Hardware Implants Mimic Brain Cells

An anonymous reader writes "PopSci is reporting that Ted Berger, a USC scientist, has been working to engineer a brain implant the mimics the functions of neurons. Early tests on rat brain cells have shown promise, and if successful, Berger's implant could remedy everything from Alzheimer's to absent-mindedness — and reduce memory loss to nothing more than a computer glitch"

Comments

Had to be done

[Darth Hubris]

Press earlobe-eyeball-nose to continue

Re:Had to be done

[networkBoy]

Good god a BSOD could be bad.

There is a treatment for Essential Tremor that involves electrical stimulation of the hypothalamus. You can only treat one side of an individual else they may lose the ability to speak. While I would hope this would improve treatment options (seeing as I have a moderate case), I would be fearful of the cpu latching up in some way or another.
-nB

Re:Had to be done

[vimh42]

BSOD - Flip the bird to continue.

Re:Had to be done

[Alphons Clenin]

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

LOL

That's great!

[Anonymous Coward]

...but will it run Linux?

Re:That's great!

[Xymor]

As far I can tell, this only routes signals, But if di processed anything (or better, when it does), are you really gonna rely on any proprietary solution installed in your brain?

They better run linux and/or release all the source of the software running in the chip I'm gonna attach to my brain or no deal.

Re:That's great!

[PitaBred]

Fuck that. I'll write my own compiler and software, thank you very little. Or just use it as a dumb memory increaser. I'm scared of any rogue processing inside my head... you know that someone will want to add an ability for the government to spy on anything going on in someone's "brain co-processor"

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the future we will have cyberbrain sclerosis? For real?! Can't wait...

Java?

[HaeMaker]

Does it run Java?

1.4? 1.5? Colombian?

Re:Java?

[AKAImBatman]

Does the main bus of your computer run Java? Does it run x86 instructions? Does it run anything of the sort?

This technology appears to be mainly about routing signals, not generating or processing them. It assists with memory by properly storing and retrieving those signals, but it does not interpret them. (As evidenced by his comment, "I don't need to understand music to repair a CD Player.")

The article is correct, however, in that this technology will bring us one step closer to understanding how the brain functions. Since these neurons are artificial, the signals passing through can be sampled and stored on an external device. This would allow researchers to reverse engineer many signals in parallel rather than trying to trace one or two signals through the brain as they've been doing.

Unfortunately, I doubt this technology will outright unlock the secrets of conciousness. Remember how neural networks were intended to be an invaluable research tool into self-awareness? Well, the resulting networks ended up working in a similar but fundamentally different way from the organic brain. That fundamental difference prevented the networks from fully simulating the human brain.

So we'll take the next step forward, and learn where our previous mistakes were. Not to mention, uncover thousands of new questions. :)

Re:Java?

[MillionthMonkey]

IIRC the Java spec requires a 32-bit von Neumann architecture supported by a filesystem that can support long filenames. If you're smart enough, in principle you can (inefficiently) simulate all these features yourself with a pencil, lots of scrap paper, the information in library JAR files, and the JVM spec. So if the artificial neurons can implement the functionality of the natural ones in intelligent people, you get Java support "for free" and you can avoid "reinventing the wheel" (investors love to hear that one).

Re:Java?

[Ced_Ex]

Cuban. But it's not open-source just yet.

Re:Java?

[LordSnooty]

Insert that joke/you graphic

Re:Java?

[AKAImBatman]

No, I got the joke. But explaining why it wasn't funny was a nice segue (sorry, segway) into a more complete discussion on the topic. :)

Re:Java?

[ma1wrbu5tr]

I understand, and agree with you entirely. But I'm still going to see if I can get Linux to run on it. :)

Re:Java?

[Prune]

Damasio et al already have pinned down the neruological circuits on which consciousness depends (and the evidence is that when they are disrupted, only consciousness is disrupted but not anything else, such as senses or wakefulness; of course wakefulness is not the same as consciousness and you can have wakefulness without consciousness, such as in disorders like absence automatism). You really seem to be unaware of the last ten years of research into the neural correlates of consciousness.

Re:Java?

[AKAImBatman]

Pinning down the correct neurons is not the same as understanding how they work. This technology allows neurologists to capture the exact messages passed, analogous to having a tap on a computer bus. You may know where the CPU is, but just getting the bus working doesn't tell you how to replicate the CPU. However, it can allow you to capture information that may allow you to indirectly discern how it works.

Re:Java?

[Prune]

It is the specific connections to other parts of the brain that made Damasio propose a very interesting theory of at least the abstract nature of the operation of these identified regions (and the effects when various of these connections are severed is the best way to follow up on that). There's a layman's version in his book "The Feeling of What Happens", and you can follow up through the bibliography of papers after.

Brain Implants?

[CowTipperGore]

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/30 bd63e3

Time to recycle the MS-Borg icon

[davidwr]

Methinks it's high time to make a generic borg icon for cyborg-tech stories.

