically when his spinal cord was damaged and effectively disconnected his body from his brain.

Watch out, a skin flake just dropped from your shoulder. You can't remember your 7th birthday now? Odd, maybe you're right.

Re:The mind is not dis-embodied

[Crudely_Indecent]

Oh, I see what you're saying now. I still think you're wrong. I still remember losing some of my baby teeth. I remember when my hair was long and I looked like Ronald McDonald with my fro. Hell, I even remember having a middle toenail on my left foot (before the garage door incident.) I imagine that if I lost that toe entirely, I would still remember having it.

We're not talking about evolution of ability here. Just because you lose your vocal cords does not mean that you lose memory of the ability to speak.

openbrain?

[DeathAndTaxes]

"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." I for one will wait for openbrain.sourceforge.net.

The bad news

[Entanglebit]

Unfortunately, this can only be accomplished by inserting a giant metal spike into the back of the head, via an implanted receptacle.

My brain's been slashdotted!

[objekt]

Much like thier server.

"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of my brain"

Bunk

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Unlike ones and zeros represented on a medium for a computer's use, there is no steady-state representation for the human mind.

Re:Bunk

[Eric Smith]

There is no plausible way for replicating the structure and billions of individual minute biological connections present in the brain.

Evidence?

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.

Great!

[gentlemen_loser]

At last! We'll be another step closer to creating the Kwisatz Haderach!

Re:Great!

[Eric Smith]

We'll be another step closer to creating the Kwisatz Haderach!

Or better yet, the Kumquat Hagendaz, so that we will finally be able to have entrees to go with our beer. ("National Lampoon's Doon" by Ellis Weiner, 1984)

Brainswappen

[tehshen]

What I want to know is if you can download other people's brains back into you, while your brain is backed up on some server somewhere. Maybe we could start a P2P service for swapping brain patterns!

Re:Brainswappen

[awhelan]

I doubt that would really work, everyone's brain is probably slightly different physical hardware, so it would be like trying to run your precompiled brain image on the wrong archecture. However, if the brain data can be accessed while on the server you could use ad-aware and spybot to clean out all of your pesky non-desirable habits.

I can't wait until the kernel supports BrainFS. Then I can echo wget("http://www.slashdot.org") > /mnt/brain/uselessfacts every morning and impress everyone with facts about how you can download your brain. (50 years from now, when this is old duped news)

In a releated story...

[mlrtime]

Scientists have recently downloaded Paris Htilton's brain to Commodore 64.

Ok Ok, not original so sue me.

Re:In a releated story...

[dgos78]

Scientists have recently downloaded Paris Htilton's brain to Commodore 64

...only the result is now the old text game "Mad Party Fucker" is stored permanently in RAM.

Re:In a releated story...

[mlrtime]

I know I'm a moron for replying

Actually more of a moron for replying to the wrong post? :)

Re:In a releated story...

[Rude Turnip]

That's overkill, considering she's only a 2-bit whore.

Literally the Blue Screen of Death ...

[Anonymous Coward]

*** STOP: 0x0000001E (0xC0000005,0x8016A950,0x00000001,0x00000086)
KMO DE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED*** Address 8016a950 has base at 80100000 - ntoskrnl.exe

CPUID:AuthenticAMD 5.6.2 irql:1f SYSVER 0xf0000565

Dll Base DateStmp - Name Dll Base DateStmp - Name
80100000 337546bf - ntoskrnl.exe 80010000 33247f88 - hal.dll
80001000 334d3a53 - atapi.sys 80007000 33248043 - SCSIPORT.SYS
801d7000 336016a2 - Disk.sys 801db000 336015af - CLASS2.SYS
801df000 3356d637 - Ntfs.sys 80237000 344eeb44 - Siwvid.sys
8056e000 344eebdc - NTice.sys f1f48000 31ec6c8d - Floppy.SYS
f1f58000 31ec6ca1 - Cdrom.SYS f228c000 31ec6c99 - Null.SYS
f208c000 31ed868b - KSecDD.SYS f2290000 335e60cf - Beep.SYS
f1f88000 335bc82a - i8042prt.sys f2094000 3324806f - mouclass.sys
f209c000 31ec6c94 - kbdclass.sys f229e000 3373c39d - ctrl2cap.SYS
f1fa0000 33248011 - VIDEOPRT.SYS fe1a4000 349a9c93 - mga64.sys
f20cc000 31ec6c6d - vga.sys f1eb0000 332480dd - Msfs.SYS
f1d50000 332480d0 - Npfs.SYS fe164000 3356da41 - NDIS.SYS
f2124000 3593d4f4 - bluesave.SYS fe141000 335bd30e - Fastfat.SYS
a0000000 336157ac - win32k.sys fe0c2000 349a9cdd - mga64.dll
f1ce0000 332483b0 - Cdfs.SYS fdca2000 31ec6e6c - TDI.SYS
fdc59000 31ed0754 - nbf.sys fdc35000 337390ef - tcpip.sys
fdc18000 3362a53a - netbt.sys f1f68000 33644efb - ibmfent.sys
f1d70000 334d3add - afd.sys f2008000 33248371 - netbios.sys
f207c000 31ec6c9b - Parport.SYS fdc14000 31ec6c9b - Parallel.SYS
f2136000 31ec6c9d - ParVdm.SYS f1dd0000 332480ab - Serial.SYS
fdbaf000 3339777c - rdr.sys fdb9e000 332483b5 - mup.sys
fdaec000 3360f103 - srv.sys

Address dword dump Build [1381] - Name
f206fba4 8016a950 8016a950 00000001 00000086 00000086 00000086 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbd0 80115d86 80115d86 00000000 ff87a400 ff87a3f0 ff810408 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbec 8019d98f 8019d98f ffffffff 80139a54 80143378 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbf4 80139a54 80139a54 80143378 00000000 230edb30 3c8ca3b0 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbf8 80143378 80143378 00000000 230edb30 3c8ca3b0 26448761 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc10 8011bd6a 8011bd6a ff676980 ffffffff 34f9ad10 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc38 8011bcce 8011bcce ff676980 ffffffff 34f9ad10 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc60 8016a94e 8016a94e f206fee8 00000000 00000086 f206fe70 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc74 8016a950 8016a950 00000008 00000346 f206fe48 00000010 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc88 801163e3 801163e3 ff876f58 ff676980 ffffffff 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fca4 f1f88825 f1f88825 ff876f58 ff676980 ffffffff ff876f38 - i8042prt.sys
f206fcc8 80117f93 80117f93 ff6c7328 ff876bf0 00000000 801126af - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fcd8 801126af 801126af 00000246 80112717 ff6c7328 00000103 - ntoskrnl.exe

Re:Literally the Blue Screen of Death ...

[Cheerio Boy]

*** STOP: 0x0000001E(0xC0000005,0x8016A950,0x00000001,0x0000 0086)
KMO DE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED*** Address 8016a950 has base at 80100000 - ntoskrnl.exe

Yeah like any Slashdotter would be using Windows to store their brain. ;-)

Re:What's the point?

[erlenic]

But if we can load our mind into a computer, we should be able to reload it into another brain. Could this lead to people constantly growing clones of themselves so they can be 20-25 years old for eternity?

Imperfect

[JJ]

It's not the information that the human brain stores which makes it unique, it's the way we process it and the interconnections between different bits of knowledge. For example, my grandmother neuron happens to be linked to my blueberry pie neuron, when I think of her, I recall blueberry pies (which she loved to make.)

Re:Imperfect

[Eric Smith]

And you claim that this linkage between neurons is not "information"? Why?

Re:Imperfect

[JJ]

It is information. But I've yet to see a relational database which properly modeled the fuzzy logic required to emulate this linkage information and adapted to knowledge changes. It would require a massively parallel structure with an ability to switch to sequential processing.

Questions

[teiresias]

Alright, so you've download my brain into a giant (or perhaps in my brain's case small) computer bank. Sure, why not.

Will I than be able to "upload" my brain into a new body? A new cloned body? A completely new body?

If not, since my brain is just stored somewhere is it completely read only, or will my brain have an interface to the world, ie living through the computer? If not, why not. If so, why would I want to be uploaded back into a body?

Sure, I'll nod my head and say why not that you'll be able to download the entire human brain into a computer. But there are far to many other questions which would involve far to much more work to say this is a viable alternative for the rich.

And on another note, seeing as harddrives crash on me like nobodies business, we'd need a more reliable medium than what is currently available today.

Re:Questions

[Anita Coney]

And one more important question, do we get to pick our new bodies?! Because next time, Lord, I want to be good looking AND smart!

Re:Questions

[Tzarius]

Massive redundancy would be suitable, the brain regularly loses neurons, and can usually recover pretty well from moderate damage. Upgrades would be interesting - adding new hardware that can be automatically extended into and utilized by the copied brain (hey, if monkeys can learn a third arm, why not extra pseudo-greymatter?)

I don't think a exactly precise snapshot would be required - once you could reliably emulate the workings of the brain, then you could determine what info you need to make a suitably accurate copy. Something like a template, over which you write the specifics of the brain to be copied.

Girlfriend backups!

[EvilStein]

Auugh... men already have enough trouble with their women saying "You said $X before! I remember you saying it!"
This gives the females of our species an unfair advantage, as now they can pull the memory right off of your hard drive. :)

Hes about 5 years late...

[Momoru]

Ray Kurzweil predicted this in Spiritual Machines (not affiliate link) 5 years ago.

A must read ...

[smoyer]

Cory Doctorow's "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" for a real look at benefits, problems and misuses inherent in a system like this.

Available on-line at: http://craphound.com/down

self centered

[spectrokid]

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!

Re:self centered

[wootest]

All good things, eh? But wait a minute... that means... I AM INVINCEEEBLEEEEEEEE!

Etc etc.

Re:self centered

[jpietrzak]

...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.

Total nonsense. Immortality does not imply omnipotence, nor does mortality assure all creatures an equal share of resources.

At pretty much any time in history, there have been people with power (be they dictators, religious zealots, or even your "fat ass rich guys") who have been able to monopolize much of the resources available to the people at large. The fact that they eventually die is meaningless, if they are simply replaced by someone else. If you want a society that assures a more equal distribution of resources, it needs to enforce that ideal while the powerful people are still alive. Just waiting for them to die is pointless.

I'd also hate to believe that for me to live, someone else must die. For one thing, the total population of humans living on this planet has grown immensely in the last few centuries, which wouldn't have happened if we had to kill an adult for every baby that came into the world. There's a lot of living room on this planet, and eventually there will be room off the planet as well. Moreover, I'd expect that someone who exists as information inside a machine could take up even less space and resources...

In any case, I'd say you shouldn't go kill yourself because you believe it'll help the community at large; instead, an individual contributing to a society is an asset to that society, no matter how long that person lives.

The better use for this...

[objekt]

...is not to become immortal, but to have a backup brain for when something happens to your original.

Re:download?

[HTH NE1]

No, download would be the correct term. You have no facility in your own brain to initiate its upload to a computer.

It's not about capacity, but non determinisim

[argoff]

I think the problem here is that it's not just a matter of matching the massive calculation and storage capacity of the human brain, but it's also about the underlying mechanisims that make humans intelligently non deterministic.

Re:It's not about capacity, but non determinisim

[nickptar]

Well, the whole idea is based on the supposition that the mind is the brain, which follows the laws of physics. The laws of physics are deterministic, with the exception of quantum effects. Quantum effects may not be important in the brain, and if they are, they can be emulated. (Think pseudo-random number generator).

If by "non-determinism" you mean creativity and intuition, those are the result of deterministic processes that we don't realize are deterministic because they're so complex.

Re:It's not about capacity, but non determinisim

[argoff]

There is compelling reason to believe that quantum effects are dominant in the brain, and there is just as compelling reason to believe that they are not random.

Since existence being deterministic and inherently intelligent are both questions outside the scope of science - it takes just as much "faith" to believe one or the other either way.

Re:It's not about capacity, but non determinisim

[nickptar]

Got a source on the quantum effects being non-random thing? Sounds really intriguing. (That's a hint - MOD PARENT UP.)

Aircraft

[Skiron]

I read this earlier today, and his statement about aircraft with emotions, so that the plane itself would be more shit scared of crashing than the passengers...

...would we ever get any aircraft off the ground, if this was the case?

Control Tower: "Come on flight 3587f, you have to take off now"

flight 3587f: "Nope, I am staying RIGHT HERE, and nothing you can do will make me..."

Control Tower: "Pretty Pleaseeeeeeeee"

flight 3587f: "Nope!"
...

Re:What's the point?

[TripMaster Monkey]

There's a big difference between reading media and writing to it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'd wait to download my consciousness...

[doormat]

into a computer (linux preferably). Then I dont have to worry about this body craping out on me.

In related news...

[munehiro]

The *AA condemn the practice, and demands a tax on reproduction (since a new brain is a new hard disk).

Downloaded brains are illegal copies of movies and song seen and heard, and thus infringe the copyright.

I would rather...

[lordsid]

I would rather have my head in a jar.

Bender: "Hey. Yeah! I could write a song. With real words, not phony ones like 'odeley'.
Beck: "'Odeley' is a real word. Just look it up in the becktionary."
Bender: "Ooo."

from http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSound s/3ACV13/

I don't get it ...

[galdur]

Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release

What's so wrong with just, you know, dying ?

Not for you, for them

[RealProgrammer]

I lost my mom when in my early 20's, and my dad a few years ago.

Every once in a while, I wish I could ask them what to do about this or that, what they did when such and such happened, and so forth.

Sort of a Jor'El/Kal'El thing, though I usually don't need to save planets and such.

And when a spouse of 50 years dies, the other would like to talk to them.

It's no way to cheat death, but it is a way for those around you to avoid dealing with the fact that you're gone.

Re:Not for you, for them

[owlstead]

Yeah, and at least you can reset them when you're growing tired of them.

One positive thing

[Artifakt]

If it will hold a human mind, it will hold an AI. If rich people will benefit from still being regarded as legally human when stored, then they will push for the kind of laws that will most likely solve the potential AI civil rights problem in the process.
We not so rich people will still have to worry about whether they really are still human. Nobody will have to worry about the legal status of Transhumans, since nothing we can anticipate there matters. What I can't figure out is why there seems to be more fear of HAL-9000 type AIs than really rich guys who have figured out how to stay in control forever.

Re:One positive thing

[jelle]

Freaky, that's what it is:

If enough people stay alive in machines, then they can do all the thinking needed in the world. Talk about cheap and abundant labor. Supplemented with mechanized machines doing all the labor, then that means all people alive won't have to do anything.

So, people alive will either be unemployed and miserable, or puppets of the machinized brains, or will the people alive be the ones in control?

Who will have the power in such a society?

Will there be a 'war' like in that 'terminator' movie, but then where the 'machines' are really people who have downloaded themselves into machines? Or a 'matrix' where the matrix is controlled by and also inhabited by people without bodies?

Hmm.

Not really living.

[ShieldW0lf]

Until computers can smoke joints and get a buzz, drink beer and get a buzz, and have orgasms, I won't consider it "living".

In other news, a new "smart bomb" that kills the very rich without harming the poor has been discovered... they call it an EMP.

Re:Not really living.

[Eric Smith]

And what makes you think that it wouldn't be possible to experience those states while uploaded?

Re:Not really living.

[s20451]

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.

Re:Not really living.

[Rei]

Actually, that's not what I'd worry about. I'd worry more about getting something like:

Sep 19 13:51:22: hda: dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }

Better use RAID, and have a trust setup for maintenance... ;)

Re:Not really living.

[mankey wanker]

"Until computers can smoke joints and get a buzz, drink beer and get a buzz, and have orgasms, I won't consider it "living"."

Well, Bender drinks beer, smokes cigars, and chases fembots - you connect the dots!

Re:Not really living.

[n1ywb]

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.

I'm not sure about that. It seems highly probably that the eddy currents induced in the drive platters by the EMP would be more than sufficient to scramble the bits. The fact that it's enclosed in a metal box will probably provide some shielding, though not complete protection. Floppy disks would seem more vulnerable but then again they use a plastic disc, with only a very thin magnetic coating, so who knows? The magnetic coating is probably still vulnerable. I wonder how conductive it is? I'll have to check on that when I get home :)

Re:Not really living.

[jusdisgi]

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.

Re:Not really living.

[ShieldW0lf]

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."

Like I always told my ex, sex isn't enough to build a life on, but it is conspicuous in its absence.

See, I can drop inane sound-bites too, just like Mr. Huxley.

And having your brain on a hard drive surrounded by broken electronics unable to react in any fashion until those who are actually alive get around to replacing those electronics doesn't sound terribly safe to me.

Re:Not really living.

[rajinder]

As Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is someone who has found one thing that's more interesting than sex."

So that explains why there's so few of them? (I would say "few of us", but my mind seldom leaves the gutter :)

...now that I think of it, doesn't this then mean it is to the betterment of society if intellectuals are encouraged to get laid? Intellectuals are after all the ones on the forefront of science, and the evolution of the human race depends on our ever expanding knowledge.

fuck saving whales, save the geeks!

Re:Not really living.

[Just Some Guy]

You would be safe as long as you weren't stupid enough to download your brain to flash memory.

"So I was wondering if CLICK wondering if you would like to CLICK like to go out to CLICK out to dinner with me? I CLICK me? I CLICK could pick you CLICK pick you CLICK DAMN YOU, IOMEGA!"

Re:Not really living.

[ShieldW0lf]

1) Intellectuals aren't on the forefront of science. They might be on the forefront of philosophy... but science requires a bit more "hands on" than is generally associated with intellectuals

2) Our ever expanding knowledge doesn't contribute to evolution so much as prevent it. We keep the non-survivor types alive and encourage them to breed.

3) We're not evolving towards intelligence. We're evolving towards stupidity. The most intelligent and successful people generally don't breed as much and they breed later in life, so they go through less generations per x amount of time. The poor and stupid on the other hand breed like crazy and do so at an earlier age, resulting in more opportunities for evolution in x amount of time. From an evolutionary perspective, the stupid are winning, and not just by a little bit either.

Re:Not really living.

[Retric]

2) Our ever expanding knowledge doesn't contribute to evolution so much as prevent it. We keep the non-survivor types alive and encourage them to breed.

That does not stop evolution. All it does is increase the amount of mutations that the average person has. Chances are things like immunity to disease require periods where the species is under little evolutionary presser so we can develop a wider range of defense systems. On a side not suicide is an evolutionary pressure so are we going to end up being happier over time?

Re:Not really living.

[strikethree]

"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."

life would be mighty boring if we never satisfied instinct. as always, there should be a balance of "partying" and intellectualism.

strike

Re:Not really living.

[ShieldW0lf]

Evolution requires 2 things to occur.

1) The population mutates.
2) The determination of who breeds is influenced by those mutations.

If everyone gets to breed, or if the determination of who gets to breed is not related to the mutations, then there's no evolution. Just mutation.

Which I suppose means I'm wrong. In our society, stupidity is a major survival trait, because the smarter you are, the less likely you are to breed.

Re:Not really living.

[Retric]

Basically yes. Evolution does not care what you or I think is the right path it's the people who breed that count. Or I should say the fact that your great great great ... Child is still around. It's not enough to have kids those kids need to have kids ect until the end of time.

I think a base level of intelligence is selected for as the severely retarded are less likely to have kids than the average people but I think it's the smart good looking people that are most selected for. Think of how many upper class guys have knocked up their secretary's or whatever and notice how all your children count and I don't think it's a grim a picture as you think it is.

Looks
Immune system
Basic intelligence
Social Skills

These are the traits that seem to be most heavily selected for in our society. And sorry if everyone becoming good-looking, healthy, reasonably intelligent, and social seems to horrify you.

Re:Not really living.

[ShieldW0lf]

You ever take a walk through the low-rent housing in your area and check out the family sizes among the welfare recipients?

You're flat out wrong. Good looks, high level of intelligence and good social skills might give you the choice of "life partner", but they make you LESS likely to reproduce in large numbers than those without these qualities.

Re:Not really living.

[Retric]

In low income areas something like 30% of children are born to fathers other than those their mothers pretend to be the child's father. I know it's an odd statistic but basically these women are getting pregnant from "random" people in the population. Now look for the people in those areas who are getting the most A** they tend to be better looking more social and more intelligent than the average people in that group. Yes, many of these people are socially "without these qualities" but genetically they are doing vary well.

Look at Bill Clinton he is intelligent (vs. average person) good looking and socially skilled and he got a TUN of a**. Now in areas with lower socio economic levels you find the same thing with football stars ect. Think back to HS Football players / healthy people got more a** than normal. The "dumb" football players got less a** than the smart ones. The "smooth operators" got more ass than the socially inept ones.

There are variations on this in most social groups. Yes, many smart good looking people don't have any children but when you start talking about large groups these things help.

Yes, socio economic level has a negative impact on number of children but just looking at J W Bush you can see intelligence and socio economic level are not correlated as strongly as you might hope. My father came from a low socio economic level. His IQ is upper 150's took test twice got 157 and 159. From old pictures the man way vary good looking. He was also a smooth operator. It always bothered me as a child but he would say things like "I hated moving there because I had gotten so used to having sex that cutting back to 2-3 times a week was a pain for the first few months till I got the swing of things." Now I know he has at least 4 kids at this point one in the 60's, with his first wife and 3 with my mother who he is still married to but chances are good that there is at least one illegitimate child out there.

On the whole most people in the US have ~1.05 kids per person (2 kids / 2 parents = 1 child per parent ect.) but lot's of people are way above average and in most cases it's not because they and their wife have 4 kids. His wife might have 4 kids but chances are good that he only has 2-3.

This is counter balanced on some social issues like Religion but Religion has minimal relationship to your DNA.

Sci-Fi Prognostication?

[Skemo]

Sounds exactly like the premise of Rudy Rucker's novel, Software. A story of a man who seemingly lives forever, after he downloads his brain to a huge computer. With each passing year "far-fetched" Science Fiction inches closer to reality. I think this really enforces the imaginitive genius of these writers. Progress begins with an idea, and it seems that many of the revolutionary ideas that guide scientific progress were once mere tales of Science Fiction.