Is "PopSci" the old Popular Science mag?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Is "PopSci" the old Popular Science mag? The one with the futuristic scramjets and flying cars on the cover and pages filled with useless gadgets? (I think half its readers went to Wired and the other half went to SlashDot.)

Re:Is "PopSci" the old Popular Science mag?

[Yetihehe]

Yes, but it's actually updated once a week (so like in real magazine, there are 4 mediocre articles a month (no, i didn't RTFM))

Re:Is "PopSci" the old Popular Science mag?

[spun]

Don't forget the exciting new military advertis... errr, technology stories in every issue. And the "build your own hovercraft" ads in the back.

Pop Up Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely off topic, but when did Slashdot start with the popup ads?

Re:Pop Up Ads

[Jaqenn]

When you went and got your PC infected last night. View less pr0n. Alternately, see if some web-based scanner can clean you up: http://housecall.trendmicro.com/.

unless you are testifying to congress...

[johnny cashed]

Then it becomes, "I do not recall" this and "I don't remember" that...

Re:unless you are testifying to congress...

[Opportunist]

No, it becomes "Sorry, had a HD crash".

Re:unless you are testifying to congress...

[Divide By Zero]

General error reading drive C.
Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail? f
C:\>

I'm sorry, Senator, I seem to have developed some bad sectors.

Re:unless you are testifying to congress...

[SEWilco]

"Depends on where the meaning of "is" is."

Windows

[Jason1729]

It will run windows and the TOS will say MS owns all your thoughts and you can't think bad things about MS.

It's all good until...

[rackhamh]

I'd hate to see what happens when you get a BSOD.

Re:It's all good until...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already seen it! http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEWEgDvrjdU

Re:It's all good until...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amused that the parent was modded redundant when it was only about the 6th post in the topic.

Engineered humans?

[Checkmait]

I am torn over this idea because clearly it represents a potential major advance in science and a cure to several insidious, incurable (as of today) diseases. We could probably extend the life expectancy of humans by a decade or so.

However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....

Re:Engineered humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

No no - the russians already tried that in Rocky 4...

Re:Engineered humans?

[D4rk Fx]

feel-no-pain specimen....

Well, I hope that they do leave the pain part out. Otherwise there will be a bunch of robots running around screaming:
'Why was I programmed to feel pain!'

Re:Engineered humans?

[future assassin]

>However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen..

Or imagine someone local and maybe you know creating a device that takes you out and then they rob you or even better cause the chip to kill you.

Re:Engineered humans?

[badboy_tw2002]

A decade? That's much to short sighted. Something like this could eventually enable immortality. Think about it - if you replace enough neurons, pretty soon most of who you are would live inside the machine. At that point, who's to say where your consciousness lives? Whats to stop you from transferring to a completely electronic brain and living on as long as you have juice? Of course, there's a lot of metaphysics around this - would "you" still be "you", what if you made a copy, etc. etc. Fascinating stuff. Of course, we're a long ways off from it, but if you look where transistors and such were 50 years ago, its not such a stretch to think this will be a possibility in the next few centuries.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Mr Europe]

Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....

That's why we must immediately start creating patriotic, eight-foot, feel-no-pain fighters !

Re:Engineered humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be rude or flame anyone but it is disappointing to see something like this...does everything have to do with Al Qaeda these days, Is everyone that brainwashed ???? I would be more concerned about U.S. Military & Government using it against its own people well before Al Qaeda did anything with it or figured out how to make it work. I would be more concerned it would be used by certain administrations that do not believe in checks and balances systems and rules a country like a regime more then elected officials. My guess is this has probably already been done by DARPA and we are now just hearing it about it.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Half a dent]

"Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen...."

Unfortunately Al Qaeda didn't need this kind of technology in order to "program" their followers, they did a horribly effective job using traditional methods.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

As do Christians, Muslims, all religions...

Re:Engineered humans?

[jlf278]

"Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen...."

Uhm, what does this have to do with the article? And how is it in any way a reasonable or likely downside to innovating such an amazing leap in technology? Alzheimer's in incurable; while a fearless, seven-foot (still confused about that part), feel-no-pain terrorist can just be tasered or shot.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to us when those hordes of Christian terrorists start flying planes into buildings and setting off bombs, champ. Your relativism is stupid.

Re:Engineered humans?

[ArcticCelt]

>Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen.... Or imagine some corrupt manipulative entity use it to control the population instead like let's say... the government!

Re:Engineered humans?

[x2A]

"Why was I programmed to feel... shame?"

Re:Engineered humans?

[x2A]

"would "you" still be "you""

Sounds very philosophical, but it isn't really... it's a language question: what do you define the word "you" to mean?

Re:Engineered humans?

[x2A]

Christians have killed plenty in the name of their religion, and used terror tactics on plenty of non-believers. Maybe different weapons and on different scales, but fundamentally, still the same.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well.. If you believe that Al Qaeda exists (as a real and sophisticated group) - despite all actual evidence to the contrary - then it seems you have already been sufficently programmed via the old school analog method.

Perhaps you should use the internet - instead of the TV - for compiling more accurate data sets.

We should be far more worried about governments - and by extention their highly unregulated Intelligence Agencies - misuing this technology.

But - as with all technologies - we should not fear it simply because of its potential for mis-use.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Wingnut64]

However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen.... Heh, the same type of organization that has cost-effective suicide bombers as it's backbone? To be sure, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see 'cyberbrain hacking' a la Ghost in the Shell within my lifetime, but the idea of some terrorist group with 1/100,000th the budget of their enemies making an army of invincible nuclear mutants is just laughable. Besides, it's already possible to 'program' humans to a degree; parents and religions (among others) have been doing it for most of our history.

Re:Engineered humans?

[marcosdumay]

"However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today."

Not with the current architecture. The easiest* way to program a neural network is trough experience, what we already do and are (mostly) able to perceive.

Now, future architectures may be succeptible to that... We'll have quite a new use for firewalls then.

*By 'easiest' I mean the only way that doesn't need a cumputer several orders of magnitude faster than the one you are programming.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Lord Ender]

However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today.

We already have this. It's called "religion," "nationalism," or "racism," depending on the form.

Note: If this seems offensive to you, and you have no doubts (faith) that your religion is the the one true religion, and your country is the best, surely you must admit that those other people over there have been "programmed" into falsely thinking that their religion is true and their country is best.

Re:Engineered humans?

[jimbolauski]

Al Qaeda perform brain surgry, they're in the 50's as far as technology goes by the time their capable of this robots will rule the world.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Checkmait]

The reason I said a decade is that there is a certain point at which tissues start to break down: heart attacks and strokes would be just as likely as before. Maybe one group would gain fifty years but another only five.

But then again, I could be wrong.... the average of five and fifty is 32.5 to begin with :-)

Re:Engineered humans?

[db32]

Not that I disagree with the idea presented, but I suspect that you have already been programmed by the media to make the evil terrorist association. Fact of the matter is the US and Russia and I imagine China and quite possibly a few others have gone MUCH MUCH farther towards this end than any evil boogeyman terrorist organization. Look up some of the freak science shit the US and Russia were doing during the cold war. Makes strapping a bomb to your chest seem rather stone age.

That aside, I suspect it would be a terrible waste for any terrorist organization to even bother given that their prefered method of fighting frequently involves self detonation/destruction. (Slashdot Car Analogy Time!) Its like buying a Mercedes to go to the demolition derby, it just doesn't make sense.

Re:Engineered humans?

[jfdawes]

Uhm, maybe because pain is the body's way of telling you that something you're doing to it is causing damage?

Without a pain analog, you get robots that are unable to respond to damage that they did not detect with whatever other senses they have available.

i.e. Just because you didn't feel yourself get shot in the back, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Checkmait]

I am tempted to simply ignore you but will give a chance with this allegation: can you show me that Al Qaeda does not exist as a sophisticated group? I say it does; and we have found training camps in Afghanistan. Your turn.

Re:Engineered humans?

[StellarFury]

Yes, let's jump on the bandwagon of terror. Al-Qaeda doesn't have the technological prowess to manufacture a nuclear weapon, much less tinker with the human brain. And even if they did, what you're talking about is too cost-ineffective for anyone, much less a terrorist organization, to seriously consider. Think about it. Why would Al-Qaeda want to spend the astronomical amount of money needed to create a hulking, fearless, pain-free warrior when they already have fearless, crafty agents who are willing to die for their cause? Bombs are much more effective than humans, regardless how cyborg-ed they are. Bombs don't think, and bombs don't die.

The only people who might even attempt something like what you're describing are the United States. But we have these wonderful things called "human rights" that tend to get in the way of harebrained mad scientists.

Re:Engineered humans?

[mdielmann]

Its like buying a Mercedes to go to the demolition derby, it just doesn't make sense. I was thinking more of a hacking expedition myself. Hijack someone through their hardware, program them to do what you want (which may not be what they want) and you don't need to use the prospect of 70 virgins in the afterlife for people to do your dirty work. Just a few hours of downtime with the right person...

And here's a book that starts on that premise.

Re:Engineered humans?

[jimbojw]

> a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....

I didn't know Chuck Norris needed inventing

Re:Engineered humans?

[Dr. Eggman]

...and Corporations, Governments, Parents. I think it unfair to only metion religion when talking about 'human programming.' This isn't something that only certain organizations do; all people do it. There is a saying that says people are separated from animals by their desire to control their environment, in reality we are separated by our desire to control everything, including each other.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Troed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christia n_terrorism&oldid=119869958

Re:Engineered humans?