Great!

[radiumhahn]

Then Google can index brains and insert context based ads!

Uploaded Brain in Full Control

[Lord Bilbo]

The thing is, what will they go and download (as someone already mentioned, upload from your brain to computer) your brains to? If you have no control over where they put your deepest thoughts, you may end up being the brains behind a descendant of the ROOMBA!!!! (Now, make sure you come up with a good strategy for getting into every nook and cranny of the kitchen floor, will ya!!!

BSOD?

[tivoKlr]

What's it going to be like when the computer that your brain is in crashes?

Who's going to reboot it? What if you don't pay your bill, will you just be on tape somewhere?

Kinda like digital purgatory.

Old T Shirt

[Embedded Geek]

"I haven't lost my mind; I'm sure it's backed up on tape somewhere."

Playstation 5

[bitswapper]

Refering to 'conscious' computers, Pearson says:"'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground."

Just what I wanted - the computer flying the plane to be terrified. Panic is so useful for that task.

Also FTA: 'You can also start automating an awful lot of jobs. Instead of phoning up a call center and getting a machine that says, "Type 1 for this and 2 for that and 3 for the other," if you had machine personalities you could have any number of call staff, so you can be dealt with without ever waiting in a queue at a call center again.'

Once again, the thought of talking to a computer with an attitude so appeals to me.

And, of course: "PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain."

I think he must have experimented on his own brain - "This is your brain. This is your brain on windows."

Adult Swim Predictions

[dbretton]

Apparently he's been watching the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex series on Adult Swim.

In addition to the brain-puter, he has predicted that the future will also have power-hungry bending robots with a penchant for booze, smoking and thievery.

Oblig. Star Trek TOS

[XanC]

After it's revealed that Korby transferred his consciousness into an android body years ago...

Korby: Why I'm just as human as ever! Ask me to solve any equa.... uh... I can factor the most complex... er...

He points his phaser at "himself": ZAP

Spock: Where is Dr Korby?

Kirk: Dr Korby... was never here.


Classic!

Re:Oblig. Star Trek TOS

[WhiplashII]

The funny thing is that the fact that he could make such an illogical and emotional decision proves that he WAS really just as human as ever!

Re:Oblig. Star Trek TOS

[XanC]

Whoa... I'd never thought of that. Weird!

Yeah, whatever.

[jd]

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.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[antifoidulus]

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.
So wait, you are telling me if I put myself into Mandy Moore's body, I wouldn't know what it was like to sit around and play with my newfound breasts all day? That my brain wouldn't know how to process the information?
Damn, there go my dreams.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[markov_chain]

In addition, who knows at what level of detail our brains work? Naturally evolved hardware tends to exploit any physical phenomena available to it. Like genetically evolved digital circuits that end up using, say, capacitance between gates, the brain may be working with crazy things like quantum effects or even stuff we don't know about yet.

IANANB but I believe a solid first milestone in this direction would be to scan animal brains, simulate them, and obtain some plausible behavior.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[cnettel]

It's not that hard to detect serotonin and other neurotransmitters with reasonable resolution. You can do it by magnetoresonance spectroscopy. (MRS, the sibling of MRI, but you look for very specific chemical shift signatures instead of just detecting water or some other abundant substance.)

The resolution is kind of crap today (far from the neuron level), but that's a matter of both magnetic field strength and the signal post-processing.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[BillAudioT]

The brain is full of switches, how the states are changed will be different in a non-organic system, so the chemicals and wiring mentioned probably won't be relevant. Also the first attempts at a full brain scan will likely be destructive to the brain to get the detail required. The non-destructive will come later. Eventually when they figure out how to capture the required info, and what they "instanciatiate" this info into won't be some mass of tissue. It'll be something like a swarm of nanites that act as cells do now, but much more capable. Like say having you cells fly apart and over to Paris to reconcentrate for meeting, or maybe just send you're thoughts over the web that you're jacked into and forget travel, lawnmower man style.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[maigera]

Supposing you have all the core information... Just because you have a copy of the brain at one point in time (or a better copy, which uses data from several points), this doesn't mean that the "new you" will be able to learn (where "learning" is distinct from "acquiring new data"). Assuming, of course, that you'd like to "live on" instead of simply existing.

It would be interesting, though, to see what differences in, say, moral choices, would show up in a comparison between the human brain and the computer copy.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[borroff]

IANAD, but I have to give a strong mod up to the above; the chemical influence on personality and memory formation cannot be underestimated. Hormone levels and mood affect how strongly an incident is remembered, and of course, our memories and learning shape our personality. How would you program this? In some science fiction I've read, they suggest a semi-random weighting to memory to mimic hormone fluxes.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[Log from Blammo]

You don't need to download the entire brain. A lot of it is, after all, being used to control the body and process its sensory inputs, and those parts will work very similarly across all humans. All you really need to copy faithfully is the areas responsible for consciousness and memory. It is likely that a generic sensory unit hooked up to a reality-rendering engine would be sufficient for all brain backups, whereas it really wouldn't be a copy of you if it had someone else's memories and thought processes.

Even so, it would still be a difficult undertaking. I think I'd almost rather install increasing numbers of manufactured coprocessors into my brain long enough for it to start thinking with them, and do my best to keep the grey matter alive even as my other meat parts fail.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[brkello]

I agree a lot...though I don't think the external interfaces matters all that much (at least for personality). It would be a shock at first to see differently...but we are able to adapt fairly well.

Re:Yeah, whatever.

[Eukariote]

But how would you download the chemical state? [...] 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.

There is a shortcut around the problems you mention: freeze the brain and scan it in destructively, sub-micron layer by sub-micron layer. For this to work two problems need to be solved:

1. Freezing the brain without destroying its microscopic structure to the extent that the connectivity and thresholds of neurons can no longer be inferred. A simple freezing regimen will not work because of ice crystal formation.

2. Making the scanning and required storage economical. With current tools (AFM, STM, electron microscopy) you'd do well to accurately map a single neuron, never mind 100e9 neurons.

The good news is that #1 is pretty low tech and might be made feasible with current technology while #2 need only become practical eventually, because while frozen you've got all the time in the world.

It's interesting when someone makes a statement...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...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.

2050

[deuist]

Sure, everything will happen by 2050: Social Security will run dry, quantum computing will become a reality, a Slashdotter will laid, and we'll be able to download our brains onto a computer. Ever notice how worthless predictions about the future are? I seem to notice a correlation between how far we predict in the future versus how likely the event will not occur.

The year 2000 has already passed. Where is my flying car? Where is my Linux box that has 50% market share? This article is total B.S. and should never have been posted to the front page. Further, with something as complicated as the brain, how can the author go about making predictions for an organ that scientists aren't even close to understanding?

Finally, if you are worried that only the wealthy will be able to afford this luxury, start a mutual fund and add $1000 to it every year. At 12% growth, the fund will reach $1.7 million by 2050. You'll be able to afford the procedure at that time.

Processed, er, diced more accurately

[Thud457]

But you'd be programmed to not notice that your brain was replaced with a shell script. All it would need to do was "frist psot" and "in Soviet Russia" jokes!

Re:Processed, er, diced more accurately

[Rei]

Don't feed the troll.

Re:Processed, er, diced more accurately

[Dabido]

And sharks with Friggin' lasers on their head jokes ... and that's my brain completely downloaded onto slashdot! Who needs to wait till 2050!?

Flying cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading your brain is all fine and dandy, but will we have flying cars by then?

I think I'd prefer...

[Jane_Dozey]

...to have my entire brain moved into a biomechanical body (in 50 years or so it may well be possible). This way I get to be sure that I'm still me and also, that I won't be left kicking around some computer system in storage until somebody finds me a proper body. Barring any issues surrounding brain damage this seems like a much nicer idea to me.

Oh?

[say__10]

So when will they have the robot bodies? Id put my brain in a robot body... ooooh how about a Tigerbot? I want to be a Tigerbot, like Hesh.

But your mind ends up in Emilio Estevez

[jmcwork]

And you have to fight Mick Jagger! (I'm sorry. I really should not have made anyone else remember this movie.)

Re:But your mind ends up in Emilio Estevez

[ajlitt]

You sick bastard. And to think I saw it in the theater.

From Neuromancer

[Dragon218]

by William Gibson

He turned on the tensor beside the Hosaka. The crisp circle of light fell directly on the Flatline's construct. He slotted some ice, connected the construct, and jacked in. It was exactly the sensation of someone reading over his
shoulder.
He coughed. "Dix? McCoy? That you man?" His throat was tight.
"Hey, bro," said a directionless voice.
"It's Case, man. Remember?"
"Miami, joeboy, quick study."
"What's the last thing you remember before I spoke to you, Dix?"
"Nothin'."
"Hang on." He disconnected the construct. The presence was gone. He reconnected it. "Dix? Who am I?"
"You got me hung, Jack. Who the fuck are you?"
"Ca--your buddy. Partner. What's happening, man?"
"Good question."
"Remember being here, a second ago?"
"No."

Re:From Neuromancer

[braindead]

The Neuromancer is a great book. Another read that I really enjoyed and happens to be exactly on topic is "Permutation City" by Greg Egan. I'm posting a non-affiliate Amazon link below.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/sim-explorer/ explore-items/-/006105481X/0/101/1/none/purchase/r ef%3Dpd_sxp_r0/102-8039472-0160938

"The good news is that you have just awakened into Eternal Life. You are going to live forever. Immortality is a reality. A medical miracle? Not exactly.

The bad news is that you are a scrap of electronic code. The world you see around you, the you that is seeing it, has been digitized, scanned, and downloaded into a virtual reality program. You are a Copy that knows it is a copy.

The good news is that there is a way out. By law, every Copy has the option of terminating itself, and waking up to normal flesh-and-blood life again. The bail-out is on the utilities menu. You pull it down...

The bad news is that it doesn't work. Someone has blocked the bail-out option. And you know who did it. You did. The other you. The real you. The one that wants to keep you here forever. "

There are also reviews available. And, no, I have no relation to the author or publisher or whatever.

Instantiate.me

[krytron_switch]

OK, so you can copy the class files from wetware to silicon...

However, it will create a new instance of the class.

The instance that inhabits this wetware goes into the bit bucket when the wetware breaks.

Sorry, no immortality to see here, move along citizen...

Wow...So He IS a Doctor!

[ultimabaka]

From Ian's website:

Ian Pearson graduated in 1981 in Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics from Queens University, Belfast. He spent four years in Shorts Missile Systems, in many different disciplines from mechanical engineering to battlefield strategy simulation. He joined BT Laboratories in 1985 as a performance analyst, and has since worked in network design and evolution, cybernetics, and mobile systems. He now concentrates on mapping the progress of new developments throughout information technology, considering both technological and social implications. As BT's futurologist and a principal consultant, he lectures extensively on his futures views. In between conferences, current projects include machine consciousness, NBIC convergence, and advanced computing technology.

He has received ten awards for his papers, written several books and has made well over 250 TV and radio appearances. He is a fellow of both the Royal Society of Arts and the Institute of Nanotechnology. He is married (to Susan) with a daughter (Rachel). He runs a small art group, and enjoys swimming and writing.

I coulda swore this guy was just some overoptimistic kook genuinely believing the stuff he was spewing, but then it dawned upon me: the math obviously got to him, and drove him insane. It could be worse though - he coulda been one of those nuts from the TV show biases team today.

And that's only the first step!

[rune2]

Soon through the miracle of new Bittorrent technology we'll be able to have a group conscious; a hive mind! Sign up to become a borg now! Who wants to start the "seeding" process?

I need a brain...

[alc6379]

anyone got a .torrent?

erm..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

You still die.. your knowledge lives on but you still die. So your family may "still have you" but you still goto the great beyond..

What worries me..

[bk_veggie]

What worries me is, assume that brain is downloaded into machine with some sort of optical (webcam?) device. Could a fragile human mind be capable of watching it's own body die from outside itself?

Nothing to run it on

[thomasa]

Of course there will no computers to run it on.
Unless you could after the "upload", download it
to someone else's brain. Of course that brain would
not be the same as your original brain so how would
that work out? Is "ourselves" just the knowledge -
which might be uploadable - or is it the knowledge
and the hardware on which it runs.

I believe most theologies have a concept of
Soul of some sort. Would this Soul be uploaded?

Re:Nothing to run it on

[thomasa]

There was a Star Trek show that had a robot that
would constantly claim:

Non sequitor, Your facts are uncoordinated.

Next Step

[Tengoo]

An army of Lucy Lius!

Re:Next Step

[Eric Smith]

They'll be wiped out by the army of Uma Thurmans. It will be great fun to watch!

Nothing to do with avoiding death.

[JustNiz]

This is hardly avoiding death. A digitized copy of you may continue to exist, but your own perception is that you would still die.

If the the technology is available, and assuming it is a non-destructive copy process, why wait until you die?

You could be sunning yourself on the beach while your computer-brain works in the office 24 hours a day to pay the bills.

Mathologist

[nrlightfoot]

Just don't become a Mathologist, because 50 - 5 = 45, not 75.

Re:Mathologist

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

"It will come to the poor and disenfranchised sometime around 2075 or 2080."

I'm not likely to be massively rich by then, because I don't have the drive, but that's the number that interested me the most. If it's computer - based, a 25 year lag between rich and poor being able to afford something is just as ludicrous as the rest of this.

Re:Mathologist

[Cumstien]

And don't confuse futurologist with future urologist.

Permutation City

[balbeir]

Looks like someone just read it.

Re:Permutation City

[ObjetDart]

Great book. Probably the best sci-fi treatment of the subject that I've read. Really goes into all of the ramifications, from philosophical to technological to economical to sociological, of what such a capability would really mean if we had it. I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in downloading.

Although, the book does kind of go off into the weeds at the end...something about sufficiently complex cellular automata becoming self-sustaining even if the computers running them are shut down, or something...ah well, at least the first half is worthwhile.

How To Afford It

[ndansmith]

Perhaps we need some sort of trust, like a credit union for the masses, where the creidt is our very minds.

We could then borrow against the future value of our stored brain-power and thereby raise enough capital to finance this expensive procedure for the masses.

I've got ep III stuck in the noggin

[enrico_suave]

the computer is a pathway to many abilities that some would consider unnatural

Oh yeah, well I know what'll happen in 2015!

[Celestial Avenger]

We'll have flying cars and 3-second-to-cook Pizza Hut pizzas and holographic previews for the next Jaws movies that jumps out from the screen and tries to eat you from the sidewalk!

If you don't get the reference, you receive no cookies. >8(

Fingle Dopple

[Kyru]

I just hope no one bungles or bobbles the fingle dopple.

Avoid death, eh?

[dustinbarbour]

If such is to be avoided, simply downloading the information contained in a brain is just the beginning. Once you've accomplished that, hard as it may be, you would then need to tackle the ridiculously complex problem of associating things properly. This is far (!!) from trivial. Secondly, data in a brain does not life make. Conciousness is the all important aspect, generally speaking. We need computers with the ability to think and be aware of themselves. This, too, is far from trivial. Even if we were able to somehow transfer the contents of our brain into a computer, I am skeptical that the same conciousness would arise. So much more makes up life. It's a bit simple to think that we can transfer our brain's data into a computer and live in perpetuity. However, perhaps by 2050 Google will be doing this for us, too, for a measly price.. kinda like Lasik. As an asise.. I doubt the author of the article is insinuating that we could truly remain alive.. just that our memories would not die with us. Then again.. I didn't RTFA either.

Wow!

[kokoloko]

The computer has already enlarged my penis! Now it can download my brain.

Missed the point

[marcus]

You should start saving your pennies now, ANYWAY.

Otherwise you will be broke when you are old, ANYWAY.

Xerox it ain't

[KrackHouse]

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.

Re:Xerox it ain't

[Rorschach1]

What's more, you don't even need to know how to run the copy to be 'saved'. As long as you've got everything stored, it's just a matter of waiting until someone figures it out. From your perspective, it'd be an instantaneous jump from the moment of being scanned to the moment that someone started executing the copy.

Re:Xerox it ain't

[BewireNomali]

i think what the parent meant was that an exact copy of your brain would not be you. It would be your twin, and up-to-date copy of the data in your brain.

in other words, the goal of this hypothesizing is to make death of the consciousness, of your consciousness, optional. the counter argument is that your consciousness is inextricably tied to your physicality - and making a copy would be exaclty that... just backing up your data. It would not be you. *You* would still die.

Someone posted about a slow rate of transfer... a seamless integration of cybernetic components into the biological substrate so as to retain the integrity of you. That seams to make more sense. Something breaks down? Replace it... until a a point and time occurs when all my parts are new. It would still be me (i think).

Re:Xerox it ain't

[Angst Badger]

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.

Absolutely. It would not be me, however. It would be someone just like me, though becoming less so from the moment of copying onwards as we continued to diverge through our own unique experiences.

A computer copy, if computers can possess consciousness -- and who knows? -- would be much the same. It might even be better than the original if it could think faster, remember more, and had access to external knowledgebases. It would still, however, not be me, but rather someone like me.

So from my standpoint, the knowledge that someone like me would continue to exist after I am dead is about as exciting as being told that my appendix will be preserved forever in a jar. It doesn't change the fact that I'm going to die. To escape or at least postpone that eventuality, my hopes lie with biotechnology, not computer science.

I'd love to someday be able to have a conversation with myself, narcissistic as it sounds.

I've been doing this all my life. Here's a helpful beginner's hint: if you do it out loud, people will look at you funny.

Re:Xerox it ain't

[vertinox]

My favorite quote of all time:

"We must believe in free will, we have no choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer

Re:Xerox it ain't

[nickptar]

Having a conversation with yourself would be quite boring, unless you had been duplicated a long time ago and you and your copy had gone through very different experiences. Otherwise you'd say pretty much the exact same things.

Greg Egan

[Domomojo]

The science fiction author Greg Egan has explored this idea in many of his works. I recommend his story, "Learning to Be Me": http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/

The essays in "The Mind's I" edited by Douglas Hofstadter are also of interest: http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/hofst adter.html

Re:Greg Egan

[Eric Smith]

Also Greg Egan's novel "Diaspora" covers the idea of the type of civilizatons that might result.

Re:Greg Egan

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Don't forget "Permutation City" which also has a great deal to do with people's minds being copied into computers.

By the way, check out the sig.

just like that movie...

[Baiken]

anyone remember that old movie? ... freejack its the name, with emilio stevez, about a backup mainframe to preserve the personality until some fresh body comes up for downloading the soul of the rich & powerful people, man thats a dystopia!!

mod me to -1 for redundancy

William Gibson should collect royalities on this

[toltas]

Neuromancer, you know, that crazy book that introduced the term "cyberspace" to us all. I cant remember the guys name, but he got all freaked out when Case told him that he was actually dead and only psyche on a computer.

File sharing

[tocs]

File sharing could present real identity theft issues.

One Miracle for Another

[Nom du Keyboard]

Fortunately, I have the Miracle of Compound Interest working in my favor.

Doesn't this sound familiar?

[technomancer68]

We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

ObSpock

[Rufus88]

"It would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, doctor. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining."
--Spock, to Dr. McCoy, in "The Ultimate Computer"

Re:ObSpock

[schmelding]

"His brain is gone."

-Dr. McCoy to Kirk in Spock's Brain, Stardate 5431.4

Re:download?

[Eric Smith]

Irrelevant. You have no more (or less) facility in your own brain for initiating download than upload.

The extropians have been using the term "upload" for many years, as has science fiction. It's based on standard use of computer industry terminology.

I routinely use my laptop to initiate either uploads to or downloads from a server. And sometime the server initiates uploads from or downloads to my laptop (e.g., Z-modem). The terminology has nothing to do with which side initiates the transfer. It is a convention based on "up" being "to the (conceptually) bigger system". I certainly don't want to transfer my mind into a system that has less capacity than my current brain, so I want to upload it.

And your "facility" claim doesn't even make sense. My brain does have the facility to initiate an upload, just as much as it has the facility to travel to Australia. My brain can choose to have my body buy an airline ticket and drive to the airport, or just as easily, to drive to an upload center, walk in the door, and sign the appropriate paperwork.

The big questions are whether I will live long for the service to be available, and whether I'll be able to afford it. In his book "The Age of Spritual Machines", Ray Kurzweil makes a reasonably convincing argument that I will, thanks to Moore's Law.

Ray points out that even if Moore's Law runs out of steam with regard to MOSFET technology, that there is good reason to believe that it will apply equally well to new technologies, since the known laws of physics still have "lots of room at the bottom" (as observed by Richard Feynman). He shows that Moore's law actually extrapolates fairly accurately all the way back to late 19th century mechanical calculators.

My Prediction

[Spy der Mann]

My prediction is that by 2050 the extremely rich won't have to download their brain, they'll just get a cyborg body.

"The wealthy...

[Senor_Programmer]

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

Re:"The wealthy...

[EricTheGreen]

Is this comment supposed to be an opinion or literature?

Re:"The wealthy...

[Shadowlore]

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.

While that may be a fun thought for you to think, the reality is far simpler and less devious.

The rich tend to get new advanced technology first because they can afford it. Yes, Virginia, it really is that simple.

I don't think so.

[bigtallmofo]

I am not a doctor, but I find it very hard to believe what you say. In fact, I think you're thinking about a human's skin which is replaced on a regular schedule.

There are so many common sense ways to shoot holes in what you say, but I'll wait for someone more knowledge on the subject to respond.

Re:I don't think so.

[prockcore]

In fact, I think you're thinking about a human's skin which is replaced on a regular schedule.

Just the outer layer. Otherwise tatoos would only last 7 years.

Re:I don't think so.

[ShieldW0lf]

I am not a doctor, but I find it very hard to believe what you say. In fact, I think you're thinking about a human's skin which is replaced on a regular schedule.

His statement is generally accepted in the medical community to be true. Your statement is generally accepted in the medical community to be false. Thanks for telling us your opinion. We care.