[Troed]

No you haven't. Some people find it convinient that your believe it, though, making you feel good about them performing different acts under the pretence that it's for your protection.

Re:Engineered humans?

[EllisDees]

I don't believe he's talking about the word "you", unless you think he's asking whether the word is the same as itself. He's asking whether the experience you have as an individual would be different after you've had a significant number of your natural neurons replaced with artificial ones.

Postmodernism aside, it is an interesting question.

Re:Engineered humans?

[x2A]

If the artificial neurons worked the same as the original ones (result wise anyway) then you'd feel no difference... if you did, then they're obviously inperfect simulations of the actual neurons, as we're not aware of our structure in an individual neuron manner, only the overall effect.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Imagine a terrorist with a gun! He could shoot people, lets blow up all the guns.

Wow! Imagine a terrorist with a computer! He could hack stuff and make everything on the interwebs explode, lets blow up all the computers.

Wow! Imagine a terrorist with a pie! He could drown babies in it, lets blow up all the pies.

This: "clearly it represents a potential major advance in science and a cure to several insidious, incurable (as of today) diseases. We could probably extend the life expectancy of humans by a decade or so." is actually weighed evenly in your world against a someone possibly doing something with this?

Everything can be used by terrorists to do something bad, get over it.

As for human programming, maybe they can program people not to be afraid of stuff because bad people might possibly use it to hurt people.

Sounds like a winning scenario to me.

Re:Engineered humans?

[snilloc]

Additionally, if your identity = "U", and you develop Alzheimer's disease, you are going to be identical to "U - a". An implant would make you "U - a + i". Either way, you're starting with "U-a" at the get-go. So IMO this has few implications for identity or ethics if it is used only to treat diseased or incapacitated individuals.

Re:Engineered humans?

[badboy_tw2002]

Well, I guess I'm assuming by the point this tech would be viable (sounds like a long time) we'll have a way of easily replacing other "less vital" organs that don't define your identity. We can do transplants of most major organs that break down, but you can't really grow a new brain in a jar and start using that without it being someone else.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That's fine, but it doesn't have to be such a godawful experience -- and you should be able to shut it off mentally.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Actually, you've stumbled onto the primary problem and philosophical question about AI.

You've duplicated the information-crunching aspect of a neuron. Ok, fair enough.

Now how in god's name does the subjective perceptual conscious experience arise out of that? You didn't simulate that whatsoever.

Searle pointed out that, since consciousness is a physical phenomena, it must arise out in the real world somehow. But merely duplicating the information pushing (probably) isn't enough. It can't just arise out of the nothingess of information pushing per se.

Re:Engineered humans?

[PitaBred]

Go watch Ghost in the Shell sometime.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If they can produce this before the US can produce pleasure plug-ins (which, by the way, most Middle East "leaders" will buy before most US citizens) then we deserve to lose.

Re:Engineered humans?

[RedElf]

I for one welcome our new human brain programming overlords...

Re:Engineered humans?

[ni42]

>Whats to stop you from transferring to a completely electronic brain and living on as long as you have juice?

What's to stop you?

Natural resources (or lack thereof). Money (being busy dealing with the cost of having a *place* to live -- not to mention retirement). Power (if you don't have any). Politics (all those people in developing countries ALSO wanting electronic brains, the greedy bastards -- and all the people in power who want to look like they care). You know, business as usual.

Besides, electronic != invulnerable. Don't people talk about how their cars or their computers "DIE"? Personally, I think our body has a good thing going with its cell division technology (as long as it has juice). Sadly, our cells are programmed to die... except for cancer cells, which are programmed to be immortal. I'm hoping for a fix in Homo sapiens 2.0.1.

I don't have a problem with an electronic brain. (I have money. Bring it on!) I'm just saying it's not the magic key to eternal life.

Re:Engineered humans?

[kermit1221]

First thing's first, I'm not overly happy I wasted the time reading Robin Cook's Abduction. I don't recommend reading it at all. Silliness, pure silliness. That said...

In Robin Cook's novel Abduction the later-generation human-ish things "upload" their consciousness into a computer, have a new body constructed (probably along the lines of cloning), then are re-downloaded into the new body, thus becomming effectively immortal. Death was a planned excercise, occurring when the body-mainframe data transfer happened. When someone was killed (which never happened, utopia, blah) before the transfer happened though, everything of that person was lost permanently (maybe Atlantis never heard of tarballs?).

Anyway, I still don't recommend you go read that, even if it does have a sub-storyline like you're talking about here.

Re:Engineered humans?

[G-funk]

I sense injuries. The data could be called pain.

Re:Engineered humans?

[StikyPad]

Pain is nature's solution to damage messaging, but that doesn't mean it's the best solution. It's certainly effective to persistantly and insistantly remind the brain that a part of the body needs attention, but -- especially in artificial life -- allowing the message to be noted and dismissed could prove more effective, especially when pain begins to interfere with paying attention to more pressing threats like the possibility of catching a second bullet.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Prune]

Unfortunately, you missed the most interesting thing about this: a gradual replacement of biological tissue with artificial one until it is complete is equivalent to making an artificial copy first then killing the original biological human. The only difference is continuity, and that's something that is very difficult to define and say "here exactly lies the line that makes it murder or not".

Re:Engineered humans?

[edschurr]

I took too long so I'm redundant, but it wasn't really answerable anyway:

If you were to take the right hemisphere of someone's brain, and a transistor computer that mimicks the right hemisphere down to the particle, and then switch them seamlessly (1), then what? The new hybrid brain would be behave the same, I expect.(2) The left hemisphere would still have an experience of the same "kind", for sure.(3) Would the right have an experience? A new experience?

Voltage potentials builing up, and electrons hopping between particles in the layers of the transistor... versus molecules of the neurotransmitters moving around, bonds forming and breaking between particles, and electrons moving down the axons.(4)

If it is the "subjective perceptual conscious experience" then people will probably consider it unethical to torture simulations. If it is something new then will we be able to tell? Does either mean anything of consequence anyway?(5)

Hofstadter's Strange Loops seems relevant but I don't understand them yet.

And finally, what about when we start screwing around with the structure of cells and putting them into brains?

Notes that clutter up my logic:

1. Presumably the computer can operate at the synapse where necessary, isn't entirely in the skull, and somehow the other chemical stuff is managed properly.
2. Based on what I've read of experiments with people who have had their corpus callosom destroyed to control seizures. The hemispheres are still connected at the brain stem.
3. It seems strange and unlikely that something besides particle interactions is causing the brain to behave appreciably different.
4. Or protons, perhaps. Supposedly current through the body may include protons. I wouldn't think that the "holes" move means anything physical.
5. I am thinking not, and that it's just our darned empathy. Gotta remember to build that into the machine...

Re:Engineered humans?

[edschurr]

I think I put a reference in the wrong place but I can't even tell where.

Re:Engineered humans?

[KlausBreuer]

You know, you're a bit right: when I read that article, the very first thought in my mind was that the US gouverment would want to control this, in order to control its population better.
Who knows what code they'd put in there?

But, instead, you whined about the eeeevil terrorist Al-Queda organisation. After all, we have to be sooo veeery much careful about the eeeevil terrrrrorists, and do everything our gouverment tells us to do. I mean, it has nothing to do with the US officially *supporting* terrorists for many years, as for example right now in Iran...

Ah, bah. Sorry, but this topic is getting on my nerves.

To come back to our topic, I'm quite, quite certain that the US will want to control such devices, in order to defeat the evil terrorism...
(thank The Gods that I don't live there anymore)

Re:Engineered humans?

[db32]

At that point it is highly dependent on how the technology works. If it really is just as simple as using man made circuits to replace biological circuits I doubt there is much room for that style of programming. However, knowing humanity, the technology will eventually be at that state, and I'm certain we will have a whole slew of problems of that nature. Luckily I imagine it will be terribly expensive technology and only the wealthy elite will be able to afford it. So again I doubt it will be that type of programming until it is widespread, but more of subtle political manipulations. That type of programming would be infinitely more valuable if it was used for subtle things and remained undetected. This paranoid fear of the boogeyman is killing me, yes its a real threat, but you are FAR more likely to be fucked by your own government than by some towel head with a bomb strapped to his chest.

Re:Engineered humans?

[mdielmann]

I agree with just about all your general sentiments. But, like in the book, those with a compelling need or incredible wealth are the best targets to use as a programmed agent. After all, they'll likely have access to people or locations that are most valuable to attack. OTOH, to enact widespread societal change would require ubiquity, which is much farther down the road. Propaganda will probably always be cheaper for the government.

And yes, I fear governments far more than I do terrorists. Terrorists are like the lottery you don't want to win. The good news is, the odds are still low for you to be targeted. But the government is always there in any place that's worth living, and will have some impact in your life.

Re:Engineered humans?

[EllisDees]

>Now how in god's name does the subjective perceptual conscious experience arise out of that? You didn't simulate that whatsoever.

Why do you assume you have to? What makes you believe that conscious experience is anything more than 'information pushing' of a certain nature?

Douglas Hofstadter has a new book out that deals exactly with this subject, I Am a Strange Loop. It covers a lot of the same ground as 'Godel, Escher, Bach' but is a lot easier to read.

Re:Engineered humans?

[x2A]

A lot of more advanced AIs aren't just a case of programming them... the base is programmed, and it then has to learn (such as machines that learn to walk - it's easier to program a system that you can teach to walk, than it is to program a system that can walk). This is no different to humans... they're a combination of their genetic brain, and the experiences that change it. If you was to make a silicon version of a brain, right down to all the connection (eg, copy someones brain who was later in their life), you're copying the memories of all their experiences while you're at it, thus everything that allows the person to understand things in the way they do... but that's plenty more difficult.