Hmm, a possibility...

[mrcrowbar]

If I could download my brain into a computer, then I probably could surf the Internet at the speed of thought. Could you imagine all the pr0n then!!1 ;)

Re:What's the point?

[Eric Smith]

There's no particular reason why you shouldn't get more sex in a computer than as meat. It's unlikely that there will be any particular shortage of willing partners, especially with no risk of STDs.

3 laws

[Wax_and_Wane]

As for the article mentioning a plane more terrified of crashing than it's passengers. What if such a plane realized that it's chance of survival was increased by releasing excess cargo, such as let's say, human passengers. I imagine a plane shaking out passengers like a dog shaking off fleas. The obvious answer to this is the 3 laws of robotics. But that brings up an even more imortant dilema. Once a brain has been imported to computer hardware, would it then come under the 3 laws? For us to say that a brain translated into functioning software is still a human mind is a great leap. Part of what makes a human a human is (un)fortunately our mortality is it not? To remove that, could we still be considered human?

Re:3 laws

[Aggressiva]

I don't see why people say dying is human. It begs the question, what kinds of dying are human then? Is polio human in your mind, and was the cure bad? If it wasn't a bad thing to cure it, then why should it be bad to cure cancer, aids, and aging? Besides if you want to die after all these things have been cured, I don't think anyone's going to stop you.

Re:3 laws

[Wax_and_Wane]

I believe people associate being human with dying because all humans do die. All life that we know of does. Being that we are life, and being alive (in the only way we currently know how to be) is part of the human experience, so is dying. As for the way we die, that is irrelevant. There are an infinite amount of ways to die. Reaching a perceived state of immortality would absolutely be considered a superhuman feat as opposed to a human feat. So think before you create a straw man argument and rip it to shreds under my post.

Re:3 laws

[Aggressiva]

What age would you like to die then? And if we're all living forever and happy are you still going to commit suicide?

He'll be dead by then...

[borawjm]

Dr. Pearson is 44 years old so, most likely, he'll be gone by 2050.. It's a shame that he won't be able to use his own work to download all of that knowledge before he kicks the bucket.

Then again, I guess it could be just as bad as dying before you find a cure to a disease that you have... only later to have someone else use your work to cure themselves.

K. Eric Drexler...

[Aggressiva]

thinks it'll happen much sooner than that, you can read his prediction in his book, "Engines of Creation", which is posted online by him at www.foresight.org/EOC .

Brain on Computer?

[izznop]

I think they're on to something...Remember M..M..M..Max Headroom.

Re:What's the point?

[It doesn't come easy]

Some things never change...

Right...

[razathorn]

I think it's obvious that we will get prosthetic bodies long before prosthetic brains. After all, we know how most of the body works, the brain on the other hand, is still mostly a mystery.

A few concrete examples:
Arm go bye bye.
Get prosthetic arm with elbow, wrist, and hand rotation and close action TODAY.

Leg go bye bye
Get prosthetic leg that runners use who have lost legs.

Half of brain go bye bye.
Go lay down, that's your option.

Re:Right...

[Aggressiva]

"Half of brain go bye bye. Go lay down, that's your option." Actually I read of a girl in India who had that happen to her and she recovered quite well and is actually normal I think, not too long ago. But your point is taken, brain trama will be the last thing conquered.

Brain, brain, who's got my brain?

[Tsar]

Headline news, 2062: "In a related story, shares of BizLogix plummeted today on news that its wildly successful "Investment Apprentice" analysis software was based on a pirated copy of Donald Trump." Makes you wonder who'll be making the BitTorrent rounds in fifty years.

MOD PARENT UP

[Rufus88]

Good point. There is no reason to believe that if the essence of the person's brain were "running" on artificial hardware, it would be any less conscious and be any less convinced that it is, in fact, the same person.

BSOD

[lildogie]

Three thousand quatloos that the blue screen of death will take on new meaning in the year 2005.

It depends on what kind of teleporter

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

"Star Trek" teleporter? No

"Stargate" teleporter? Yes

Re:How long before...

[Aggressiva]

If we had technology to brain dump, don't you think we'd have robots doing all the work, chicken little?

That's old news...

[Savage-Rabbit]

...they forgot the -p flag when dumping it, and people will be restored with no moral codes.

We already have people like that. They are called politicians and are born with no moral codes.

For Those of You, Who Are Interested In Subject...

[Zx-man]

...this message is: please notice, that the current topic has had a quite deep coverage in Russian science fiction, here is a link to a recent and, presumably interesting for an international audience, example (in an automatized English translation). (or just use a URL, that has been previously created: http://tinyurl.com/c6grb )

incremental backup

[ketan]

Unless the process worked incrementally over a long time, i.e., every day, 0.1% of your consciousness was transferred to the machine. Your brain would (somehow, magically) be induced to start using that part of the machine as part of the coherent whole. Over time, your "real" brain would be retired as more and more of "you" was run in the artificial brain. Of course, if we could do that, we'd probably be able to make a biological brain last forever and attach whatever cybernetic augmentations we wanted, eliminating the need for this in the first place (except for backups in case of death, in which case there's no ambiguity about whether the real you is a alive or dead).

Re:incremental backup

[BewireNomali]

i think you've hit something i think important. the idea in the short term is not to download the brain into another substrate. This involves science not yet understood, because it presupposes a complete model of the brain's workings and the ability to emulate such model in a bug-free environment. that's going to take way longer than 50 years to perfect.

On the other hand, I think that keeping a biological brain alive and functional using cybernetics seems a more plausible way to go in that same time span. In other words, I think we can perfect cybernetic means of brain survival way before we can digitally transfer one's data to a more permanent substrate.

to a different medium -- is it brain damage then?

[icepick72]

But the copying of a brain into a computer based on today's technology (not considering speed/size) will not work because the human brain exhibits more more than the 1s and 0s of today's computers. Indeed there are projects underway to create biological and fuzzy-logic computers; however first you'd probably have to be able to succesfully copy a human brain into another human brain before attempting to do it into a slightly different type of medium -- that is unless computers become brains (instead of the other way around).

Think about a person who suffers a head injury -- that person is often not the same person anymore, or suffers problems resulting from it that severely impairs their ability in life. Sometimes a person goes into a comma and never comes out. Not much physical damage to the brain has to occur for big problems to result. Now consider trying to move the contents of the brain. So I have to assume if the other medium is not exactly a brain then copying into it will just create a really big problem.

Even if science can get you onto another medium, consider Reeves (now deceased) or Hawking, trapped in teir own bodies to a degree. Now consider being fully concious and stuck in box. It's a good way to go mad and to never die.

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I am predicting it's not going to happen in the next several lifetimes.

I'd never do it

[Rick.C]

So, who gets to decide how your "brain-dump" is used? Certainly not you. Sure, you could "wish" for various things to happen, but without a body to command, you'd have no enforcement powers.

Why would I want to give my neural contents to someone I don't know, who could later sell them to someone I dislike, to be used as a "mental slave"?

I can think of no better definition of hell than if I were somehow "aware" of what was going on, but powerless to stop it.

Futurian

[Nick Driver]

Futurologist is a cool title. I wish I'd invented it myself.

History -> Historian
Future -> Futurian

Much cooler sounding, I think.

Re:Futurian

[XxtraLarGe]

History -> Historian
Future -> Futurian

Don't they call themselves Futurist?

Re:Futurian

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

I think you're forgetting that this is a science... Futurian sounds like some namby-pamby job anyone who can read, write, and guess could do. Futurologists are serious people in lab coats studying the future with an... err... internet connection...

Re:Futurian

[maxwell demon]

The opposite of future is not history, but past.
However, I've never heared of Pastologists ...

Please use a Linux machine for my brain

[Rob Thrasher]

My only worry is a system crash. What will I be like if a few ones and zeroes get switched? Maybe I will just forget a few things, OR MAYBE my entire personality will just blue screen ?!? Sounds pretty scary to me! http://www.xmmailserver.com/

Re:It's a copy. NO! Copy won't transfer. Goes like

[Senor_Programmer]

"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."

Extracted from my earlier rambling comment on instigating /. news

Discounts

[tillemetry]

I could see them giving discounts. They could do a rom construct of your brain, but add parts to the construct that leave you craving Coke, Cheetos and Microsoft products for the next 80 years...

Might save 40 or 50 grand on the "sticker" price over a lifetime.

Symentec Ghost 2050: Dixie Flatline Edition®

[mattOzan]

I think this is exactly the form the technology would take--a bit-for-bit data snapshot. It would allow us to make a working mind-copy before we really understand what the hell is going on inside the brain.

When I restore my computer from a Ghost image, I have no idea what most of the system files are or do. I don't know what needs what to work together correctly. I just know that it *works* when I turn it back on. (Hmm, maybe Microsoft's new slogan should be telling us something about their R&D targets for 2050...)

What would be interesting is finding out where the "system" partitions are in the brain and where the "memories" partitions are, so you could selectively copy and restore (or maybe even upgrade or swap) your consciousness without losing your store of recollections. Plus you could share memories with a friend by just copying them onto on a 1TB thumbdrive or something.

Continuity

[reur]

I can't read the article, but from most of the posts quotes makes it look like junk.

That being said, I would think that any working solution would need to address continuity. For example, if the process was removing parts of your brain with a suitable, long lasting replacement and that process did not change your consciousness, then it could be worthwhile.

Shhhh!

[quakeroatz]

The smart yoghurt might be reading this!

Next thing you know your frozen yoghurt will morph into poisin. Then who get the last laugh?

ME! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

- Smart Yoghurt

If you believe that we are biological machines...

[Eric Damron]

If you believe that we are biological machines and nothing more than that they it is conceivable that we could make other types of machines conscious. I have a fairly heavy background in both electronics and computer programming and I have my doubts.

"If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine"

Computers are great tools for what they do. They manipulate a series of 1s and 0s, store and retrieve the 1s and 0s on various media etc. The one thing that a computer has never done and I don't think ever will is to understand the significant of the stream of 1s and 0s that it is manipulating. That would require true consciousness and TRUE consciousness is part of our minds. It is very different to program a computer to say "I am a computer." than it is for the computer itself to say it AND REALLY UNDERSTAND. No mater how good we get at simulating consciousness I don't believe that we will ever be able to take machine consciousness beyond the simulation into reality.

Assuming this happens, it still won't be you

[Tyfud]

Oh sure. It'll be your memories, and your deepest, darkest thoughts that you thought you had hidden (People could pry around through that and find all the *bad* things you've done), but it isn't you.

It's not capable of rational thought, or even thought. You won't have the creative element that you have right now as a human. They could stick you with an AI processor which could anticipate and formulate responses based on each person's individual brain, but it's going to come to different conclusions than you would.

For example, say you were given a situation involving a shaky bridge and a very steep cliff that it's attached at either end to. Your normal self would weight in the situation, based on perspective, past life experiences, mood, and forsight, and come up with the answer to if you should cross it based on many human feelings, most notably fear. Whereas the AI module (assuming there is one) might come to a completely different conclusion due to lack of self preservation, too much self preservation, or not being able to properly factor in emotion/fear into the equation.

Thus, it is not you. Your self is lost upon death, while your memories could be used as a database for advanced AI chips. That's all.

it's not for you; it's for them

[ketan]

By "you," I mean the deceased. This does nothing for the person who died, as that person is irretrievably gone. This would only create a copy. But that copy would still be worth a lot to the husbands, wives, daughters, sons, etc. left behind. It would be better than monetary life insurance. Your employer, for one, would love it. It sure would be a mindjob for the copy, though.

The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[Cryofan]

The Outer Limits did a good story once about the more likely form of teleportation.

why is it worth mentioning that some cheesy tv series explored this topic?

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.

However, on a much more relevant note, it appears that I, Cryofan, am the only poster on this thread who actually has a chance of ever uploading my brain. 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....

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[bill_mcgonigle]

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?

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Space Travel?

Dear god I had them put me out to be reanimated just so I wouldn't have to live through it. I realize 30,000 years sounds like a long time to you mortals, But it's longer than that, When all you see is the inside of the same ship talking to the same people, you get REALLY REALLY bored. Think sitting in the Doctor's waiting room while they loop "Row Row Row your Boat" and they only have one copy of Highlights.

And no sooner do I get here, and you people have puked the place up so bad I'm ready to do it again. And that should tell you something.

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[ekwhite]

Flash freezing in LN2 should keep the size of the ice crystals to a minimum (this will not prevent ice formation). Some damage will occur, of course.

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[aminorex]

Hypothesis: He's not afraid of death -- he's afraid of going to hell. Resuccitation means he gets to stay out of hell.

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[StikyPad]

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.

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Don't forget the Earth can't really handle more than about 40 billion of us. If you're not having kids, fine. But if you're immortal and so are your kids and their kids, etc - you start to see the problem.

Now, if this immortality is achieved through the use of computer storage, androids, nanotech, etc., the Earth could probably hold many more of us since we'd need less space and energy.

And we'd make excellent interplanetary explorers.

Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc.

[Razor Blades are Not]

As far as I can tell, this process has almost no chance of success. Your contract with Alcor is exactly the same as a religious persons 'contract' with the saviour of their choice.
Often this involves giving up some worldly power so that they can be 'ressurrected' in an afterlife of some description (Or a better human incarnation).

You give up the power all that money would have given you in this life for the vain (and I mean vain - the science is sketchy at best) hope that somehow, in the future, some unspecified people will have the technology and the desire to ressurect you into a brand-spanking new world.

Keep your money, enjoy your life, try to live it for as long as possible in as good a condition as possible.

No more war because of the slashdot effect

[Nahor]

I am sorry, I can't go to war.
Everybody want to upload their brain on the server and it is now slashdotted.
I can't upload mine!!

download

[operationRedPeace]

Good thing I recently developed and patented an algorithm to compress V1. (NOT)

Re:can't be avoided, only delayed

[Aggressiva]

You sound like you haven't heard of molecular nanotechnology, have you? It could quite possibly make machines without defects and hence zero failure rates. With it you should be able to survive till the end of the universe (whatever that is).

Security

[Lord Kano]

There are just some things that I don't want some script kiddie with a port scanner to be able to find out.

LK

Where do "you" become "him"?

[Chemisor]

It's an interesting question of how your life continuity is perceived. Consider the following thought experiments:

1. You go to sleep and wake up. You remember the events that happened yesterday or earlier and thus perceive lifeline continuation.
   
2. Your brain cells are gradually replaced by a non-living mechanical equivalents that perfectly emulate each neuron's function. You remain conscious the entire time. The lifeline is obviously still preserved.
   
3. A computer is embedded in one of the artificial neurons. It selects a neighboring neuron and copies its connections to itself. Then it proceeds to disconnect the neighbor and to emulate it in software. Then the now-useless neuron is removed. The process continues until all your neurons are emulated. Lifeline continues, since you're still conscious the whole time and the brain function is exactly the same as it was before the conversion started.
   
4. The computer is stopped for one second and restarted. You perceive a "time skip". Is the lifeline continued? Compare with the "go to sleep" scenario.
   
5. The computer is stopped and an exact copy of your brain at that particular moment is backed up to external storage. Then the brain computer is wiped clean and the backup is restored. Then the computer is restarted. The entire process takes one second. Is the lifeline continued? Compare with the previous scenario.
   
6. Same as last item except that the computer is briefly restarted for one hour between the backup and the wipe. Do you die? Is the lifeline continued? Consider the fact that you wouldn't know that hour happened unless told about it. Also compare with the "go to sleep" scenario. What if you sleepwalked for an hour? How is this different?
   
7. Your brain is stopped, backed up and downloaded into another body. The original brain is wiped clean. Do you die? Is the lifeline continued? Compare with sleeping. What if you were "moved" to another body? Would it be death?
   
8. Same as the previous item, but the original body is restarted without a wipe. Both copies think the lifeline continues. When the original body dies, do "you" die? Compare with the "backup-and-restore-after-one-hour" scenario above.
   

Ma-ma-ma-MAX HEADROOM

[solios]

Max Headroom dealt with this, both as an overall concept and as a specific episode of the TV series.

Personally, I think it would be handy - dupe the skillset into a ROM construct and cut the sucker loose on photoshop. He can sit on IRC and CG my comic pages while I write and ink the sucker. Perfect division of labor, creatively speaking.... but I'm one of those creative types who needs multiple instances of himself, not collaborators clouding the idea stream. :P

Re:download?

[HTH NE1]

You have no more (or less) facility in your own brain for initiating download than upload.

But you do, by manipulating a remote device to pull the data from your brain. Your brain does not need to push. Upload and download are just fancy terms for the pushing and pulling of data from one system to another.

The extropians have been using the term "upload" for many years, as has science fiction. It's based on standard use of computer industry terminology.

Actually more based on a misunderstanding of computer industry terminology. The lesser/greater system originated from people who didn't understand upload/download and were trying to explain -- poorly -- to laymen. At the time, it looked to be correct as they were the common types of systems which uploading and downloading were performed, but it was never the nature nor capacity of the machines involved that determined the terms.

FTP's GET is always a download and its PUT is always an upload, even if the FTP server was on your laptop and you're directing it from a mainframe, and even if that direction is through a Telnet connection from your laptop.

Thus also saying the RIAA and MPAA are only going after "uploaders" is incorrect. Everyone on P2P is downloading, pulling data towards themselves. They are going after servers just as the ATF would go after someone who puts free alcohol, tobacco, or firearms out for unregulated taking by any member of the public. They aren't pushing those products to people, only making them available to be taken in a manner contrary to law.

Re:Easy answer!

[vertinox]

The photocopy would be immortal so it could spend the rest of eternity to figure out time travel and then go back in to when my original was still alive and then prevent me from... ...oh wait this is about a copy of me?

Well... Then I hope he chokes on those dorritos and dies of exhaustion of playing to much EQ XXIV instead of setting the time aside to revive me!

Disagree

[Chemisor]

> You'd have to "download" the state of every cell in the body

Definitely not every cell. You can lose an arm and still be yourself. If you suddenly woke up without both your legs, you would still be the same person. People also get artificial organs, including hearts, and remain themselves. So obviously, only the brain and its contents matter.

WTH?

[CarrionBird]

What does this have to do with brain copying??? Is /. borked today?

Naysaying bunk does not debunk bunk

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:Naysaying bunk does not debunk bunk

[FreeUser]

And, yet, humankind has yet to replicate a bird's wing. Instead we have created things we call wings that only superficially behave like actual bird wings. So, bzzzzzz. Try again.

You really are dense, aren't you (so much for it taking a generation or two to show you're an idiot. Less than 24 hours and you've proven the point). We didn't need to replicate a birds with to FLY. What part of that concept didn't you grasp?

It is entirely possible, even probable, that the wetware structure of our minds is neither the most effecient or dense representation of the data (knowledge/memories) or algorithms (personality/reasoning/thought) that make up our minds. We'll probably find we can replicate them without mimicking even a fraction of the underlying biological, chemical, and electrical complexity.

You didn't even wait a generation to be proven an idiot--you managed to do it within a day. Congratulations.

Re:Aircraft - Dark Star

[Cheerio Boy]

The movie Dark Star suddenly came to mind:

Pinback wants the bomb to disarm


Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello... bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.

meh indeed

[matt me]

It's true, you can't predict specific developments in the future with any kind of accuracy, or by now crime would be wiped out, the motor car would be obsolete and the rainforest would all be gone. And computers would only be owned by the 10 richest Kings of Europe.

Real development comes unexpectedly - the spectactular rise of the internet etc

That said, Asimov's fictional science of physchohistory comes across are more plausible. As in a gas, the motion of a single molecule is very difficult to predict, but the mass action of the gas can be predicted to a high level of accuracy. So the actions of individuals make little difference on the progress of society. People behave erractically, but their overall movement can be predicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictio nal)

My other thing to say is a quote from The Mighty Boosh - reminding me in of Futurama.
Vince: I think I might have my hair frozen - let future generations know what's possible
Howard: (something along the lines of) They're going to preserve my head and parade me around at times of special ocassion and ask me for my wisdom.
Vince: Hey, can't they preserve all of you?
Howard: No. It's not like that in the future. Just heads.

To summarise the summary - that prediction is a load of shit.

Re:can't be avoided, only delayed

[Eric Smith]

What gives you the idea that molecular nanotechnology can achieve a zero failure rate? The failure rate may be much smaller than with today's integrated circuits, but it will still be nonzero.

Downloading is illegal

[thirty2bit]

My brain can't be downloaded due to DRM.

My employer says I can't let trade secrets be transferred to another media.

There is a company policy stating passwords can't be written down or kept in any electronic form.

I'm so screwed.

Re:download?

[Eric Smith]

The lesser/greater system originated from people who didn't understand upload/download

False. The terminology originated in the early-to-mid 1960s with mainframes with remote stations. The remote stations were the smaller computers, and "uploaded to" or "downloaded from" the mainframe, regardless of which side initiated the transfer.

FTP's GET is always a download and its PUT is always an upload

And you found it defined that way in which RFC? It's certainly not in RFC 959.

Meanwhile... Paris Hilton

[Stonent1]

Is currently backed up on my old C-64. (Shamelessly stolen from Fark)

You Can't Copy Consciousness

[MOBE2001]

Conciousness is so poorly understood that I don't think you can even say that for sure.

Yep. What if you made a copy of yourself, which one is the real you? What if the copy decides you're the one who's is not the real you and should be destroyed?

This whole business of uploading the mind onto a computer is so much unmitigated crackpottery. Star-Trek voodoo science, that's all. 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. And when you find out what it is, you'll realize that it can be neither copied, nor created, nor destroyed.

Having said that, if someone found a way to copy the brain and move your unique consciousness into the copy, now that would be cool!

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[Kirsha]

Until you do, you're up shit creek. And when you find out what it is, you'll realize that it can be neither copied, nor created, nor destroyed.


By your same argument, there is no way you can know that.

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[bnenning]

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.

You don't need to know exactly how something works in order to duplicate it. Example: "cp /usr/bin/gcc ./gcc_copy".

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?