I don't think there's anything philosphical about it at all.

Re:Engineered humans?

[db32]

Funny that you would say the lottery you don't want to win. I have been saying that about this whole mess and most of its related insanity. The massive government spending on this "Fear the boogeyman" campaign and its associated lock downs is like trying to use the lottery as an investment strategy. People are more afraid of a terrorist attack then they are of dying in an alcohol related incident, yet in 2001 even using the higher figure body count for 9/11 you were still something like 5000% more likely to die in an alcohol related incident. They will imprison and interrogate people who they think were talking to someone who might be thinking about a terror attack (or frequently just grab the wrong guy because they had the same name, I mean they are all terrorists right?), shuttle them off to secret prisons and torture (err we mean interrogate) them, yet they can pull your ass over stinking of booze and the most that will happen is you lose your license for a while and spend the night in the drunk tank.

Re:Engineered humans?

[mdielmann]

The two things are entirely different. I'm not overly concerned about terrorist attacks, and very much concerned about government interference/corruption. I was just pointing out what would probably be the more economic and effective vector. As a matter of fact, the action in the book I referred to had nothing to do with terrorism - the main character is one of the targets of a military coup.

Re:Engineered humans?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

>> Now how in god's name does the subjective perceptual conscious experience
>> arise out of that? You didn't simulate that whatsoever.
>
> Why do you assume you have to?

This was Searle's position, which, as a hot-headed youngster, I didn't respect as much as I should have.

Consciousness exists -- therefore it arises out of physics somehow.

Pushing information around is not physics. It is based on physics, but it is not physics. What actually happens is this or that molecule or electron or atom moves around in such-and-such a way and bounces into other stuff.

Somehow out of that configuration of atoms and molecules and electrons flouncing around in activity as a "neuron", arises consciousness.

By changing it to a circuit, you have radically altered the physics of the situation.

Searle's position, which Hofstadter doesn't recognize, is that, whatever consciousness is, you cannot conclude it will arise out of a radically different configuration of different molecules and electrons and atoms.

This is not a speaker, which can construct sound waves that are more or less identical to those that come out of your grunting throat. "Consciousness" is this "sound", so to speak -- and, whatever an electronic circuit is doing pushing info, what it is not doing is constructing a physical phenomena we call consciousness.

Of course, I, and Searle, could be wrong. But I'm doubting it -- it all comes down to real physics "out there", and circuits emulating a brain are not a brain any more than circuits emulating a muscle are a muscle. But I mentioned that in the original post -- it seems like consciousness must be nothing other than information pushing; yet it cannot be as well, for reasons further detailed.

When was the last time you encountered a glitch?

[Demon-Xanth]

"reduce memory loss to nothing more than a computer glitch"

9:32AM? 5 mintues ago? While loading this page...

I'd had to lose my mind as often as the average PC loses it's.

Let's do it RIGHT this time!

[StefanJ]

Let's build DRM into those artificial neurons, so that the Man of the Future loses bladder control and convulsively vomits if he tries to access pirated media.

Re:Let's do it RIGHT this time!

[MoodyLoner]

I must be running a beta.

Or do American Idol and Survivor do that to everybody?

Re:Let's do it RIGHT this time!

[networkBoy]

Only those above the sheeple advertiser intelligence index.
(they still on the air even? I remember watching survivor but man it was a long time ago (first season))
-nB

Re:Let's do it RIGHT this time!

[Don853]

American Idol is so popular it no longer needs to advertise, as near as I can tell. I was shocked last year to find it was the most watched program on television. I don't know about survivor.

Re:Let's do it RIGHT this time!

[networkBoy]

Yeah, I'm one of those freaks without a TV.
I get no reception where I'm at and I'd rather throw my money at DSL over Sat TV or Cable (both of which cost more if you want data).

You know.....

[LordPhantom]

I, for one, welcome our new hyper-intelligent engineered-brain rat overlords! I've also invested in cheese futures.

Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[antifoidulus]

or is it just part of being human, and more importantly, a part of who you are as a person? I exhibit all the signs of adult ADD(lets not go into the debate of whether it is really a disease or not) but I refuse to take personality altering drugs. I may wind up more successful etc. but I lose a fundamental part of who I am. I won't take anti-depressents for the same reason. So I personally fail to see how absent mindedness is something different. Its part of who you are, embrace it!

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[Shados]

Yeah, I agree with you (and I'm about as far from ADD as it gets, so I'm not biaised). The thing really, is that most mental "issues" are simply defined as "Problem XYZ, when XYZ starts being problematic in the person's everyday life". Very, very vague, with no black or white, just an ocean of gray area.