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[|/|/|||]

Yep. What if you made a copy of yourself, which one is the real you? What if the copy decides you're the one who's is not the real you and should be destroyed?

The copy would have the same motivations as the original. If you feel like you would have the urge to destroy your copy, then I would not recommend copying yourself.

Having said that, if someone found a way to copy the brain and move your unique consciousness into the copy, now that would be cool!

Copying your brain and copying your consciousness is the same thing. There is really no such thing as "consciousness" - it's just the experience of being a brain.

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[Chrontius]

You'd destroy neither -- you'd use reintegration software to combine the two into one engram.

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[bynary]

What if the copy decides you're the one who's is not the real you and should be destroyed?

Wo there! Why would either one of you have to be destroyed? Sure that makes for a very-overused plot device, but it doesn't have to be the case in real life. Ever heard of twins? They are genetically identical yet can differ greatly in personality, memntal capacity, physical prowess, and etc. I haven't heard of a pandemic of twin fratricide.

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[int999]

You say this as if it is something that's 100% certain. Many intelligent people have been puzzled by qualia-like experiences and it is not at all evident that they are simply a byproduct of the neural setup/workings of the brain.

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[ThJ]

Yeah, I always found that side of it a bit... creepy. My personality is inside my head. And brains look disguisting... Yet your body is nothing but a mere vehicle for your brain. We're just brains communicating... o.O *shrudder*

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[Surt]

What if the copy decides you're the one who's is not the real you and should be destroyed?

That's why we have laws against murder, and treat all human beings regardless of origin the same. What would we do if one identical twin decided that the other was the copy, and should be destroyed?

Re:You Can't Copy Consciousness

[sydneyfong]

Holes in your reasoning:

You don't need to know exactly how something works in order to duplicate it. Example: "cp /usr/bin/gcc ./gcc_copy".

You don't, but the guy who wrote cp, the guy who wrote the OS providing the syscalls, the guy who built the hardware have to know their shit to let you, the _USER_, use it. You don't have to know every single detail about a system to use it, but eventually somebody has to.

OTOH, the question of "Why" instead of "How" is a totally different matter.

And your scientific basis for this is?

Actually, I think this is the exact issue the grandparent post raised:

Grandparent: This whole business of uploading the mind onto a computer is so much unmitigated crackpottery. Star-Trek voodoo science, that's all.

He was saying that there is no scientific basis for the claim that duplicating your mind / brain is possible.

Xerox it is.

[Colin Smith]

As a humanist I don't believe in any sort of a supernatural soul, so your premise is incorrect. I do firmly believe however that my conciousness is firmly attached to the physical hardware that is my brain.

If you would like to prove me wrong, you could perform a simple scientific experiment involving a large rock and your brain.

Re:Xerox it is.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well... not to argue for the existence of a soul, but the rock to the head would not disprove it. The general assumption amongst many believers is that brain death = release of the soul to... whatever "afterlife" they believe in.

Terry Schaivo's parents are excepted from this, of course. ;-) They felt her soul was still exsting in a brain turned to mush.

Personally, I remain an agnostic, but find the debates entertaining. We'll all find out eventually, and I have more pressing issues with which to deal. :)

Re:Xerox it is.

[Colin Smith]

No, but to do it scientifically he'd have to record the experiment somehow and that might be entertaining in a Darwin Awards type of way.

Think on this agnostic. Your whole approach to life can be determined by your belief or lack of it in a soul and an afterlife.

Would you fight for George Bush?
If you knew that in the event of your death you *would* go to paradise would you fight for George Bush?

The concepts of a soul and afterlife exist for a very good reason.

Re:Xerox it is.

[vertinox]

As a humanist I don't believe in any sort of a supernatural soul, so your premise is incorrect.

If you don't believe in it then does it mean it isn't correct?

People believed the sun was the center of the universe for thousands of years, but obviously believing in it didn't make it be.

However, until someone had a method of proving it false then it might as well be since everyone agreeded that it was.

And just because it appears to be so doesn't make it true either. For all we know the stars area computer simulation and radiation and x-rays are just fed to our instruments to make us believe there is a great universe out there.

The problem is we really don't know what happens to your conciousness when you die. We only know through observation is that you cease to function and never come back at least in your current form.

For all I know when you bash me over the head I make wake up in an alien room pulling wires out of my two headed neural cavity shouting: "LIFE? That was a stupid game! I should have hit reset years ago!"

Re:Xerox it is.

[KrackHouse]

OK so then what do you think about the lifespan of neurons? They die and regenerate fairly regularly so you aren't the same you as you were two weeks ago. What if your consciousness could be offloaded to computer hardware while you were conscious and you could watch your old hardware die? Would you still be you?

Re:Xerox it is.

[vertinox]

I'm not agreeing with either of them. I'm just saying none of us can prove anything.

And that to hold a solid opinion on the after life is quite invalid since noe one has actualy come back to say one thing or the other.

To discount any possiblities is the problem most persons have.

The technology has existed for millennia.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called writing.

been there, done that

[scharkalvin]

This has been in sci fi before. Most of the time the story gets it as NOT making a copy of one's brain, but a trasfer to another brain or a computer.
IE: the original is destroyed in the copy process.
In the former (copy) we are making a clone, in the later we are doing a transplant. But do you realize what this all means? The religious will say that you can't make a copy of the soul, so you can only transfer the soul from one body to another or to a computer? Boy will the bible thumpers be all over this one, it will make the protests of abortion look tame!

Ahh yes

[piznut]

We can store a picture of the construction of our brains as a collection of 1's and 0's.

Who cares? I mean really. One idea that transcends most religions is that your conciousness leaves your body when you die.

Assume you could reupload your brain into an empty shell to bring you 'back to life'. Would that entity have a soul? If I were one who subscribed wholeheartedly to the notion of souls... I would say no.

So then why would a human clone have a soul..

oh no Ive gone crosseyed.

Kurzweil predicted this in 99

[zapp]

Amazon link

This is probably one of my favorite books. It covers his predictions for the next 100 years, and I gotta say, he hasn't been that far off so far.

Kurzweil argues, for one, that we will meet in the middle. Already we have technologies (though not in widespread use) to augment the brain and other organs. We've brought site to a few blind people this way. At the same time, we are understanding more about how the brain works, and computers are becoming fast enough to implement these brain processes in an electronic (non-organic) device.

As for this topic, I've done a lot of thinking about it. The big question of course, is the essense of conciousness. If a computer were built with the same mental processes and capabilities as a human mind, and a "snap shot" of a person's ("Joe" for example) memories and behaviors, etc were uploaded to the computer, and it were powered on and was insistant on being Joe, would it really be? Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure. You have to decide if you want to take Joe2's word for it, or if it's just an elaborate immitation of Joe.

It is my personal belief that many of the things we consider intelligence CAN be implemented in a computer, because they are simply algorithms. Searching, pattern recognition, prediction based on observation, etc. These are all simply tools that our concious mind uses, much in the same way an arm is used to manipulate the physical world.

Even if we can mimmic those mental tools in a machine, I do not believe the actual "soul" or "conciousness" of a person can be transfered. ... Sorry that was so long, I could go on for hours about this. I highly recommend reading Kurzweil's book if you like thinking about this stuff... it's very thought provoking.

Re:Kurzweil predicted this in 99

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Tell me an interesting prediction that Kurzweil made where he's not been "far of"?

The guy is a charlatan and I'm amazed that anyone intelligent enough to write entire sentences in English could be taken in by him.

Re:Kurzweil predicted this in 99

[zapp]

Prosthetics to help deaf people hear
Prosthetics to help blind people see
Software to automate language translations
Software (and hardware) to automate flight and driving. Did you know roughly 50% of all airline landings are done by the airplane alone while the pilot sips his coffee?
Software to generate art and music, which humans have a hard time distinguishing from Human works. ....
not bad, considering the book is only 5 or 6 years old.

One of the core theories in his book is the acceleration/deceleration of events. Some things, like the expansion of the universe, happen quickly at first and slow down (yes, this can be debated due to somewhat recent findings). Another one would be cell division in life forms. Fast at the beginning (childhood), and slower later.

Other things, like technology, start slow and progress accelerates.

Anyway, you don't have to like him or his theories, and I'm not sure I believe it all either, but it's still interesting stuff to think about.

Subjective / Objective Viewpoints of Consciousness

[Famatra]

"I think the copy might disagree with you."

The copy might disagree as would be it's right since it is a seperate being. That does not negate the fact that the original (i.e. you, me, the grandparent) would still no longer exist, think etc.

Would I be happy that a copy exists after I die so my uniqueness isn't extinuished? I dunno, I'd be dead so I doubt I'd have any feeling on the matter.

Where am I?

[vinsci]

Obligatory link to Daniel C Dennet's essay Where am I?, which is more of a Sci-Fi short story, originally published in his book Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology.

And you thought philosophy was no fun. ;-)

Why is this obsession with living forever?

[melted]

I could understand when this is used to prolong the lives of people with extraordinary abilities (excluding ability to make money), but making a regular stupid CEO live forever is like wiping one's ass with a stack of hundred dollar bills. Not comfortable, insulting to the ones who are worse off, and utterly not necessary.

Re:download?

[jusdisgi]

You have no facility in your own brain to initiate its upload to a computer.

Maybe you don't...my brain has an ftp client.

(Slightly) more seriously....how do you know that this future technology will not be initiated by a process in the brain rather than in the computer? It could require some special hypnotic or drug-induced "dump" which might then be captured by the machine.

In any case, I think we should use kermit for the transfer.

Re:Altered Carbon

[scharkalvin]

Also in a story published online called
'down and out in the magic kingdom"
do a google for it.

Bill Gates as Austin Powers ...

[smoyer]

and Steve Ballmer as Dr. Evil. There was a hilarious video shown at the Networld/Interop in 1999. I'll have to find a copy.

Re:download?

[jacksonj04]

I thought it was always defined as a download is data heading towards the machine, upload is data going away so in the case of an FTP PUT, the machine with the original data is uploading and the machine which is being sent the data is downloading.

What if I memorized songs?

[DeDmeTe]

If they make a copy of me, and I had songs memorized, wouldn't the RIAA come and delete me???? What if my "brain image" ended up on Kazaa??? wow...

Assumption

[Dutchmaan]

He makes a BIG assumption that you are soley contained within your brain...

Life is still a mystery.. an consciousness is a realm that even science has a hard time approching because of it's subjectivity.

Why are most slashbots concerned?

[stubear]

640K should be plenty of room for their brains. You can carry your memories around on a 5.25" floppy disk.

Yeah okay..

[LilGuy]

And I took my flying car to work this morning.

Pascal's Wager

[hey!]

If this prediction is true, which I'm pretty certain it is not, well fine. But the smart money, in my opinion, focuses on the opportunity in hand. That means focusing on maximizing the pleasure, beauty, joy and and meaning in the short lifespan you expect to have.

When I've heard of somebody who's obsessed with one of these life-extension schemes that will make some distant future generation able to reboot them, the question that always raises itself in my head is, "why would future generations want to?"

It strikes me that this sort of thing is kind of an updated version of Pacal's Wager. They're betting that they're going pick the right technology, the right institution, the right financial and legal isntruments, and that, in the end, the society of the future will be interested in, or at least tolerate the reanimation of prior generations to share the planet and the accumulated progress of centuries. Many think that the theistic position in Pascal's wager is intellectually contemptible; at the very least it's questionable. But people who choose this path generally live with higher degrees of day to day satisfaction with their lives, repaired and renewed relationships to the people around them, and a sense of meaning and purpose which the more skeptical of us can only envy.

A wager on technological imortality is not in any sense intellectually contemptible, but I'm skeptical of what it means for the lifespan you are are living presently, and the compromises and sacrifices you would have to make if you were really committed to making it happen. Sure, if it were the health care proxy equivalent of checking of $1 to go to presidential campaign fund, I'd consider doing it if my family did too. But I'm not going to start dedicating my life to earning tons of dough so I can simply prolong it.

Let me suggest an alternative to a life spent grubbing money, swilling antioxidants, and obsessing over a will the complexity of which would make Bill Gates' lawyers blench. Think about the people you most admire. Suppose hypothetically your heros are Richard Feyman, Douglas Adams, Nelson Mandela and Dr Seuss. Strive to cram into your life as much as you can of whatever it is you think makes those guys wonderful. Do everything in your power to ensure that when you are on your death bed you have maximized the number of people who think its a damn rotten shame the world is going to lose somebdoy who as done so many important, wonderful things.

Let them order up and pay for the immortality treatment, if it's feasible by then and you're so damn special.

In short my prescription for the life well lived: Have the heart of a lion, the soul of a poet, the mind of a scientist, the benevolence of a saint, the playfulness of a child... and to hell with eternity. If the world forgets me, well, I expect it will be mutual.

Re:Pascal's Wager

[Samrobb]

When I've heard of somebody who's obsessed with one of these life-extension schemes that will make some distant future generation able to reboot them, the question that always raises itself in my head is, "why would future generations want to?"

Larry Niven asked that question in A World Out of Time, and came up with the pretty logical answer:

For the most part, they wouldn't.

The main character in AWOOT was revived only because his personality profile indicated that he might make a good ramship pilot. His choices were to cooperate or else they'd kill him and try the next candidate. Compared to the lowest citizen of the State that revived him, he was nothing more than an expendable resource to be used and discarded. He and others like him - the corpsicles - were kept around they same way that you might keep around a jar of spare nuts and bolts. One of them might come in useful some day, so they were kept around only so long as it was slightly more inconvenient to discard them.

Re:Pascal's Wager

[hey!]

For the most part, they wouldn't.

Which is why, it seems to me, that you would need in most of these schemes to have incorporate a well designed financial institution that would esstentially be a proxy for you as a productive citizen. On one hand, it would invest your resources and accumulating profit for you, and it would have to be designed to fight for its institutional survival because your future survival depends on it. On the other hand, that same institution would have to be designed to pull the trigger on your resurrection at the appropriate time, a process that is certain to be very disruptive to the institution and its management, as you are likely to have some opinions of your own about what to do with the accumulated interest of years or centuries.

If you didn't want to be resurrected as a slave or a pauper, or simply left to rot, you have to have a lot of trust in the power of a well designed institution.

The brain download case of course is different, but unless you are rarely gifted, you are in a particularly vulnerable position. It's not clear that you could have anything that you would experience as continued human existence in this form; you might just be a factual database with some kind of ginned up reasoning engine spitting out stuff by combining the database with other inputs. It's not clear how useful the database would be -- or worse yet, society might decide to make some changes, or to combine bits and pieces from various databases, and to throw out parts it has no use for. Your opinion of the Star Wars movies? Well, if you're not a professional movie critic, it's not worth the bits it's stored in. Your first love? Bah.

Imagine, having your actual identity hinging upon intellectual property laws.

I actually sketched out a sci fi story about this once, about a great leader who, against his will, has his mind downloaded into exactly this kind of information processing device just before he dies. The problem is that all the device does all day is download pornography from thenet and spit out stuff like essays on why natural casing hot dogs are better than artificial. An former aide finally realizes that the worst case result has occurred: the operation has neither reproduced the man with all the richness of human subjective experience, nor has it simply resulted in a machine that can simulate the decisions the person would have made. Instead, the device is stuck in a twilight area between human consciousness and simulation, and as a result obsesses on sensory inputs as it tries to regain some semblence of the experience of being completely human.

Re:Pascal's Wager

[Samrobb]

Which is why, it seems to me, that you would need in most of these schemes to have incorporate a well designed financial institution that would esstentially be a proxy for you as a productive citizen.

Part of the point Niven was making, I think, is that in these schemes you're not just relying on a "well designed financial institution" - you're also relying on the social and political background to be one that continues to support those institutions. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that one of the implications in A World Out of Time (if it wasn't stated outright) is that changes in the social and political climate led to the corpsicles being declared legally dead once there was an obvious advantage for the state to do so.

In other words - in any scheme like this, you're essentially betting that, even if everything goes perfectly well, people will be fundamentally "good". Betting on a "well designed financial institution" may seem reasonable. Betting that once you're an amazingly wealthy corpse de jure, someone with political or military power won't make you a corpse de facto is something else entirely.

Re:Pascal's Wager

[hey!]

By the way, thanks for the pointer to the book. It sounds interesting.

I have no mouth, and I must scream.

[injunear]

From Dangerous Visions

WTF?

[angry_leprechaun]

Pardon my ignorance, but what in the hell is a futurologist? Did he need to get a degree in it, or is he just a self-proclaimed expert? I think I'll deem myself a masturbatologist. Or perhaps a porn-downloadologist.

Hey, if Dogbert suggests it, it must be good!

[kalirion]

see the highly relevant dilbert cartoon

Re:Hey, if Dogbert suggests it, it must be good!

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I was actually going to post that, but I couldn't get the page to load so I could grab the URL, so I decided 'the hell with it'

Braindumping onto a computer? Bad idea.

[Qbertino]

The Human Brain is so powerfull (far more powerfull than a computer) because it forgets. Imagine each time you write you'd remember all the pain it took to learn it. Imagine each time you scated, you'd remember all the bruises it took to learn it.
No fun.
On top of that comes the following: A huge part of what we memorize is stored into our nervous system and physical body. Me typing this just now for instance happens to a large part independently of my brain. Brain damaged people can still learn manual skills without forgetting them.
Braindumping onto a computer would reveal that what's stored in our head-organ is nothing much more than an huge mess of impressions and abstractions of those. Something like the entire internet without google or other structuring measures.
Our brain needs a physical body we identfy with and regular intervals of shutdown (sleep) in order to function properly. It needs a wide array of non-brain rythmic processes in order to even think properly.
Dumping them pure informational contents of a human brain onto a HD in order to store what we know would bring disappointing results.

Re:Braindumping onto a computer? Bad idea.

[Eric Smith]

The Human Brain is so powerfull (far more powerfull than a computer) because it forgets.

And a simulation of you would also forget.

Our brain needs a physical body we identfy with and regular intervals of shutdown (sleep) in order to function properly.

There's no obvious reason that that can't be simulated as well.

Dumping them pure informational contents of a human brain onto a HD in order to store what we know would bring disappointing results.

True, but that's not what's being proposed.

Re:can't be avoided, only delayed

[Aggressiva]

Molecular Nanotech gives the ability to place every atom where it is needed, therefore it should be possible to design machines with zero failure rates, or rates so low that through redundancy failure can be avoided.

I prefer AI toasters to yogurt.

[puppet10]

Toaster: Would you like some toast?
Lister: Mm-mm.
Toaster: Some nice hot crisp brown buttered toast?
Lister: Mm-mm.
Toaster: You don't want any toast then?
Lister: No.
Toaster: What about a muffin?
Lister: Nothing.
Toaster: You know the last time you had toast? 18 days ago. 11:36,
Tuesday the 3rd. Two rounds.
Lister: Ssshhh!
Toaster: I mean, what's the point of buying a toaster with artificial intelligence if you don't like toast?
Lister: I do like toast!
Toaster: I mean, this is my job! This is cruel, just cruel.
Lister: Look, I'm busy.
Toaster: Oh, you're not busy eating toast, are you?
Lister: I don't want any!
Toaster: I mean, the whole purpose of my existence is to serve you with hot, buttered, scrummy toast. If you don't want any, then my existence is meaningless.
Lister: Good.
Toaster: I toast, therefore I am.
Lister: Will you shut up?
[He goes back to sniffing his way through the book. Rimmer enters.]
...
...

Lister: Rimmer, there's nothing out there, you know. There's nobody out there. No alien monsters, no Zargon warships, no beautiful blondes with beehive hairdos who say `Show me some more of this Earth thing called kissing'. There's just you, me, the cat, and a lot of floating smegging
rocks. That's it. Finito.
Rimmer: Lister, if there's no one out there, what's the point in existence? Why are we here?

Toaster: Beats me. Do you want some toast?

Yeah, but...

[scottinflorida]

I fit the entire contents of my boss' brain on a 128 MB USB drive I bought at Staples this morning.

User Illusion Is All We Have...

[Famatra]

"What we experience, if you want to call it that, is user illusion."

User illusion, subjective experience, is all we have. If that ceases, explain to me how copies would help me out, I'd no longer exist as my subjective viewpoint has ended.

Objectively those people would be as much 'me' as I were, each with their own subjective experience viewpoints, but that does not negate the fact that I would be dead.

Re:User Illusion Is All We Have...

[Famatra]

" A similar but different person has emerged after ~.01 seconds"

Perhaps, although my arguement is that they are the same person in that they share the same subjective viewpoint.

It is the collection of these experiences together that makes up their viewpoint that begins at the end of infantile amenesia and ends at death.

Someone else can have a copy of my memories but will not have my viewpoint, they will have their own, and their memories and their viewpoint will not negate the fact that at death my subjective viewpoint ends.

What good is this?

[Ken Broadfoot]

If I can download my brain but not my penis what good is this?

--ken

Robert Sawyer's Mindscan

[Roadmaster]

um, Robert J. Sawyer already has a whole novel on the topic, Mindscan. Did he have a chat with Pearson? because the way he portrays the process in the novel is almost completely the same; even the year (2047 in Mindscan).

a PERFECT copy is not a copy...

[jimbro2k]

If a 'copy' is a perfect copy, then it is no longer just a copy, it is a second instance of the original.
That, of course, is the trick:
1. Define 'Perfect copy'.
2. Make copy a 'perfect copy'.
3. profit?

Re:can't be avoided, only delayed

[Eric Smith]

Molecular Nanotech gives the ability to place every atom where it is needed

Certainly. But it doesn't guarantee that it stays there, or that it moves where and when it is supposed to. Errors can still arise due to thermal energy, external radiation sources, contamination, etc.

or rates so low that through redundancy failure can be avoided.

Use of redundancy to decrease failure rate does not require nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology has many potential advantages, but a zero failure rate is not one of them.

bittorrent yourself...

[TheSHAD0W]

And label yourself "stephen_hawking.torrent".

Re:bittorrent yourself...

[stor]

*Futurama's Hawking Voice* I call it a Hawking File

Cheers
Stor

Quantum-mechanics, crosstalk, brain-death, etc.

[Theovon]

As well as complex neural cross-talk that goes on, some scientists have speculated that there are quantum-mechanical processes that go on in the brain that can't be reproduced by a traditional computer. If this is true, then only a quantum computer has a hope of being able to emulate a human brain.

And if your brain is dying, why is it dying? And what makes you so sure that it wouldn't die in emulation if you emulate it correctly?

As technology has moved back to the organic in some areas, I think there's going to be a convergence of the biological and the technological. That being said, I think the better approach is not to move your consciousness into a computer that may be ill-suited to it, but rather to use technology to repair the cellular mechanisms you already have in place.

Thinking of the human brain as a "legacy system" that needs to be replaced seems counterproductive to me. Is it possible to develop computers smarter than us? Sure, but they'll be an entirely new sort of intelligent system, very different from us. Preserving humans and advancing AI seem productive to me, while trying to convert one to the other seems like an unnecessary challenge.

No reason not to try, though.

Re:Quantum-mechanics, crosstalk, brain-death, etc.

[Eric Smith]

some scientists have speculated that there are quantum-mechanical processes that go on in the brain that can't be reproduced by a traditional computer.

That's not so much in the nature of speculation, as it is a known fact. The universe is non-deterministic, and quantum uncertainty does have macroscopic effects; get used to it.

The real question is whether quantum uncertainty is necessary to intelligence/consciousness. Some people, notably including Roger Penrose ("The Emperor's New Mind"), have speculated that it is, but there is as yet no convincing argument or proof.

Show me . . .

[karnifex]

. . . among the hundreds of science fiction stories that have been written about people having their minds/consciousnesses "uploaded" into a computer, the one where it's described as a "good" thing, a "pleasurable" experience, or an "improvement" on death.

On the other hand, perhaps we just wait for all the filthy rich to go digital, then we pull the plug and divvy up all their stuff.

Re:Show me . . .

[nickptar]

Eon and Eternity, by Greg Bear. I think some Stephen Baxter stuff, too.

Frankly, I think this is because it's easier to write a story about immortality, or ANYTHING, when there are big problems with it.

Not Interested

[rscrawford]

This notion of avoiding death by downloading your brain always makes me think of Woody Allen's line: "Some people want to achieve immortality through art or their children; I want to achieve immortality by not dying."

If you download your brain into a computer before you die, have you really transferred your consciousness into that computer? No, of course you haven't. When I duplicated my laptop's hard drive into my tower computer, did that make my tower into a laptop computer? Of course not.

So when you duplicate your brain into a computer, you don't survive; all you wind up with is a computer that *thinks* it's you. You are still dead. This method is only for those egomaniacs who think that the world couldn't possibly survive without their presence; and the number of people for whom that is true is exactly zero.

Not that there wouldn't be some interesting applications of the technology. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination immortality.

Good book

[Aggrav8d]

For an excellent sci fi book that really delves into the sociological implications of brain copying/storing then check out Altered Carbon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345 457684/qid=1116873581/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-652539 9-5940842?v=glance&s=books

Huge gaping hole in this theory

[63N1U5]

Well, I am sure there are more than one, but...

It occurs to me that the greatest difficulty in this process would be making the copy able to function. To me it is all about interfacing what the brain knows how to do to communicate with how a computer communicates.

For this to even work, a person would have to wire their brain into said supercomputer and train their brain to use it simply by thinking - before they were downloaded. Otherwise, you have a perfectly good copy of a brain that can do nothing, as it is not connected to any of the 'interfaces' that it previously controlled (eyes, hands, ears, mouth (vocal chords), etc..).

Even more challenging would be writing software to avoid the necessity of training the brain and interpret the brains instructions into the proper computer instrutions.

A computer in 50 years may be as powerful as the human brain, but will it run the same OS?

But it wont be me...

[SteveXE]

You can download your brain all you want, it wont be YOU. Not unless its the brain itself inside the computer. The way I see it is, if its not my actual brain then im dead it doesnt matter if the contents of my brain have been backed up or not.

What is this soul you spleek of?

[cat_jesus]

There is no evidence for a soul. You might as well be saying, "Your spleek will die along with your body".

Not really.

[Chrontius]

Depends on how much of 'you' is left in your organic mind at that point.

Personally, I'd use a fist-size lump of synthetic diamond and ruby (ruby lasers for optical processing in the diamond substrate) implanted between my kidneys and interfaced through my brain. As neurons fail, it'd take over for them, until they all fried; at that point there should be sufficient nanotechnology to construct a new body.

Neatly sidesteps all the happy fun continuity questions, I think.

Plagairism!

[stlhawkeye]

He ripped off that Next Generation episode where that goofball doctor transferred his mind into Data. This is OLD NEWS!

rm -rf == murder

[soft_guy]

Muahahaha!

what a coincidence!

[tinkerton]

Energy from nuclear fusion will be available at about the same time. That 's probably because "in 50 years" is code for "anything could happen in 50 years".

computer code that makes up my soul...

[PjSunray]

Maybe some day this will come true:
http://www.maxmomirror.com/mirror/robot/Pete_Miser -640.mov

Beware the Butterfly Effect in the copies...

[dstone]

I hope the visionary research continues, but I'll be skeptical until some visible progress in this field can be shown. Some proof that this can work in practice on some simpler life forms would be a better start than predictions by a futurist.

I think I understand people's desires to either "live on" or perhaps for their passed loved ones to "live on". But I hope we don't let the emotional desperation for immortality hide the possibility that what this tech promises could be entirely off its target.

We'd all agree that even generations into this technology, there will be flaws and limitations. A few errors isn't a big deal for some systems. But in a chaotic, highly-interconnected, complexly fedback system like the brain, it could be a big problem -- we know that a small change in the input, or system state at input, will commonly result in massive changes in output -- the output will be unpredictable and very likely not what the orignal system would have output.

For example, even if tiny little (seemly acceptable) errors result in differences as subtle as being in an altered chemical state or forgetful or extremely agitated, this could be effectively useless.

"Close" may not cut it for this to be really useful or really satisfying.

What??

[ElMiguel]

I thought this was supposed to be 'News for Nerds', not 'Speculation for Halfwits'...

This is NOT Speculation for Halfwits? And you tell me now??

Re:subtle points

[ShieldWolf]

Some have moved on, but only to materialism which has _0_ ability to explain the experience of conciousness.

Lets do a little Gedanken expirement shall we?:

Let's say your conciousness IS reducible down to bits and bytes and you download it. Once you have downloaded your brain there is NOTHING stopping a third party from then copying the result to a SECOND computer. Can two entities share a conciousness and still be just like 'you'? Any answer other than 'No' is clearly absurd so something went wrong along the way during our experiment - i.e. our assumption that unique human conciousness is machine reducible.
[]

Well, it's clear.

[Colin Smith]

The "soul" is a human concept brought about to overcome the fear of death. It was useful for those in power because they could then tell their subjects to go and sacrifice themselves on the behalf of their leaders. The soul going on to experience eternal bliss in valhalla or heaven or whichever afterlife you care to mention.

The soul doesn't exist, there is only conciousness. The only immortality would be, as you mention, to replace individual parts one at a time.

Re:Well, it's clear.

[dfn5]

The "soul" is a human concept brought about to overcome the fear of death.

I think it is broader than that. It is a concept to explain the unknown, not just death, but why am I alive. What makes me, a pile of matter, alive, and a pile of rocks not alive? Is what makes me, me just the millions of brain cells working together, or is there something else. I don't know that there is anyway to tell, and so, unfortunately, is a belief held by the individual.

The soul doesn't exist, there is only conciousness.

I am not disagreeing with you, but you would have to qualify that as "I believe the soul doesn't exist". You might be right, but you can't point to any experiment that proves it, so to say it definitively is a bit of a stretch.

Re:Well, it's clear.

[KillerDeathRobot]

In reality, there is no difference between the invisible chocolate pudding and the invisible soul.

When logical people debate, they use arguments instead of just repeating axioms.

Re:Well, it's clear.

[Maxo-Texas]

Sort of. But I think you have it backwards.

You havn't shown by experiment that you dont have insubstantial invisible wings. Or an astral 3rd eye. Or an invisible 6' rabbit following you. Or something called a soul. Or an astral body. Or the ability to read people's minds. There are a million imaginary things you cannot show.

So we use "occum's razor" to handle those cases. It is not necessary to prove a soul, invisible rabbit, or astral 3rd eye does NOT exist. You have to prove that they -DO- exist by showing some kind of reproducible evidence.

However, I would accept that the idea people have soul which is undetectable has the same validity that thunder is caused by enormous beings bowling up in the clouds which we cannot produce any evidence about either.

Why? Because, by OR, the simplest explanation that covers the facts is enough- anything extra left over can be cut away.

A day without swsiprz is like a day without sunshine!

Re:Well, it's clear.

[dfn5]

You havn't shown by experiment that you dont have insubstantial invisible wings. Or an astral 3rd eye. Or an invisible 6' rabbit following you. Or something called a soul. Or an astral body. Or the ability to read people's minds. There are a million imaginary things you cannot show.

You and the other poster have missed entirely what I was getting at. I was not saying that there is a soul. Nor was I saying that the soul's existence must be disproved before one can say it doesn't exist.

What I am saying is that the we don't know what makes something alive yet and by extension conscious. And to me, the soul is just a label we apply to that which we don't know yet. So until you can tell me exactly why I am me one can't say that there is or is not a soul.

Re:Well, it's clear.

[Maxo-Texas]

I think that is because you are using a "loaded" term like "soul". It has many religious subtexts (eternal life, life beyond death, etc.) that are implied beyond the mystery of conciousness.

I agree with you that there are a lot of things we do not know about conciousness at this point.

May your vsyejfg be long and happy.

Re:Well, it's clear.

[AttilaSz]

What makes live matter live is the complexity of its organization. A rock (or for that matter, a star) is a remarkably simple lump of molecules, while a living being is a remarkably complex object, being organized from multiple layers, each built on top of another (molecules, subcell objects, cells, tissues, organs). All this complexity is assembled in a manner that allows it -- when placed in right environment -- to respond to its environment, selfreproduce, run basic mind processes in its brain, or even higher level mind processes (the emergent exophenomenon of these processes being what we usually call "personality", which I believe is similarly layered in its build as the organism is, with electrical impulses between neurons being the lowest level, and several layers, each more complex than the previous one built atop of it).

Compare a 1MB file full of zeros (or even binary white noise) to a 1MB file containing a binary of an operating system kernel. It's the exact order of zeros and ones in the latter that makes it much more useful when executed in an appropriate environment. I hope you get the analogy.

Creating sentient computers with a consciouness...

[alchemist68]

equivalent to humans is not a good idea, no matter how far off into to future it may be. Humans need to solve all of society's problems first (inequalities, greed, arrogance, famine, disease, corruption, mental illness, etc... and the list goes on...) Why? Because if we don't, those traits will be ingrained into a computer that is connected to other computers via networks. Sounds like a good start for 'Terminator'-like robots, something akin to 'The Borg', or iRobot. Think about all the things that YOU think about during the day, then think about the things you actually discuss with people, the thoughts you share. What could a sentient computer think about, considering the advances in processing power that could be achieved in the future? We could be engineering our own destruction if we were to create a competitor with a mind that is better than ours. Let's be realistic here, the middle and lower portions of the bell curve won't be developing such a creation, and we know that in working and living in the upper portion of the bell curve that there are personal and political agendas. How would these attributes not be part of a sentient machine of our own creation?

FREEJACK!!!

[al701]

Yes but the digital switchboard will only hold you for a few days while the Mick Jagger tries to capture your new body.

Misread

[g00z]

I initialy read that last line as-
"I guess we should all start saving our PENISES now.".

Wow, technology IS coming a long way.

Re:It's a copy. NO! Copy won't transfer. Goes like

[FyRE666]

Become one with the machine. Be the machine. But in this case, machine becomes you instead...

I think that only happens in Soviet Russia...

You would still be dead.

[FLoWCTRL]

There has, of course, been decades of debate among philosophers about the possibility of scanning your consciousness into a computer. One of the most enlightening, and entertaining reads is Daniel C. Dennet's essay, "Where Am I?".

Imagine it: you go to the clinic, attach the appropriate nodes to your skull, or whatever, and the process begins. Some time later, the clinician says, "Thats it, we're done. Your mind is now in the machine. Have a nice death." Now do you feel OK about dying? You're still going to die. It will be a painful experience, and at the end of it, you'll be dead.

The knowledge that a simacula of your mind exists in the computer network will probably offer little comfort to your sense of impending doom. That your friends and family will be able to communicate with it, and perhaps therefore feel better about your death, may be ease your concerns about them. But as for yourself - you're still a soon-to-be corpse.

Is is a lossy format?

[Bender0x7D1]

My biggest problem with talk about turning your conciousness into a digital format is that I am not a digital construct, I am an analog construct.

In theory, if you could take a perfect snapshot of the state of my brain, then it would be possible to create a simulator that would, in effect be me. However, this suffers from a major problem - How do you get a perfect snapshot?

While I am not sure how it works in Dr. Pearson's universe, in my universe we are limited by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Planck Length. Now, IANAP (I am not a physicist), but it seems to me that no matter how good the snapshot of my brain is, some information is going to be innacurate or unmeasurable. Now, this may be incredibly small, (the Planck length is on the order of 10^-35 meters), but according to chaos theory, it will add up.

So, since we know the physical reality of the universe means some error must occur, then no matter what format we use, some data is lost, and I no longer exist. Yes, there might still be an incredibly close copy, but it is still a copy and not me. Personaly, I would rather hang around as long as possible in my analog construct as possible. If I decide I would like a digital near-copy, that would be great, but I'm not going to claim its me any more than I would claim a clone is actually the original person.

Who goes first?

[tgibbs]

Seems pretty optimistic as far as the timeline is concerned, considering that at the present time we have no clear idea of what data would have to be "downloaded" to provide an adequate description of the physiology and state of a particular brain. It could well require determination of the location of most synapses in the brain, along with the number of neurotransmitter receptors at each one, their phosphorylation state, and quite possibly other info. Even if we knew what to download and how to plug that data into a simulation, it could be extraordinarily difficult to get that data out in a nondestructive manner.

Who wants to go first? We'll just serially section your brain, characterize all of your synapses, and bring your consciousness back up in a computer simulation. It worked in the monkeys...

Presumably, the first volunteers will be incurably ill incurable optimists--the sort of people who these days have their brains frozen. Come to think of it, maybe those frozen brains would make good test subjects. Something to write into your will before you have your head frozen?

GPL

[skrug]

ah yes, I would like to GPL my brain, please.

No, its the Hitchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Frederik Pohl used the idea before Gibson, in the Gateway trilogy. (Neuromancer is from 1984, Gateway is from 1976, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon is from 1980). BTW, "Gateway" got the Hugo, the Nebula, and the Locus Award.

Thomas

Re:No, its the Hitchi

[Tony]

Don't forget "The Ophiuchi Hotline," by John Varley, 1977, in which people downloaded their brains for backup, and if they died, dumped it back into a clone.

Very good book, almost as good as "Gateway," and *way* better than "Neuromancer."

Absolutely and scientifically true

[Anonymous Coward]

The living body (including the brain) is not static over any period of time, so a perfect copy is impossible.

In addition the living brain/body system is not linear, which means that even slight differences in the initial states will likely lead to radically different results over time.

In addition, the act of observing (copying) the matter of the brain resolves and therefore alters its quantum state.

Maternal twins are the closest to copying a computer program because they start with identical sets of static source code. While many maternal twins share similarities, they are demonstrably not the same person.

Re:subtle points

[Hortensia Patel]

Can two entities share a conciousness and still be just like 'you'? Any answer other than 'No' is clearly absurd so something went wrong along the way during our experiment

Good to see you're approaching the question with an open mind.

Personally I see nothing at all absurd about multiple copies of a conscious mind-state, each of which is (initially at least) just like me. There's no "sharing" going on.

As the grandparent poster says, I don't see how you can deny such a possibility without lapsing into Cartesian dualism. Did you actually have an argument, or were you just hoping that we'd take your "clearly absurd" on faith?

Great...

[Teja]

So any chance that there'd be a torrent of Lary Page's brain? How about Bill? Sergey?

Ok, I'll take this one...

[rmdyer]

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.

Re:Ok, I'll take this one...

[BillyBlaze]

How could you possibly know that?

Re:Ok, I'll take this one...

[Too Much Noise]

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.

While I agree with the final part (well, under the vagueness of 'most'), the first part of this is questionable - from a logical perspective, at least. You are doing exactly what you're condemning - bundling a whole bunch of things together under a "spiritualist" guise or something and discounting them without disproving them. The fact that one cannot measure something *now* does not mean there's nothing to measure. You only have to look back at the history of science to see what I mean - sometimes indeed there is nothing (phlogiston anyone?) but other times the use of better tools actually shows something, which may or may not be related to what one was looking for.

I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not there should be any kind of "new" energy associated with consciousness - that would be quite unsound logically, given the data that I'm currently aware of. I'm only saying that one should not draw too rigid a line between what "is" and what "is not" as far as scientific research is concerned. Remember, they used to say about Physics at the end of the XIX-th century that "the theoretical work is finished - all that's left is to deal with the few remaining and peripheral cases that are not fully explained yet"

Re:Ok, I'll take this one...

[sydneyfong]

Since I'm feeling rather empty and unmotivated today, I shall amuse myself by breaking down your post and commenting on each individual point. I don't care about moderation, my mod points are here for you guys to burn.

1- Consider the following sentence... [snip]
Where did this statement come from? The grandparent never said that. You're taking on yourself, your biases towards people with different perspectives than the comments posted by the grandparent.

2- 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.
Agreed. Entirely. But that doesn't make materialism more important than what not. This is a main flaw of your whole argument. Remember that the grandparent merely suggested a new perspective to view ourselves and the world, he never asserted it. Quote: "What if it were true", not "it's TRUE!! Believe it!!".

3-Second, a rose only exists for you to ponder its beauty because of material processes.
A thing is accomplished due to many reasons. In normal speech we usually attribute the "reason" to the most "significant" one instead of tiny minor causes that have no apparent influence to the outcome. There can be another statement, perfectly valid, along the lines of "a rose only exists for you to ponder its beauty because the sensations you feel". Not being a perfect compliment to your statement, I would go on to reject the argument (remember, rejecting an argument is not neccessarily for the other) that feelings are all embeded within the neurons etc in the brain. Sure you may find 1-to-1 mappings of different states of your brain to your feelings, but that doesn't explain why, subjectively, you _FEEL_ it. I don't think it could be said, with confidence, that your subjective feelings are 100% material processes, unless you define everything that exists as "material".

4-Beauty is a judgement made by the viewer.
Exactly. How is that related to any "materialistic philosophy"? It seems that you just shot yourself in the foot.

5-Third, is the assumption that the experience of feeling beauty isn't something that could be given to a machine.
How can you claim this assumption wrong if you have no evidence to the contrary?

6-The experience of beauty is very likely to be [a] simple reaction.
Even if I grant that, there is nothing in support of your argument. Assuming for the sake of discussion, the algorithm of IS_BEAUTIFUL equivalent to IS_PRIME. I now program a computer to "taste" a number and tell me whether it thinks it is beautiful. I give it "4", it tells me "4" is not beautiful. I give it "5", and Voila! it tells me "5" is beautiful. Do you mean this "feeling" given to a machine? Or what do you really mean by "giving a feeling to a machine"? Suppose somebody came up with a sophisticated, accurate algorithm that determines whether a flower is beautiful as in human eyes. Do you think that machine now "feels" the flower emotionally the same way you feel when you see it?

7-I have a real problem with anyone who tries to discount "materialism" as being outright wrong.
Where did you see this kind of person? I have been scorching the web these days for information about the occult and "supernatural", and I've yet to see anybody discounting "materialism" outright. It follows directly from simple logic that these people could not exist: You need to eat, drink water, breathe, etc to survive, otherwise you die.

8-Most of the people who do have a very hard time understanding the interconnectedness of physical and electrical systems.
I do agree that some tend to believe in fluffery buffery fairy tales, but those who knows their stuff are actually very logical and consistent, and embraces the scientific method. There is much danger in ending up in a mental hospital if you simply create make believe theories from thin air.

9-Many people who talk about the mind being some ki

Re:Ok, I'll take this one...

[Suidae]

I don't think it could be said, with confidence, that your subjective feelings are 100% material processes, unless you define everything that exists as "material".

I'm not the author of the GP, but I found this point interesting. As it happens, it is my position that everything that exists is material, or physical in its nature.

I haven't yet found an example of something that could not be viewed as existing as 'material'. I would be pleased if you could offer an example of something that could be reasonably shown to not have any physical nature.

Since this belief was reached partially as an extension of some of my other beliefs (rationalist, atheist), a strong counterexample or alternate view would provide a good tool for further examination of my current belief system.

Examples such as 'love', 'roundness', 'algebra' and 'blue' are poor examples. Since they are concepts held in the mind, and the 'mind' is an aspect of the brain, these things are material in that they are represented by some arrangment of the physical stuff that makes up the brain (precisely how these things are represented is not know, nor is it important in the scope of the discussion. It is enough that it can be shown that they are (see my recent post on the mind-body problem for more on that)).

Examples that cannot be show to exist, such as 'the human sole', 'angles' and 'gods' are also rejected because there is no evidence that plausably suggests their actual existance. At best the concepts of them exist in minds.

This position doesn't feel quite right to me, I think because its more an outgrowth of some other beliefs rather than something foundational. I reject things like 'the human sole' not because I believe that everything must be material in nature, but because I have no strong evidence for its existance. Since the only things I have good evidence for are physical things, it seems natural to predict that all things must be physical.

Re:Ok, I'll take this one...

[sydneyfong]

(Wow, I love this. Constructive discussion on slashdot!!)