Really, someone with ADD is just someone normal, whom's "Uniqueness" (for lack of better word) is incompatible with sociaty as it is now. The drugs and stuff can be useful, but only in extreme scenarios (in other words, I doubt more than 1/100 person who takes them today really should)

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[qwijibo]

Any quirk's need to be "cured" depends on its impact on the individual. If you have a bunch of symptoms that don't impact you severely enough to be willing to try the drugs, you don't need it. Other people could have more or less severe symptoms, but have a much more negative impact on their lives.

If your absentmindedness can be compensated for by checking several times if you locked the door, turned the water off, etc, it's not a big deal. If you are driving, go to change the radio station and get so caught up with the radio that you forget you're driving, that is likely to be a more severe problem.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[192939495969798999]

Having seen Alzheimer's in my family, I can tell you that anything that might cure that would be worth it for me. It is the most horrible tragedy to see someone lose a lifetime of memories, it is unthinkable until you see it for yourself how devastating it really is.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[Bat Country]

That's certainly your choice, if you feel your personality is worth preserving at the expense of your usefulness.

Me, I'll take the blue pill and be able to pay attention to my friends when they're talking to me, listen to my boss when he's explaining what he wants me to do, and remember what I was just typing...

Wait, what was I saying?

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[mutterc]

refuse to take personality altering drugs

Before I started therapy (for the usual bitterness / depression that afflicts folks like us), my wife actually said "I hope this doesn't change your personality." I reminded her "that's kind of the whole point."

Drugs (for ADD and depression) and therapy have in fact altered my personality. Most importantly, into an employable one. It's now been over 2 years since I berated anyone at work for being dedicated ("dude, do you really think doing the deathmarch thing to get this out on time is going to save your job from going to India when the time comes?"). When managers utter their usual inanities, I smile and nod instead of publically calling bullshit. I was able to have a child after losing some of my (religiously unshakable) faith that, in my lifetime, I and everyone else who wasn't already rich would be living in the streets fighting over scraps of food.

My point (if I had one) is that sometimes a different personality is for the better.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[x2A]

Your brain, thus who you are, changes every single day (every hour, every minute, every second...), it's part of being alive. What's important is whether you consider those changes a good or bad thing, whether the resulting person is someone you like more or less. Whether it's chemicals, hardware, or good old fasioned "experiences" that causes your changes, doesn't really make much difference.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[Lord Ender]

Blood sugar levels have dramatic affects on personality. Does that mean that you don't eat, because it changes "a part of who you are as a person?"

Your memories define who you are. Every time you make a choice, you change who you are. Personally, I will always chose to improve myself, rather than stagnate. Perhaps, as technology provides us with more options for self-improvement, the human race will diverge. People with your philosophy toward "self" would eventually die off, or live only at the mercy of the self-improvers (because you certainly wouldn't be able to compete with super-intelligence).

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[Gramina]

Alzheimer's is not absent-mindedness.

My mother - barely into her seventies - forgets the topic of a conversation while she's having it. She can't track what she's doing while she's doing it. She's a wonderful cook -- or she was. But now she's not safe in a kitchen. I've been married since 1987; but she doesn't always remember that. I've lived on the opposite coast from her since then -- but she still asks when I'm stopping by for supper, or just to say hi.

This is not inconvenient -- it's devastating. To her, to us, to her friends, to everyone around her. If there is a way to cure Alzheimer's Disease, or even to stop the gradual regression of the victim, it would have to have some pretty serious down sides before I'd hesitate.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[jma05]

I am like you. I never touched alcohol or nicotine or other recreational agents. I even avoided drinking coffee for pleasure (rather than say, before an exam or such) all my life because I did not want to make a habit of it. I just wanted to be what I was. But after 3 years of a recent exacerbation of ADD (I believe I had such episodes throughout my life), after utterly failing with behavioral modifications (wasn't diagnosed at this point), I just started with medication since a couple of months. The difference is startling. I got far more work done on my recent project than my last 9 months combined. It is changing the quality of my life substantially because that is closely tied to accomplishments. Now I think I am back to what I see myself as rather than the downward slide that happened recently. I am still cautious and use it only on days when I need a good attention span although my clinician insists more regular use. Of course, it is your personal choice but trying medication for a month will not permanently scar you.

Now I think of it as wearing glasses (LASIK is perhaps a better analogy). I certainly don't want to see the world with my "natural vision". But then again, glasses don't have systemic implications.

My case was a bit like this blogger.
"For me, the best way for me to describe ADD is that I know what I need to be doing, and I can do anything but that. I am productive, just on everything that I'm not eager to be productive on"
http://justin.everett-church.com/index.php/2005/09 /19/diary-of-an-add-drug-holiday/

To think, I started programming and actually became quite good at it only because of ADD. It was an escape whenever I could not focus in the last 15 years. But I would much rather have my original profession back.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[mdielmann]

Seconded. Before I started taking my little white pills, I had more difficulty managing stress, and losing control if stress got too high. I'd been managing this for years without medication, with little success. I was doing things that I didn't want to do. Then the stress point would pass, I'd feel bad, redouble my efforts, and it would happen again sooner or later. Now, I lose control a lot less, when I lose control it's not as bad, and it doesn't last as long. So, depending on how you define it, my personality hasn't changed, or it's changed to what I've been striving towards for years.