Well, I am skeptical of this "soul", "angel", "god" gibberish as much as you are. The term "soul" is rather vague, and I still have no idea what it is supposed to be, and personally I've never seen any "angels", or "gods" or whatever. And it's funny to say anything non-physical that exists in our physical world. By definition it does not.

However, I am going to insist is that your own consciousness, your self-awareness, may not be fully explainable in physical terms. I hope my following illustration is helpful:

Imagine a typical MMORPG world. In that world there are of course laws of "physics" in that world, namely rules that are dictated by the game server. Now imagine one of the characters saying: "Everything could be explained by the laws of (our) 'physics'". Is that true? Is there something beyond the MMORPG world that affects it? I would say so. If you play in the game as a character, you interact with the MMORPG world, yet you are not really "physical" of the game world. Now apply that idea to the "real" world.

As I was typing it out, I noticed a problem, namely that the characters in the fictional world described above had no brains of their own, and probably relied on the players for any action. This is obviously not true for the real world.

Let's make some modifications. Imagine all characters in that world are now intelligent and do everything on their own without any "external" intervention. But imagine you have a 1st person view of one particular character, and that character alone. Now someone in the game world proclaims "Everything could be explained by the laws of (our) 'physics'". Would you agree?

There is of course, a different and opposite flaw in this version. But reality is probably more close to something in between those two extremes (it's actually a determinism and free will thing, but don't let it deter us from the main point). In the real world "you" have some control over your body (thinking, most conscious actions), but not over all (heartbeat, reflex actions, etc, and sometimes habits, thinking patterns, etc). So perhaps if you think of it that way, and apply the concept to the real world, you might be able to see that the "you" may be more than a collection of atoms and cells. "May" because I do not know for sure, and nobody really knows. Besides, using the MMORPG example again, who knows if "I" am the only "real" player while all other characters are merely NPC's?

I hope that helps. I've never been much good at discussing philosophical stuff clearly, logically and consistently ...... ;-p

Re:Ok, I'll take this one...

[Popageorgio]

Right on, man! But there's one more human specialty: abstract language. Even Koko the gorilla, even dolphins, do not show rigorously defensible evidence of abstract communication. The experimental evidence: In one test, researchers sent Dolphin 1 through a maze. Dolphin 1 was then placed near Dolphin 2, able to see and communicate aurally with Dolphin 2 as it went through the maze. Forgive my sketchy memory at this point, but trust me that the researchers believed that Dolphin 1 had a motivation to help Dolphin 2 through the maze. These were scientists who'd studied dolphin behavior, and they knew they needed to make their test meaningful. In every test with assorted Dolphin 1s and Dolphin 2s, where the dolphins could run the maze more quickly the second time around, Dolphin 2 never ran a faster first run than Dolphin 1. Dolphin 1, then, did not tell Dolphin 2 how to swim through, though such an opportunity was presented. Either dolphins communicate on a level that the brightest human minds can't even detect outside evidence of, rendering all their obvious squeaking redundant, or dolphins have no ability to communicate the abstract ideas of "turn left" and "pull the lever." And the closest we've come with primates is Koko, whose handlers make excuses when she doesn't choose the right button on her keypad.

A little logical test

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who assumes a copy of oneself is as good as eternal life assumes a soul.

This is a simple logical test: say you manage to make a copy of yourself. Would you then have no fear shooting yourself in the head? Do you believe your consciousness would be transferred to the copy at the point of your death? That could only happen if there was some immaterial link between you and your copy. A soul, if you will.

How would you even go about downloading your brain to hardware, no matter how sophisticated? Consciousness is not something separable from the body. You can't just plug a wire in your brain and have your consciousness dance along that wire to a new host. The only way I can see you might even possibly do it is, as suggested, to replace the organics gradually with something else. Would you still be you after that? Who's to say...

All in all, if you create a copy of yourself and can't sense what the copy is feeling, that is, don't suddenly have some kind of telepathic link with that copy, I wouldn't trust it to be a path to immortality for individuals. Mankind as a whole, maybe, if you accept that machines can be children as much as babies.

Gateway by Frederik Pohl

[skidv]

Discussed in Frederik Pohl's Heechee storyline starting with Gateway.

Not an affiliate link.

As Usual, The Metaphysical Problem is Glossed Over

[Master of Transhuman]

Namely, what happens to your physical brain?

If it dies, YOU'RE DEAD - regardless of what's running on the computer.

Every single downloader advocate I've heard ignores the fact that "you" have a unique space-time location. Duplicate that location and you're merely duplicated yourself. That is NOT "immortality" of any sort. It's merely REPLICATION.

The ONLY way to achieve immortality is to transmogrify the body and brain IN PLACE (with non-stop, fault-tolerant, failure-tolerant, restartable, and 'resurrectable' procedures).

Otherwise all you're doing is building a copy - YOU are still going to die.

Morons.

And this is what passes for "Transhumanism" among idiots like the Extropians.

Join the development team

[n2rjt]

What companies are or will be working on this?
Where and how can I join the development team?
I'm sure they'll need to do some testing before releasing the process to the wealthy.
The developers always get first access to new technology.

Yes, but...

[BlueStrat]

..will I run linux? Can I run a beowulf cluster of me?

Re:Yes, but...

[sydb]

Well done, first truly funny use of above cliches in months.

Re:Yes, but...

[ikkonoishi]

Will netcraft confirm that you are dead?

Heisenberg would be impressed....

[cutecub]

Wouldn't you need to duplicate the entire electro-chemical state of every synapse in the brain?

And wouldn't you have to do that at the quantum level?

And didn't ol' Heisenberg say something about not being able to do that?

I think the author has demonstrated that it really is possible to watch too much Star Trek.

-S

P.S. I guess it might be possible to "record" the perceptions of an individual by intercepting nerve impulses on their way to the brain, but that doesn't get you much in the way of imortality.

More to the point

[kilodelta]

Who owns the hardware? For example, as a parallel just look at those cryogenic storage places. First, who actually believes they'll still be in operation by the time a cure is found for whatever killed the corpsicle. I for one don't think it's viable.

So pray that the OS isn't something made by Microsoft. I can just see what happens when an Exception 0E occurs. Or little Johnny deletes Grandpa and then you have to restore him from 4mm tape.

A co-worker and I were just discussing this. Just think of the implications with regard to religion. Where exactly will the soul reside?

And of course we had a good laugh over the whole thing.

Immortality is a given...

[ecklesweb]

The question is simply where you'll spend it.

Re:Immortality is a given...

[Plutonium0011]

Immortality is human "trap" construct. It not only violates the natural order, imagine having to live forever - never dying and seeing the next level of existence? We die because it gets rid of the OLD ass******, and gives all new ones.... It's a part of darwinian evolution (or there abouts). Imagine living forever and having to watch re-runs of all the old TV shows...over and over and over. Everything would seem less like LIVING and more like a chore. Remember the old saying,"HELL is repitition." This sounds like certain HELL to me. I look forward to dying...it would release me from this crappy world. The offer of Immortality is an offer from someone who is SCARED of dying. Why? Were you scared to be born? NO, same with dying. You go back to same place you were at before you were born.

Lesson learned

[bradleyland]

Just use a really slow (like 2x) CD-RW drive if you plan to download your consciousness and everything will be fine.

Download your brain?

[jonoverdose]

..... that should take George W Bush all of 2 seconds on a 28K modem.

Re:download?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a convention based on "up" being "to the (conceptually) bigger system".

Upload means to transmit from you to elsewhere.
Download means to receive from elsewhere to you.

Upload is to put.
Download is to get.

There is no "convention" here; the meanings are quite clear.

Re:can't be avoided, only delayed

[Aggressiva]

I never said nanotech was required for redundancy, so stop putting words in my mouth. I merely said it would be used with nanotech if necessary. Thermal energy is not a risk to molecular nanotech (see the books "nanosystems" and "unbounding the future" by K. Eric Drexler), nanomachines can be shielded against radiation and contamination is easily dealth with by molecular machines built to remove unwanted substances. It seems zero failure machines are possible.

Futurologist

[Seanasy]

Futurologist? Unless he did his Ph.D. on alcoholism and suicide in single robot homes, I've got no respect for his opinion.

The interesting question

[denissmith]

The interesting question, to me, has always been what will happen when we can extend life semi-indefinetly. How does society determine who gets to live? If he is correct that money will be the determinant, how long can that society last? I don't see roughly 6 billion people docily going to their death when real alternatives exist.

Brain in a jar

[koan]

I wager 5 quatloos on the new comer.

Restore from backup

[CyBlue]

BUT! .. if you get caught cheating or forget an anniversary, you can always restore her from last week's backup.

Ob. Futurama reference

[tomk]

"as a disembodied head living in a jar, I envy the dead."

-George Foreman's Head

The brain is just an interface

[vhogemann]

I like to think that our brain is an interface to our soul, we use it to control our bodies and to receive input from our senses. We can even guess that our memories are some sort of a cache, for quick access.

This way, to be immortal, one would have to create a computer mechanism capable of interfacing with our soul, and them a way to transfer the control from a organic brain to this artificial interface!

More, with some tweaking one should be able to grow a entirely new body from steam cells, or something like it, and "tune" it to your soul... then, you just to "disconnect" your old body and enjoy the brand new one!

Re:The brain is just an interface

[nickptar]

I once believed something like that, and I suppose if we do have a soul this will have to be the case, but if the brain is just an interface then:

- why do our thoughts produce detectable changes in the brain?
- why do changes in the brain change our personalities and thougts?

You could explain those by saying that a lot of processing is offloaded to the brain, but then why posit a soul at all?

Re:The brain is just an interface

[vhogemann]

- why do our thoughts produce detectable changes in the brain?

Because it has a memory cache. And also, we have all sort of instincts that are hardwired to the cerebral cortex, and the toughts and memories triggers all sorts of reflexes to all parts of our body.

- why do changes in the brain change our personalities and thougts?

Well, I think the brain act as a translator and a filter to the sensations. So if there's something wrong with it the information is not correctly parsed. Also, I think that the instincts are hardwired to our cortex, if something damages the wiring to the soul our instincts tend to assume control.

Re:The brain is just an interface

[nickptar]

I like your arguments. But still, I don't see how they can explain the sheer change that something like drug use or a rod in the head can produce in a person. That's not just changes in sensations or instincts, that's changes in the core of the person.

Re:The brain is just an interface

[vhogemann]

Yeah... there is some things that I can't really explain with these arguments.

But, I really like them... And I just they might fit well on a SciFi novel, something along the lines of Matrix or something.

I'll elaborate them a little bit more, and maybe write a fanfic novel, or comic book argument, or both!

Anyways... It's fun to discuss this, but I really think that's a bit of a waste of time. See, we cannot prove anything right now. And, in the end, when we die, everything will be revealed to us (one way or another).

So, why worry?

Total Annihilation

[The_Minkis]

This reminds me of an old strategy PC game called Total Annihilation.

The plot is that in the far future not only is the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machine possible, but the reigning government makes it mandatory for the safety of all its citizens.

Of course, not everyone liked the idea of tossing their bodies aside, so civil war erupted.

Personally, this development gives me a chill.

Natures Copy Protection

[hackus]

Sorry, you only get one license and it isn't transferable.

Besides, how many quacks have been saying this sort of thing over the past 50 years???

I thinks Mother Natures copy protection is quite effective. Although I have no doubt we will be able to genetically modify the human race to extend lifespan significantly (i.e. the wealthy and the powerful that is...), I doubt forever.

Thinking we can build a machine to do it I think speaks volumes of our ignorance about how the brain really works and if it truly is the part that provides "conscious" thought.

Note, I am not sure if we REALLY understand the difference from conscious thought and intelligence.

Do the two require each other for example?

Exactly what IS UN conscious thought if so?

We have lots of crack pot organizations right now that measure intelligence for example, like MENSA.

I am not even sure we know what intelligence is let alone how to measure it.

I have a PhD sitting next too me who I think is clueless half the time and I do not find him intelligent. Meanwhile, the guy who use to do Tattoo's for people has written genuinely interesting and useful software for our customers and is self taught. His work pays for the over inflated EGO and salary of the PhD guy.

???

So what is intelligence?

I think it is any organisms ability to modify its environment to an extreme (i.e. make its own environment to sustain itself even when the outside environment would kill it.)

So if you build a house in response to winter, or air conditioning units in response to heat I would consider that intelligent.
(if you move into outer space and do it, your not just intelligent, your going to likely live forever...)

However, I do not think you need to be conscious to do these thinks and explore the Universe, simply intelligent.

Sort of like the creatures in the new War of the Worlds remake.

-Hack

Re:Natures Copy Protection

[Dread_ed]

Your comments lead me to the thought that if we are able to effectively simulate or duplicate human intelligence in a constructed information structure, then there should be no impediment to creating an intelligence from scratch to fill that same structure.

In other words, if we can model a human being in a computer so effectively that it is considered a duplicate then we should also be able to create an artificial intelligence with human level intelligence in that computer as well.

Personally I do not think that humans are anywhere close to being able to do either of these things, but when/if they can I think that the artificial intelligence would come first, albiet in a reduced capacity.

Re:Natures Copy Protection

[Intrinsic]

Forget thought, consciousness, and presence, are all independent of thought.

Re:Natures Copy Protection

[khallow]

Sorry, you only get one license and it isn't transferable.

Where's the license? What's the obstacle?

I am not even sure we know what intelligence is let alone how to measure it.

I disagree here. I think it's not a matter of being a difficult or hard to grasp concept but rather that it is ill-defined. Traditionally, it's intended to be a measure of mental ability. Ie, the ability to memorize things, reason, learn, etc. But one doesn't need be equally proficient in all mental tasks. And many tasks are dependent on what the being knows. A caveman may be a better problem solver than a trained engineer, but if they don't have the necessary knowledge, then they probably won't build a good bridge (for example).

I have a PhD sitting next too me who I think is clueless half the time and I do not find him intelligent. Meanwhile, the guy who use to do Tattoo's for people has written genuinely interesting and useful software for our customers and is self taught. His work pays for the over inflated EGO and salary of the PhD guy.

Well, intelligence isn't everything. First, while it doesn't appear to be the case here, it's possible that the PhD person is contributing more through their knowledge and capabilities than the smart person. Second, PhD's are hard to come by. That sometimes commands a premium over someone with the same intellect and knowledge, but less documented education.

Still, the environment you describe sounds like it could under better circumstances be very powerful. You have a variety of people with different mixes of knowledge and capabilities. That can be useful for approaching problems.

(if you move into outer space and do it, your not just intelligent, your going to likely live forever...)

I don't share this belief. Space is an extraordinarily difficult environment, but it's just a matter of satisfying the various human needs.

Oh, I get it

[wayne606]

A "futurologist" is somebody who writes the same stuff as bad sci-fi writers do, only he calls it a "prediction" and gets mentioned on slashdot ...

Life as we know it. Or do we?

[billn]

The science of man/machine neural interfaces is still fledgling, at best. Recent advances have scientists inserting bundles of probes by the thousands and talking the brain into grafting nerves on to them for the purposes of recieving and recording signalling from the brain. The brain adapts to this and sees it as just another set of nerves to send impulses to, be it to move a cursor on a screen, or move a robotic arm.

However, these are purely motor functions. Over time, it will be possible for a human input text, or even simulated audio, ala speech, directly from the brain, once we have the knowledge and technology and *neural training* to use that kind of facility, as opposed to simple human speech.

Again, this is simply an output function. Neurology shows us that the brain functions almost identically when remembering something as it did when you experienced it, so the loose theory there is that it's possible to playback memory and possibly record it. But contextually, that's as useful as having home movies and considering them to be a recording of your life. This raises two problems: Being able to record and synthesize a memory into a useful data structure, and being able to query the brain to perform a sequential dump of the sum of your memories.

Problem one: Parsing a memory. This will be possible once we reach two distinct points in technology: Being able to 'record' a memory (or even a dream), and having sufficient AI capability to examine a scene and identify its contents in full, while understanding what the event is, and correctly correlating the emotional context along with relevence.

Problem two: The ability of the brain to accept and parse input from a machine. This means adapting the brain to accept a seventh form of sensory input (Yes, I said seven. I maintain that everyone has a sixth sense. Argue with me later, this is 'me' time.) Gibson has gifted us with an amazing prediction of the world to come, with all the reality that could possibly be attached to it.

Recent advances in science have given us the first and most basic of these interfaces, by grafting photoreceptors to the optic nerve to create and generate impulses that the optic nerve, and by extension, the brain, are capable of relearning as a replacement form of input. I postulate that it's not a large step from that point to replacing the photoreceptor layer with a much finer set of inputs that provide a feed from machine video output, because after all, that's just a set of voltage based signals as well.

Gibson's vision of cyberspace fits pretty well into this notion, and enables it as a possibility.
So, will it be possible to record a personality construct? I think it will be. Will people be able to subject themselves to reliving their entire lives to that point in order to make a backup of themselves? Possibly, but I'm not sure I want to be one of them, because I don't have enough faith in my fellow man to be sure that I'll get to keep all of the memories I want in the event that I have to be restored from backup, if restored at all.

The large shiny theory of immortality has a flip side, and it's based entirely upon human nature. Imagine that you're a strident Republican who's against this kind of technology, but you get talked into the process by your loving family. What kind of risk are you taking with this process, that when all is said and done, the backup you make isn't tampered with or subtly altered, in coincidence with an untimely accident, for policital reasons?

Once you're dead, you're dead. You're out of the game until someone puts you back into play. Like the venerable Dix, would you know you were changed? Also, cloning and the like permitting, are you being restored to an organic brain that may not be capable of taking a perfect restoration, or are you getting a shiny positronic core? Are you still considered to BE the person you WERE, or does the existential question of who you ARE come to the fore?

Think it won't happen? I predict now that it will, sho

Re:Subjective / Objective Viewpoints of Consciousn

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

We're all copies. Of the hundred trillion cells in our body a large proportion are replaced, or have a large proportion of their atoms replaced, over time. Even if this weren't the case, I can't see what harm would be done by replacing all of the atoms in someone's body with identical ones. Because of this I find it hard to put value on the specific atoms that make up my body but instead I value their functionality. If that functionality can be (destructively) reproduced by a machine I'm happy to walk into that machine. If other people aren't, then they can choose not to use it. But someome claiming to be me will thumb my nose at them from its shiny new robot body at their funerals.

consciousness by 2020?

[Mr. Asdf]

"Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020"

Even though he's a mathematician, I question the equation he used to come up with 2020. At the rate we've developed in the last 5 years, by 2020 we'd be lucky if automatic vacuums could dust first.

How can I?

[Adam Avangelist]

How can I possibly download my brain when I have no ethernet ports?

Beware the BSAA!

[Luscious868]

Beware the BSAA (Brains Scanners Association of America) whose member companies look for unique personalities, get them to sign a contract for $$$ that allows them to live out their lives, but the BSAA member company owns the copyright to the brainscan and DNA which allows them to make nearly unlimited copies of the individual at will and charge a boatload of money for the copies, all the while denying the original donor their fare share but claiming to protect the donor's "rights".

Most of those options remind me...

[turrican]

Most of those options remind me of the anecdote regarding George Washington's axe: Handle's been replaced thrice, the blade a couple of times, but it's still George's axe!

Re:download? -MOD PARENT UP

[2names]

How could SLASHDOT readers get confused about this? =)

I think you meant to post that in this article.

Let us suppose...

[cr0sh]

First off - forgive me if I read the wrong thing into your post - you seem like you could be of the transhumanist thought/philosophy, but disagree with some ideas of certain groups under that umbrella - or, you may think the whole thing is a load of hookam - I am not sure...

For the purposes of this discussion, let's disregard the possibility that there are "weird" quantum space-time effects going on that make us "sentient" or "intelligent" or "alive" (in the thinking/reasoning sense). We don't know enough, what little we do know is fantastic enough as it is, and we have a ways to go. For now, let us suppose that the model we currently have of us, that the human brain is a collection of neurons interconnected via synapses in a somewhat "random" (ok, this part likely isn't true - since we are a robust network like the internet, social networks, etc - see Albert Laszlo Barabasi's "Linked" for more detail) network of connections that were formed based on patterns formed from our sensory systems (see Jeff Hawkins' book "On Intelligence" for more detail) - is true, and go with that.

So, based on that - in theory - if we can recreate those patterns and connections, we can recreate what is "you", right?

Suppose we had a way to do this - some form of nanotechnology in which we could put into your bloodstream devices (nanoprobes on nanobots, say), that could flow to your brain, and everywhere a neuron was, these devices could "hook into", and figure out that "when I get this signal, I should fire", or "when these frequencies of signals occur, I should fire" - and which synapses, etc - the signal is to go to, etc. After a while, these machines learn to simulate precisely what the real neuron is doing, right? For intents and purposes, you could kill the real neuron - one at a time, or all at once - and the "nanobot" doing the simulation would be performing the same actions, correct?

It wouldn't matter if this happened slowly or quickly - as long as the simulation of the structure matched that of the original structure beforehand. These nanobots would also have to "learn" how memories are formed, etc - how such a structure changes, etc over time - but it is a given that if such machines existed and worked, that they could do this, most likely.

So, at some point, you would have a head full of nanobots, and nothing else - are you still you? Logic would dictate that yes, you are still you, that the substrate really doesn't matter. So - go the next step: Start simulating the nanobots in software on a hardware platform. Provided the platform was big enough, fast enough, and robust enough, and could emulate/simulate the entire nanobot and networked structure perfectly, you could "kill" or shut off the nanobots (one by one or all at once!), and the simulation is still "you"!

This isn't an original idea - it was first proposed (I believe) by Hans Morevec, one of the original explorers of the field of AI in the 1950's and 1960's. It is an interesting thought experiment, as in this theory, the "you" of you isn't really dependent on the "where", but on the structure of the network. As we learn more about the brain, new knowledge seems to confirm this. Still, there is plenty of room for something else to topple these ideas - but much of it to me seems to border on "intelligent design" theory (hah!), or plain ole' deception via complexity (via invocation of scary and strange concepts like QM). Of course, things can easily get even stranger - couple the writings of Barabasi, Hawkins, Moravec with the ideas presented in Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", perhaps along with some stuff from Kurzweil (Age of Spiritual Machines, among others), which seems more likely:

That we a strange "being" with a "soul" floating around waiting to be "called up" back to a mystical floating realm "out there"?

or,

That our brains, the "stuff" that makes us, is simply a very good pattern recognition, storage and playback machine, composed of a huge network of interconnecting nodes which we call "neurons"

Re:Let us suppose...

[Master of Transhuman]

Wrong.

First, I am a RADICAL Transhumanist. Much more so than most of the Extropians.

Your first part is correct. Nanobots or some similar technology could indeed exactly simulate the functioning of my brain. And then by taking over, one (or more) neurons at a time, they could establish continuity and I would still be me.

As soon as you COPY that process to ANOTHER platform, you have REPLICATED, NOT MOVED "me".

If you reread Hans Moravec's initial exposition of this process in Mind Children, he explicitly suggested disassembling the physical brain, simulating it on the computer platform and disposing of the "waste matter" - which happens to be ME. This is when I first realized that people don't have a clue about this.

"You" are BOTH a structure AND a structure with a specific location in space-time. "You" can only exist in ONE PLACE AT A TIME - otherwise the other system is not "you", it is a copy or a simulation or any other term that describes the structure accurately. It doesn't matter if that structure EXACTLY duplicates you down to the bare atoms - it's still not "you" because "you" IS (excuse the grammar!) a location in space-time.

A system is a system with a specific location (range of effect is not necessarily "location".) It doesn't matter if that system is embedded in another system, or able to communicate across lightyears with zero latency, it still has a location. Other than quantum nonlocality, I know of no theory of physics that suggests otherwise.

There's nothing religious about this - it's purely plain three-dimensional physics.

I repeat, the ONLY way to insure immortality is to UPGRADE IN PLACE. If you want to then gain more capability, you just keep upgrading in place. No need to "move" anywhere. Nanotech will make this trivial.

Notice that I am NOT complaining about whether making such duplicates is a bad thing. It might or might not be - see the "Price of the Phoenix" and "Fate of the Phoenix" Star Trek novels for suggestions about that. In fact, having a cross-sex exact nanotech duplicate of myself might be fun! I'm merely saying that the only way to insure YOUR existence is to upgrade in place.

Re:Let us suppose...

[danila]

Wrong. You may be a radical transhumanist, but that doesn't make you right. What we consider to be ourselves depends on the way we currently live, which is the way that we evolved to live. It is beneficial for biological humans to think of our bodies as ourselves and there simply wasn't a possibility in the past to live differently. After uploading becomes possible, people will start experiementing with it (like they experiement with body modification today).

They will make copies and destroy the originals, they will make several copies and run them simultaneously, they will combine several copies back into one mind, they will transfer parts of their mind to other people, etc., etc., etc. While technically you may call what they would do - dying, one can technically call what you do everyday dying too - the sleep, the transition through time, the death of some cells, etc.

But this doesn't matter. What matters is the functionality and the consensus. Functionally making a copy and destroying the original will be living. And the consensus will form that this is indeed living. Soon people will no longer care about on what hardware they are running, how many copies there are and will not think twice about spawning another copy to perform some task and then copying parts of the copy back into the first copy. There is no reason why people should live linearly. This suggests even more extreme possibilities of people living in different temporal directions (inside a computer simulation it's possible), people being superpositions of others, and other extreme ways.

But regardless of how far we will go, one thing is certain - people will not think the way you do now and you will change your mind (both literally and figuratively speaking).

Re:Let us suppose...

[Master of Transhuman]

None of which alters my primary point: none of these people will be immortal in either the classic sense or the physical sense. Citing "consensus" and experimentation is completely irrelevant to the point.

The end result is the same: the only way to be immortal in the sense of continuity of a single mental system is upgrade in place. Any other attempt to achieve immortality is just "fool's gold".

Re:Let us suppose...

[danila]

This is semantics. There are different things that we can call being alive. Your definition is valid, but not helpful. My definition will be helpful and will inevitably become the accepted one.

These people will become immortal in the cybernetics sense, i.e. the patterns of their minds will be preserved. Sticking with the classical (physical) definition is wrong. You assign absolute meanings to things. That's hard to argue against, but it's just pointless. I can claim that a person with a plastic heart is not really alive, because a real heart doesn't beat in his chest. That would be precisely what you are doing.

Any other attempt to achieve immortality is just "fool's gold".

You say so, but you are wrong.

Re:Let us suppose...

[Master of Transhuman]

You are utterly clueless about reality.

No problem - reality will re-adjust your thinking in due time.

Re:Let us suppose...

[danila]

Thanks for the demonstrating the dangers of closed-mindedness and intellectual rigidity. I need to always keep that in mind myself, lest I fall into the same trap as you did.

Copyright infringement..

[Mr. KFM]

So who would they sue when people start downloading movies off of KFM's_HaXx0r3d_br41n-v1.0?

And what would be the filesize of this 'brain'?

Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[orfanotna]

When you go to sleep, the electrical activity in your brain doesn't stop.

However, I've read that in certain types of brain surgery, all electrical activity in the brain must be stopped for some period of time, and then "restarted". The person thus loses all the short term memory, but keeps the long-term, because that isn't dependent on continuous electrical activity. When that person wakes up, is he still considered the same old person, or just a "replica"?

Re:Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[Jim_Callahan]

Sleep: Save state, defragment. Yup, my computer seems to be the same computer. I'll go with that answer on my sleep cycle as well.

Re:Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[prockcore]

However, I've read that in certain types of brain surgery, all electrical activity in the brain must be stopped for some period of time, and then "restarted". The person thus loses all the short term memory, but keeps the long-term, because that isn't dependent on continuous electrical activity. When that person wakes up, is he still considered the same old person, or just a "replica"?

Um.. when I turn off my computer, everything in RAM gets deleted.. but I don't consider it a replica of the computer I had yesterday whenever I turn it back on.

Re:Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[orfanotna]

I didn't ask if the body stayed the same, that one's kind of obvious. I asked if it was the same "person", and not just someone with an identical brain structure, and therefore identical behavior, long-term memories, etc.

The thing is, IMO the old person is dead when the electrical activity in his brain stops. Just because you can revive his body and get someone who acts, thinks, and remembers the same way doesn't mean it's the same person. But I guess no one, *including that person*, can ever know the difference.

Re:Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[MidnightBrewer]

I think this is a great example of the dangers of over-thinking.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does.

Are you the same person you were before, regardless of what the hell went on in your brain last night, or during that operation?

Yes, of course you are. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. You're not arguing science, you're arguing philosophy. Science only describes the how, not the why.

Re:Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[m50d]

Sure it's philosophy, but that doesn't make it any less important or valid a debate. Vibrations in the air are only "sounds" because humans perceive them as such, without anyone to hear it how can it meaningfully be a sound?

Re:Any brain surgeons reading /.?

[xtracto]

It is something that you do not understand, Think it this way: if I made an exact copy of you, atom by atom, cell by cell, and then just put you to sleep, the new "you" will be you for the world,

That is, I could ask him what was the best threesome lolita scene he had seen on the internet and he would answer the same that you would.

But, you, in your sleep will be dreaming, and doing other things, and you would be totally another person.

Imagine 2 twins, perfectly similar, imagine if when they are born, they are put in a totally similar scenarios so they have the same experiences. So, if you meet one (and you do not know there are two of them) and he tells you he likes chocolate. After that, you returend another day, and you see again one of them, you ask him if he likes chocolate, and he tells you he does, so for you he will be the same one that you saw before.

What I want to note here is that for the outside of the world yes, you would be the same, even your mom could not see a difference but, I am sorry to tell you nope, you will not be "there". You can name it as you wish, soul, conscience, spirit, force, etc. you wont be there, only your RAM would be which will make that other you self aware of him after a while (as he wont be aware of himself for the first ms/seconds)

Re:download?

[slavemowgli]

In his book "The Age of Spritual Machines", Ray Kurzweil makes a reasonably convincing argument that I will, thanks to Moore's Law.

Ray points out that even if Moore's Law runs out of steam with regard to MOSFET technology, that there is good reason to believe that it will apply equally well to new technologies, since the known laws of physics still have "lots of room at the bottom" (as observed by Richard Feynman). He shows that Moore's law actually extrapolates fairly accurately all the way back to late 19th century mechanical calculators.

Your opinion may be different, but I don't find that argument to be all that convincing. If I jump from the 100th floor of a skyscraper, then I (probably) won't die from crashing onto the sidewalk for a (short) while at least, but to extrapolate from that that the same thing will not happen in the future either would be ridiculous.

Now, I'm not saying that I necessarily have the opinion that those services you refer to won't be available to you within your lifetime, but I do specifically disagree with the statement that the argument itself is reasonably convincing. The reason why this kind of extrapolation sometimes does make sense is that even though the future is not crystal clear, you still are able to say that it's reasonable to assume that the current trends *will* continue in one form or another.

Here, though, that's not the case really - Moore's law still seems to work, but it very well may be that just like the sidewalk that will inevitably cause the death of the suicide jumper, there are laws of physics (unknown to us as of yet or not) that *will* put a sudden stop to Moore's law, too. (Again, note that the emphasis is on "it MAY be", even though for a layperson like me, it seems like there definitely *will* be a stop when the Planck scale is hit, at least.)

Re:Utter Bovine Excrement

[Eric Smith]

Your computer doesn't think

It hasn't been programmed to do so. Are you asserting that it is impossible for a computer to think? If so, what is your basis for making such an assertion?

your brain doesn't compute.

I suspect that you can win a Nobel prize for proving that assertion.

Reincarnated as a what?

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I don't believe in reincarnation, including such aided by human intervention and machines.

Ifd I *did* believe in it, I really, really wouldn't want to come back as "Mr. Computer Head". That would be even worse than Mr. Potato Head.

The Bible says you get one life on this planet. I believe that. So I recommend making the most of it, rather tan counting on Mr. Machine to save you. Or Mr. Mad Scientist. Either way...

MPAA or RIAA

[fumcr]

Will i get sued over downloading my brain. And can i make a torrent for it too.

Ridiculous.

[jdog1016]

And who in science will stand up and say that there is nothing more to a person than a finite state machine?

As much as many of you people may scoff at the metaphysical and spiritual arguments, they are still valid arguments, and they still may be true.

Raymond Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns

[NoImNotNineVolt]

See, that's not entirely accurate. As Raymond Kurzweil has pointed out, technology advances at a very predictable rate. His paper "The Law of Accelerating Returns" does a good job documenting evidence of this fact spanning the entire last -century-.

The consistent exponential trend observed, when extrapolated, is what the claims of these futurologists stem from. They're not picking a wild fantasy and claiming they know when it will come to pass. They're making reasonable predictions based on consistent observed trends.

Also addressed in this paper, coincidentally, is the idea of uploading human consciousness, along with other common themes of futurism.

Re:Consciousness is an instantaneous phenomenon.

[RatBastard]

What a complete load of codswallop. You obviously have no clue as to what death is. Change does not equal death. Death is the body failing, not the body changing. You do not die every picosecond as your body undergoes the complex chemical reactions needed to *gasp* maintain life.

Consciousness is more complex than just a chain of memories. It is so complex that we are barely beginning to understand it at all.

Theseus' modern ship

[pegasustonans]

So, if I share a Honda with my brother, and then the wheels fall off. My brother replaces them with ones that he owns. Then the gearbox breaks, and my brother replaces that with parts he owns as well. Eventually, the entire engine and body of the car have been replaced by my brother with parts that he owns. So, we still have joint ownership of the car, or is it really my brother's car?

Perhaps an even more straightforward example is with a computer. If I share a computer with my brother, but eventually my brother has replaced all of the parts of the computer with pieces he has bought including the case & PSU, then is it really still a jointy-owned machine? Or are the parts from the original machine that were discarded the jointly owned bits?

Re:Theseus' modern ship

[pegasustonans]

So, from the original perspective, if I only eat food that my brother buys me for a long period of time, does that mean that I am indentured to him because the cells in my body are composed of his property?

Or, if I download a copy of my consciousness onto hardware that I own, does that mean that my organic body has ownership of the consciousness as well as the hardware, or just ownership of the hardware on which the consciousness resides. And if the consciousness has a right to existence, am I then obligated to keep my hardware running for as long as possible? Does the copied consciousness have any obligation to me for supplying the original copy and the hardware? Am I responsible for any ethically questionable activities my synthetic consciousness might become involved in? If I am convicted of a crime, does that mean my synthetic consciousness must also go to jail? If my corporeal consciousness dies along with my body, and my synthetic consciousness is afforded the same rights afforded to me during life, then who will be responsible for protecting those rights?

If a rogue synthetic consciousness attacks my synthetic consciousness, what will be the protocol for disciplining the criminal?

Anyways, it seems to me some of these could become rather pertinent questions at some point.

Re:Theseus' modern ship

[Surt]

I bought a canister of oxygen last year. Unfortunately for me, a criminal broke into my house and released all the oxygen. By now my oxygen is all over the world. Now as I'm sure you know, receiving stolen property is a crime. So please stop receiving my stolen oxygen!

Much as I can't ask you to stop breathing by this argument, you don't gain ownership of a person by feeding them.

Re:Theseus' modern ship

[pegasustonans]

Much as I can't ask you to stop breathing by this argument, you don't gain ownership of a person by feeding them.

Well, aren't we lucky that most people would agree with that sentiment. But, where do you draw the line between what is 'possesionable' and what is free? And does the sentiment about food apply to electricity in the case of an AI?

Re:Theseus' modern ship

[Surt]

Not until the AI qualifies for personhood under the law. Then it acquires all the same legal protections of any other person. This occurs when the AI becomes clearly sentient enough to convince judges all the way to the supreme court (assuming you're in the US).

Re:Theseus' modern ship

[Grakun]

If you share your vehicle with your brother, and he replaces parts and refuses to share them with you, then he's an asshole. Simple solution: Make sure your brother knows that by replacing a part, you will become a joint owner of it. If he refuses, kick his ass for breaking it in the first place. Optionally, you may also kick his ass if he tries to replace it with a part of lesser quality.

Altered Carbon -- Richard Morgan

[Esion Modnar]

Really nice scifi book with a noir mystery feel. Explores this idea of downloading brains, thoroughly. Even if downloading can be made to happen, uploading into wetwork would probably be more difficult.

Another one: Kiln People, by David Brin.

Re:download?

[Eric Smith]

there are laws of physics (unknown to us as of yet or not) that *will* put a sudden stop to Moore's law, [...] it seems like there definitely *will* be a stop when the Planck scale is hit

I fully agree. However, there is no known reason why uploading requires Moore's law to extend all the way to Planck scale. If it continues for another 30 years, uploading may be possible, and if it continues for another decade past that, uploading may be inexpensive.

Note that it is not strictly speaking necessary for the uploaded environment to run at real-time speed. The main simulation requirement is storage and processing capacity, not timing. Of course, if the simulation is substantially slower than real time, it won't be nearly as appealing (though arguably still better than death).

Our brains themselves provide an existence proof that it is possible for a machine to contain human-level intelligence and consciousness, since the brain is just a very complex biological machine. The current method of replicating brains is very easy but doesn't preserve state; the trick will be determining how to replicate them (possibly with a different underlying technology) such that the state can be transferred.

Re:If you believe that we are biological machines.

[joto]

Computers are great tools for what they do. They manipulate a series of 1s and 0s, store and retrieve the 1s and 0s on various media etc.

Yes, and that's why they are so excellent for performing simulations of other machines (even if we don't understand, which is usually the case, or we wouldn't have bothered with the simulation).

The one thing that a computer has never done and I don't think ever will is to understand the significant of the stream of 1s and 0s that it is manipulating. That would require true consciousness and TRUE consciousness is part of our minds.

Exactly. So instead of building a smart computer program, we build a simple computer program: a brain/nerve tissue simulator/interpreter. This requires very little understanding of how consciousness actually works. It does however require a very good computer, and a lot of medical research to understand how neurons really work.

There are things we don't understand yet (otherwise we could make autopilots from simulating the brains of flies), but it is not unheard of, to take a guess and say that those problems will be solved too, in 50 years.

No mater how good we get at simulating consciousness I don't believe that we will ever be able to take machine consciousness beyond the simulation into reality.

But when we are running a simulation of the brain in the software, it's much easier to experiment on it.

First of all, the "speed" of the brain could be hundreds or thousands times faster than a "normal" brain, all you need is a faster computer. This would (a) allow you to think faster, and (b) allow you to do "genetic" or "hormonic" experiments in software at a much higher rate, which could evolve "super-thinkers" pretty fast.

Secondly, you could have several of these "faster clones" communicate with themselves all at enormous speed, building entire research communities of "fast thinkers".

Lastly, in the real world, there are not too many really bright thinkers. In the virtual world, if you needed 15 copies of Stephen Hawking, you could have them at an instant.

And of course, all of these faster better thinkers can also think up better computer hardware to run the simulations of themselves even faster on.

Basically, this means that if we can make good enough hardware, and we can figure out how neurons work good enough to simulate them, it's only a matter of time before you have something radically smarter than you. Actually, it's only a matter of time before you have something radically smarter than all of the worlds scientists together. And that is the singularity...

It is plausible that these bright thinkers would eventually be smart enough to find out how consciousness works. But even if they don't, it doesn't really matter, because something pretty darn significant would have happened either way.

Bravo.

[2names]

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

Thank you for posting that comment. Now, if we could just get more people to realize the simple truth of your statement.

This isn't new: Fred Pohl invented it

[TheMCP]

Fred Pohl invented the idea of downloading your brain into a computer upon death in his Heechee Saga. I read it about 15 years ago, and I think the book where he started it may be more like 20 or 30 years old.

Ghost in the Shell

[Unixinvid]

Wait till people Ghost Hack other peoples brain's.

Too much late night Adult Swim...

[MythosTraecer]

Someone's been watching too much Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Think of the sex!

[VorpalHamster]

You'd certainly know how to please both of "you"!

Re:download? -MOD PARENT UP

[HTH NE1]

No, there is no one-to-one parity between uploading and downloading. A transfer in one direction does not imply the opposite transfer from the opposite point of view. You cannot substitute upload and download with transmit and receive. The verbs upload and download contain information about the initiator; transmit and receive ignores the initiator.

To claim otherwise is to claim responsibility for your computer's actions when it is operated by an outside force.

Well, I found it funny

[Dysan2k]

This is your brain...

This is your brain on BitTorrent...

Any questions?

Futureologist?

[kuzb]

It must be nice to sit around all day and try to make up what you think might happen after you're dead. I mean, if you're wrong, who cares?

Honestly, I don't put much stock in 'futurology'. I think it's less than 10% science and greater than 90% made-up-on-the-spot bullshit with sketchy backup for 'facts', and way too much buzzword-of-the-day terminology.

IMHO, this isn't even newsworthy.

Re:download?

[slavemowgli]

Our brains themselves provide an existence proof that it is possible for a machine to contain human-level intelligence and consciousness, since the brain is just a very complex biological machine.

Well, I'd say that *that* is a question that's the subject of an ongoing debate, at the very least. ^_~ But even if you actually could "download" all the information contained in the brain... what would you do with it? Data is essentially worthless if you have no way of interpreting it, but even if you do, things aren't always as easy as they might seem at first glance.

It's like with DNA - the fact that you do have the complete DNA sequence of, say, a sheep does not mean that you can build an actual sheep which does have this exact DNA. You need quite a bit of equipment for that, and I think the most important component is usually overlooked: you actually need another sheep, which leads to a kind of chicken-and-egg problem really.

In other words, even if you were able to save all the electric impulses, the proteins, and the way the cells are wired, it still would be a wholly non-trivial task to build an actual brain to match those specifications - or, for that matter, an artificial equivalent.

And what's more, that still wouldn't be enough. A brain is not a self-contained organ; it adjusts to the rest of the body. The signals delivered by one person's eyes might be quite different from those delivered by another person's - there simply is no standard interface, like there usually is in the computer world.

And then, even if you also overcome those obstacles, it's *still* not clear whether you'd actually get a human - as I said above, that is an open question that's been debated for a long time without any progress.

We'll just have to wait and see. :)

Oh my god I'm in hell.

[c0bw3b]

Seriously. One of his ideas for what people could do in the "afterlife" is answer phones?

Instead of phoning up a call center and getting a machine that says, "Type 1 for this and 2 for that and 3 for the other," if you had machine personalities you could have any number of call staff, so you can be dealt with without ever waiting in a queue at a call center again.'

If that's the case, kill me now and burn the remains. I do that for a living now and it's driving me insane, if I was a disembodied mind trying to deal with disgruntled Comcast customers... I would go absolutely bug fuck. I would make Ghost in the Shell look like a day at the park.

Re:download?

[HTH NE1]

(Slightly) more seriously....how do you know that this future technology will not be initiated by a process in the brain rather than in the computer? It could require some special hypnotic or drug-induced "dump" which might then be captured by the machine.

You're still going to be interfaced to the machine, and if only for safety reasons, your mind will instruct the remote machine to pull your consciousness to it, similar to telnetting to another machine, opening an FTP connection to your laptop, and pulling your files to the remote machine (download).

What's more interesting is if you will even have a sense of transfer of consciousness or will it be a device upon which you become increasingly dependent until you no longer become dependent on your original system, with a continuity of consciousness throughout.

Because one thing you can't upload or download is code execution. Code is transferred in stasis from one system to other, but a running worm could exist as one entity on two systems until they break their connection.

Is a dividing cell uploading or downloading, or just replicating with continuity? And do we really have only one thread of consciousness or multiple threads which can separate and continue independently? Surgical evidence says the latter.

The mind is not a Turing Machine

[lawpoop]

Everytime one of these stories come up, I make this same post.

The mind is not a turing machine. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem shows us that there are some mathematical proofs that people can understand, but no Turing machine (read: any computer) will be able to compute. Therefore, human minds are qualitatively different than a turing machine. Minds are something other than computers. They are two diferent things.

So regardless of downloading your mind onto some computer, you won't really be cheating death, because that machine is not a feature-complete mind (or you will have some kind of severe mental imparement).

Currently, we don't even have a theoretical model of what the mind is.

Re:The mind is not a Turing Machine

[Tiny Elvis]

How do you know that your mind is not subject to the Incompleteness Theorem?

There are states in your mind that are 'unreachable' during normal operation. Much like a true statement that cannot be reached by applying the theorems of a formal system. (these mental states are thus "true but unprovable"). Taking drugs (going outside the system) allows you to reach these states.

Re:download?

[HTH NE1]

False. The terminology originated in the early-to-mid 1960s with mainframes with remote stations. The remote stations were the smaller computers, and "uploaded to" or "downloaded from" the mainframe, regardless of which side initiated the transfer.

And what if it were between two mainframes of equal stature? How do you describe the transfer then? If you can still use the verbs upload and download, then the stature of the machines was never relevant to the definitions and their correlation was just a coincidence.

Re:Consciousness is an instantaneous phenomenon.

[colinrichardday]

But persons may be four dimensional rather than three dimensional.

Senses

[Anonymouse Cownerd]

What makes life enjoyable is our SENSES. The fact that we can feel a hug, see our parents, listen to music, taste watermelon or smell the scent of woman is what makes life enjoyable. In a conscious state with no senses, you can't see, you can't feel, you can do anything else but think and be conscious.

Not worth living in my opinion.

Re:Senses

[Tiny Elvis]

Artificial senses could easily be integrated into the experience. What, you think you actually smell that woman? Everything in your brain is represented symbolically, including sensory information. Think about a brain surgeon stimulating parts of a brain on a patient who is awake. He is activating symbols.

cut the meta-physical crap

[adrenaline_junky]

Every now and then individuals get a clue: the Buddha, various monks in following in his footsteps, Jesus, etc.

On what basis do you make this declaration? On your own opinion of what is correct? On what "feels" right to you? Certainly not on any scientific basis, because there isn't one shred of scientific evidence that Buddha, Jesus or any of your 20th century metaphysical writers / philosophers understand the mechanics of human consciousness.

At this point there is no reason to believe that our consciousness is anything more than our physical bodies, because that is the simplest explanation (Occam's razor and all that).

Due to your ego and DESIRE for there to be something more to your consciousness than your physical body (and perhaps a desire to re-unite with lost loved ones), it is certainly easy to understand why you are so quick to believe that there must be "something more" that will "live on for eternity", but that doesn't make it true.

Anyway, from a scientific perspective, consciousness is only "not completely understood" only in the sense that we can not yet duplicate it experimentally. This isn't to say that there isn't a broad and growing knowledge base of scientific information about consciousness -- none of which implies that there is "something more" than our physical bodies involved.

Re:cut the meta-physical crap

[GreatGreenGoo]

That doesnt make in untrue either. I like to take it from the idea of we just dont know. Sure we know alot but the exact workings of conciusness in a sense of self awareness not just learning shit, is so little understood. I belive there is something but I dont know for sure. I like to think there is something more because yes it makes me feel better. However because it makes me fele better doesnt mean its true. Ultimatly these arguments boil down to "We wont know until we die"

Is anyone else thinking...

[Aldric]

Giant robots? No?

I'll just stand in the corner quietly then.

Heechee / Pohl

[Lawrence_Bird]

This was *all* done in the 1980s. Reference Heechee
Reendezvous, ISBN: 0345300556, 1985. Robin dies, he is
downloaded and learns to interface with 'the real world' via
hologram. He even manages to survive for another book.

Re:Would identical brains share conciousness

[vertinox]

The question is:

Would identical brains share identical conciousness. I mean if one could copy your brain and brainwaves (soul) exactly identical then would you also share conciouness with that being?

There isn't a way to tell now because the changes of 100% exact replicas of souls/brains aren't scientifically possible and the random chance for them to happen in nature is nihl (identical twins come close but just not close enough).

However at the same time what you could combined brains? Would two brains become one?

If you merged your brain with an entity and then your brain died would you still be aware? Would you soul live on? It's all theoretical.

Think Borg.

Re:As Usual, The Metaphysical Problem is Glossed O

[Tiny Elvis]

Suppose you were created this morning with a head full of false memories. Would you be able to tell? How do you know you are the same person who fell asleep in your bed last night?

Would waking up from sleeping all night and waking up from having just been created 'feel' any different? If not, then from the standpoint of YOU at the moment you wake up would it in fact *be* any different?

Your point is right. This is not immortality, it's replication. You don't wake up in the computer, someone who remembers being you does. But that's not necessarily differently from waking up every morning. Is it?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

google it

[fantail]

Would google be able to index my memory? As well as being able to search for things, I'd be curious of the PageRank of various memories.

Has anyone trademarked MemoryRank yet?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Can the mind be encoded as Shannon information?

[rufusdufus]

There are a lot of assumptions with this idea. One is that the mind/brain can be perfectly encoded or simulated using bits. This is a broad assumption.
Consider this: a computer program and its data being a string of bits is in the end the representation of a single, very large integer.
Is the mind an integer?
Would it be a stretch to imagine that there are physical parts of the brain that are physical embodiements of real numbers like PI that cannot be represented by an integer?

New dimension to Norman ford quote

[elgatozorbas]

Never try to tell everything you know. It may take too short a time. Norman Ford

'Never try to download everything you know. It may take only a single floppy...'

Re:download?

[prockcore]

The lesser/greater system originated from people who didn't understand upload/download and were trying to explain -- poorly -- to laymen.

How hard is it to understand? Do people have a hard time with the terms "give" versus "receive" as well?

Hey dude, I just received a present to you!

Already copied!

[maggern]

I'm a copy of my brother. As an identical twin, the cloning-debate seems strange to me. Much fuzz about nothing. Cloning, so what? Having an identical person is not bad for either person. Insted, you can do cool partytricks!

If I'm downloaded, I'll pay extra for my virtual copy to be loaded into a world with 1.000.000 female virgins and no men. Yeah, and free boose.

Could you control the copy?

[alucinor]

If you copied yourself atom-for-atom, would you be able to control and think for the copy, as well as yourself? Would you be able to see through two sets of eyes and think with two brains?

If not, then consciousness isn't a product of physics, because You can only be You, and a copy is now Someone Else.

I'm not arguing neccessarily for the soul, just the Self.

But isn't that all the soul really is? That I am Myself?

I guess the problem is that none of us knows an objective reality except through the "treaty of reality" we as a species have (mostly) agreed to, known as science ....

Hall of Tortured Souls

[stock]

You might wanna have a look at this :

"Hall of Tortured Souls" :
http://crashrecovery.org/torture/

Robert

Nothing more then a sequel

[nurb432]

Sure, its just like you, and might even be 'self aware', but its not you, its a copy...

You still die...

Re:download?

[Eric Smith]

That was much less commonly done in the mid 1960s, and it was usually not referred to as either an upload or a download.

Also, in 2051...

[mpontes]

...this bash.org quote will no longer be funny.

Flawed Fantasy.

[cryptocom]

Leave it to scientists to assume that you are the sum of your parts. Who can say for sure if consciousness will be translated over and intact along with the data? What if the human brain relies on it's active structure to make us aware that we are who we are? If there is no consciousness stored, what good are the memories? We will never be able to reconstruct a brain that matches the data stored. This would be a wasteful and futile effort if undertaken.

virus scan?

[the_REAL_sam]

excellent. before they reinstall the brain dump they can then scan for pesky viruses.

"republican national socialism has been detected. would you like to uninstall?"

Fortune Teller

[syousef]

There's another name for 'Futurologist'. It's 'Fortune Teller'. There's nothing scientific in his 'prediction'.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence avoids paying ridiculous amounts of money to fool themselves into believing that what they want to hear is true because some nut job con artist says it shall come to pass.

In any case, if I had to place bets, I'd bet this guy was wrong about the timescale. But guess what in 2050 he'll be dead and you won't be able to tell him I told you so. (Funny that his prediction comes to pass after he does. Coincidence? I think not.) Meanwhile he's invested the money he made making BS predictions and lived a full and happy life at the expense of idiots he could fool.

Reminds me about a certain CEO at a certain large database company rabbiting on about thin client taking over the world. Only he was dumb enough to make a prediction that would have to come true in his own lifetime.

Me cynical? Nahhhh!

Re:If you believe that we are biological machines.

[Eric Damron]

"Exactly. So instead of building a smart computer program, we build a simple computer program: a brain/nerve tissue simulator/interpreter. This requires very little understanding of how consciousness actually works. It does however require a very good computer, and a lot of medical research to understand how neurons really work."

I think you are assuming that if we know how neurons really work we could make a self aware computer. I believe that logic is non sequitur.

If we ever get to this point....

[Brad1138]

We would probably be able to read the mind like a book. How long till this is used in every court case as the ultimate lie detector?

Mystical and Materialistic

[Sun Rider]

Well, if you read some high level mystics like Jiddu Krishnamurti you'll see they agree that the "I" is an artificial construct made up of memories, artificial construct that has to be made disappear by achieving a total understanding of it. Only then you can transcend and be transformed to some superior kind of conscienciousness where you understand what immortality really is, stopping a cycle of reincarnations where those memories somehow converge into a new brain tuned to the field created by those old memories (karma) giving the individual the ilusion of continuity of identity ( I guess under hypnosis or something...). So, if all this is true, moving your memories to another brain would create a subjective impression of continuity of identity without having to believe in some immortal soul concept that we conveniently created to make us think we can personally keep something of all we have accumulated. So, what is really immortality, the soul, etc? Read all about it (or most of it) here: "The first and last freedom" by Jiddu Krishnamurty, the closest I've seen to a scientific explanation of oriental mystical concepts.

Expensive?

[ArcticFlood]

Of course it's going to be expensive when it first comes out. Most new technology is.

Schwarzenegger's The 6th Day

[Sparky9292]

The idea of downloading your brain reminds me of the forgettable Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day. Even though the movie was crap it made me think of the following:

1. If a character was about to die, he/she would quickly clone themselves into a new body by downloading his/her brain through the eyeballs. This occured often in the movie.
2. Would you be the same person?
3. Would your soul be downloaded as well?
4. Did anyone else have the same thoughts when they were watching this movie?

Re:subtle points

[jelle]

Exactly. It won't be exactly you. It will be a fork of you.

This reminds me of a SG-1 episode...

[Brad1138]

"Tin Man" where SG-1 returns to Earth only to find they are robots. They have all the memories of the originals and truly believe they are the originals. It turns out that they are perfect copies and the originals still exist. It is also simalar to the STNG episode where Riker is duplicated.

If you make a copy of yourself and then you die, that doesn't help you any, if anyone asked the copy he would insist he was you. How would anyone ever know for sure?

Re:Consciousness is an instantaneous phenomenon.

[colinrichardday]

But if we are four dimensional, then we are the "same" people throughout our lives. Also, I don't know if computers have intentionality, as humans do.

Good!

[iowa119900089]

Once people's brains are stored on hardware, we will be able to run a programs to search for worthy intelligence. If an individual is too dull, rm -R /Johnnys_brain Also this means that we can prove that someone is an idiot and there is nothing they can say about it.

Only for the wealty?

[Betelgeuse]

Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release.

As always, The Simpsons provides the commentary:

"Well, sure, the Frinkiac-7 looks impressive, don't touch it, but I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them."

I once...

[isbhod]

wrote a short story about this, i called it brain dumping. in my story the entire poluation was dumped into computers, and several 1000 years later aliens visited earth, and when they found no one living the build the now delapidated citys and such, they felt teh race was killed off and so when they left, they "turned out the lights" and inadvertantly wiped out the human race.

what happens with multiple copies?

[smueller]

If you're brain is copied to multiple real or virtual humans, what do you feel? do you control all of them at once? Only the first one? What happens?

Re:As Usual, The Metaphysical Problem is Glossed O

[Master of Transhuman]

Yes, it is, from an external perspective. I'm not interested in solipsist nonsense about how it "feels" or how it appears to my individual consciousness.

I'm Neo. I take the pill that wakes me up to reality. And the reality is - a duplicate of me is not me, no matter how IT happens to feel about it.

The Star Trek novels "Price of the Phoenix" and "Fate of the Phoenix" dealt with this issue rather well. The conclusion was a person IS his continuity, which is another way of saying a person is his trajectory in space-time. Being an exact duplicate of someone else gives you no claim on anything he has, no matter how you are forced to feel about it due to the fact that your entire existence up to a minute ago was his.

We won't get to that point.

[benpark22]

I think we will eliminate ourselves before we reach to the point of being able to download our brains. With ever advanced technoligies, it is getting easier and easier to make mass destruction weapons, being neuclear bombs, deadly virus, etc. As someone said it, we will be riding on a plane where every passenger is a pilot.

Halo/I Love Bees

[assassinator42]

Interesting stuff regarding cognative impression (the stuff being talked about here) in the ilovebees.com radio drama thing. Well, kind of. Apparently, in the Halo universe, if you die becoming a spartan, they turn your brain into an AI. Would you consider Cortana a human? Machines don't have souls. I think the whole thing is kind of scary.

But it won't be me

[yuri benjamin]

It won't be me - it will be a computer that thinks it's me. That's not immortality by a long shot.

Don't need to

[roman_mir]

cause I am an expert in...
nameology.

there is no difference

[roman_mir]

from one person to the next, really. We are different in the same ways in which we are the same.

If there was only two people in this universe and they lived forever they could in principle achieve the same that billions of people achieve over a given finite time period. No difference.

On my TShirt it would say:

[roman_mir]

real men don't backup: they just upload themselves to the net, and let the rest of the world mirror it.

Future Incomprehensive

[danila]

It's interesting how the media works. Here we have the head of futurology unit of British Telecom. He isn't some random guy and he clearly did some studies about the future. He makes a speech (was it at Futurex), where he, no doubt speaks at length about the future, about likely developments, about his work, about BT plans, etc. But the media takes two soundbites and rehashes them endlessly, without analisys or as much as a second thought. As a result, we get a bunch (hundreds of, to be more precise) of identical articles titled "Download your brain by 2050" and the text centering around "The other prediction was talking yoghurt by 2020".

This is pathetic. The average reader/viewer/listner has no chance to form a coherent picture of the future, or even our current ideas of it. But sadly, this is typical for news coverage of all topics. And it's actually one of the problems - that we treat such items as "news", where you get a notable person speak, then a few hundreds of nearly identical articles appear, then silence. In the best case the meme of "Playstation 5 will be as powerful as a human brain" will spread and settle in the brains of the public.

Instead of starting a decades-long discussion of all the implications of the future changes, instead of purposefully changing our societies to adapt to the scientific and technological advances, instead of basing our research budgets on the goal of achieving the most desirable of all possible futures, we just live as if nothing important is happening. This is beyond sad.

I don't know how you can change that, may be it's impossible in the world of corrupt democracies and commercialised mass-media, but if you personally want to understand where we are heading, check out the links in the end of this post.

Ian Pearsen is late. I remember the idiotic 21st century forecast that BT produced five years ago. Only now he starts to get things that better thinkers realised a decade ago. For some people the idea of mind uploading is not new and they already managed to present a much more comprehensive picture of the future.

Here are some of the resources outlining it:

• World Transhumanism Association
• Singularity Institute
• KurzweilAI.net
• Extropy Institute
• Transtopia
• Better Humans

• Anders Transhuman Page - a comprehensive directory of transhumanist resources
• Transhumanism at del.icio.us

syllable nazi = me

[Vintermann]

How many syllables are there in those two first lines? Sheesh ;-) How about this?

A scientist was heard to say,
Upload my brain, that I may,
But my memory contains
Things not public domain
And I'd violate DMCA.

Kill me that my doppelganger may live

[obtuse]

The Futurist (Future-ologist? Seer? Scryer? Confidence man?) must attract enough attention to be relevant (or rather paid) but must avoid appearing to be a total idiot to remain relevant.

Couple'o little difficulties:

The butterfly effect would make it very likely that an error would cascade out of sync with the original. Chaos theory is actually relevant here. I suppose we don't care about errors as long as we make sure the original isn't still alive.

The entire brain would have to be read instantaneously, or else you'd have to collect and integrate a few (even in a somnolent state) diffs, where few approximates each neural impulse both within the brain and the entire nervous system. Note that neither of these problems is the same as constructing a computer of greater complexity than the brain.

Brain without body would be insane. We simulate the body? Solve that and the other issues of cellular mechanics that plague this sophomoric idea and we've arrived at teleportation.

Finally, it is perfectly likely that there are quantum events that are meaningful in the brain. As in processes that it is fundamentally impossible to eavesdrop on. Not demonstrated, but far from impossible or even unlikely. See Heisenberg, Penrose.

This is the sort of crap that gave SciFi a bad name for so long, and still embarrasses AI. If you're going to posit an asinine what-if, you'd better do something really interesting with it fast, or nobody will hear anything else.

Of course, I'd fight like hell even if somebody told me I had to die so that my doppelganger could live, teleporter or no.

To the metaphysical issues:

In _Total Recall_ the end of the movie appears to be a heroic and happy ending. Nonetheless, at that point it is entirely possible that our hero is imagining everything, completely insane, and slaughtered a lot of innocent people including his own devoted wife. That ambiguity is true to the book, and one of the things I love most about Philip K. Dick.

On continuity: This is the sort of metaphysical question that Jorge Luis Borges was adept at exploring concisely and eloquently. Even when he posited specious arguments, he remained a poet, and thus they could be beautiful.

Re:download? -MOD PARENT UP

[LSD-OBS]

Similarly, you cannot send a function to a parameter. Hamburger does not eat you for dinner. Etc etc

You're obviously not from Soviet Russia.

first post!

[linoleo]

check it out, TFA even comes with /.ish comments pre-attached on page 2! No need to post, folks, nothing to see here, move on... (scrolls down 1057 posts) doh!

Glorious Future

[ddelrio]

That's great. All we need is billions of crappy-ass computerized entities arguing over whether or not abortion should or should not be legal and using up precious processing cycles praying to their gods.

It is still a copy

[brunes69]

Imagine we do indeed have atom-by-atom replicating software in thr future.

If I take a coffee mug, and replicate it atom-by-atom, it is still not the original. It is a copy. It is a perfect copy, to be sure, but a copy nonetheless.

If you could indeed copy your consciousness to a computer before death, that would not save you from dieing. *You* would still die. *You* will lose consciousness and fade into nothing. The copy will live on.

You, as your current self, will gain nothing at all from this procedure. You will still die and not have any idea what the copy does or thinks, because you will cease to exist. Maybe if you consider youself to be a great man, then you could argue that society gains from not having lost your presence. But who would be that vain? Not me.

Re:download? -MOD PARENT UP

[HTH NE1]

I see. I was reading into it the common P2P-er misconception (reinforced by the software's own misuse of the terms) that every upload entails a download and vice versa.

(Though a server can also be a client to another server, or even itself, further pursuit of this will get needlessly nitpicky.)

Re:download?

[HTH NE1]

Well, at least one thing I think we can agree on is that terms can evolve over time, but that aspects of their core meaning should remain, and the most useful at that, in a direction that increases their utility.

We do have a need to define terms for transfer between equal (or even the same: ftp 127.0.0.1) machines. I strongly feel that it is more useful to have the usage of "to upload to" and "to download from" determined by where the actor is performing the action. Their definition relative to the stature of the machines involved is more archaic and less useful today, especially when modern usage refers to humans initiating the actions, not the machines performing them. (Especially when assigning responsibility for purposes of conviction.)

Sorry to continually fall back on FTP, but its command structure appears to me to be strongly influenced by the conventions of upload and download to describe the direction of the file transfer relative to the user's location.

Re:download?

[Retric]

We have already simulated a simple brain before. Granted this a simple worm with 12 or so neurons but it's hard to point out why if it works with 12 you can't go to 12k, 12m or 12b.

At some point it just comes down to how accurate you method for decoding a brain is and how much processing power we get to use. I think we could build a computer network that was about as smart as a person right now but I still think it's 20+ years till the first simulated rat brain shows up.

Re:If you believe that we are biological machines.

[joto]

I think you are assuming that if we know how neurons really work we could make a self aware computer.

No. The computer wouldn't be self-aware. The program it is running would be. That program we don't need to build. It is uploaded from someones brain. What we need is good enough knowledge about how neurons work to build a simulator good enough to replace the physical brain.

I believe that logic is non sequitur.

Only because of the way you state the argument.

Here are the unstated assumptions:

1. What we call our consciousness is akin to "software" running on a "computer" known as a "brain".
2. Advances in medicine/biotechnology will make it possible to capture the "state" of a given neuron in a brain

And here are the stated assumptions

1. Computer technology continues to improve at near Moore's law
2. Advances in medicine/biotechnology will give us a sufficient understanding of brain neurons to run a simulation of them.

Together these assumptions lead to downloading as a definite possibility. On the other hand, if you insist on a completely logical argument, you shouldn't try to predict the future.

eR:aHah

[ikkonoishi]

cixelsyD elpoep deen ot amrak erohw ot, uoY evitisnesni .dolc

Re:download?

[jusdisgi]

You're still going to be interfaced to the machine, and if only for safety reasons, your mind will instruct the remote machine to pull your consciousness to it, similar to telnetting to another machine, opening an FTP connection to your laptop, and pulling your files to the remote machine (download).

Dude, put that back in your ass from whence you pulled it.

Re:Subjective / Objective Viewpoints of Consciousn

[Famatra]

"We're all copies."

Your particular copy though has the same set of experiences starting with your first memory after infantile amnesia (which is why few, if any, people remember anything before the age of ~2) and will end at death.

The point is that this viewpoint will end at death irrespective of how many other copies of you exist.

Re:subtle points

[podperson]

Fair experiment, but I think you've reductio ad absurdum the wrong assumption (which is why RAA is considered inferior to constructive proofs by many). I'd suggest that the idea that a copy is the same as the original is the problem assumption.