For those of you who say I should have just sucked it up, I'll give you an analogy. Imagine that during every waking instant you have to squeeze a wrist exerciser. No matter what else happens, you need to keep that grip or someone's going to get hurt. No matter how strong you are, you're going to get tired, or distracted, or just sick of having to maintain that grip. That's what it was like for me. Every now and then I need to apply that grip, but it's no longer constant. When the time comes, I can easily deal with it. I spend a lot less time regretting the things I've done, because I do a lot fewer things that I wouldn't have done if I'd had control. I'd rather not take those little white pills, but if I have to take them for the rest of my life to maintain this state that's something I can accept.

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[vertinox]

So I personally fail to see how absent mindedness is something different. Its part of who you are, embrace it!

See my sig. It is a reference to a conversation between the Puppet Master AI program and Major Kusanagi (the female Ghost in the Shell cyborg)

Simply accepting and desiring to remain the same is what truly limits us.

Whether this is being trying to educate yourself so you are not illiterate or exercising so you are not out of shape. If we are afraid to improve, then we'll never be more than our limits.

If I could simply "jack in" to wealth of memories I could do all sorts of things that would make my job easier. I wouldn't have to look up Google groups to troubleshoot daily technical problems.

I would just know the solution...

Re:Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[geekoid]

"For those of you who say I should have just sucked it up"

Those people are idiots and no analogy in the world will make them smart.

I had some pills to help me, but oddly my brain fixed the chemical issue and I don't need them anymore.

To be sure it's not my mind trying to 'trick' me, I get feed back from my wife.

Brain Augmentations....

[Anonymous Coward]

Something makes me think brain augmentations won't have the same appeal as augmentations of other body parts....

Raises some interesting questions

[Orange Crush]

I find the philosophical issues especially interesting. How much of the brain can be replaced before the original "self" no longer exists? I guess it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things so long as the pattern is replicated . . . I guess our brains are constantly gradually replaced throughout our lives--the molecules we were born with aren't necessarily the molecules we're currently made out of.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[Tipa]

It's that old thought experiment -- if you have an axe and you get a new head for it and then later replace the handle, is it the same axe?

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[brunascle]

it's more than that, it's also a question of when/if someone loses their sentience/conscious self/soul/whatever you want to call it.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[brunascle]

to clarify, i'm talking about becoming a robot not just becoming someone else

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the axe/computer brain example are exact analogs. It is saying that if you replace a fundamental part of the whole, is the same original whole reclaimed? The only difference is that with humans, our composition is such that we are sentient.

What is interesting about the question is it ponders what constitutes a thing. Assuming there is some "self" is very much akin to the belief in Platonic ideals. I think once we begin creating machines with enough complexity to be sentient we will see a huge drop in the importance of questions such as those posed, since such machines strongly favor a materialistic description of the universe. At this point, the "self" is essentially a wiring of the brain, and memory states, continually changing and essentially continuously mutable and replicable. The natural conclusion is then the absense of a self, since it lacks any defining characteristics.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[darkstar949]

However, the philosophical answer to the question in part depends upon what parts of the brain can be replaced and what parts cannot. There may in fact be a "wall" that cannot be replaced, in terms of the human brain, and if you attempt to replace that "wall" then the individual is lost. So while you maybe be able to twiddle with some parts of the brain (i.e. senses) other parts of the brain might resist the same twiddling.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[Anonymous Coward]

At least give the thought experiment. It's rather old, being ancient Greek, and all that...

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[jimbojw]

> How much of the brain can be replaced before the original "self" no longer exists?

Approx 61.8%

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[hypermanng]

Why would we ever suspect that we might eventually lose such a thing by replacing a biological machine with a electromechanical one? Answer that, and you've probably started toward outlining the answer to the original question.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[mti]

I agree with you, and in 2000 this was still a thought experiment! At http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html a thorough treatment of some of the possible implications is given. While the paper is of academic quality it is still easily accessible and a decent reading.

It discussess three alternatives what is happening to one's conscious experience when replacing some (or just one) neuron in one's brain:

Option 1: Absent = You lose all conscious experience and become a robot (zombie).

Option 2: Fading = Your conscious experience degrades continuously as you replace more and more neurons.

Option 3: Dancing = You can switch your conscious experience on and off.

All three options are shown to be fruitless, so nothing should happen to your conscious experience when the brain or parts of it are replaced by some device with isomorphic input-output functions. So, maybe robots may have consciousness ...

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[Orange Crush]

I touched on it above, but I think ultimately it won't actually matter, because it's already happening all the time. Our brains have already been replaced--not sure on the stats, but probably several times over the course of our lives. Some neurons die, others take over, and the actual chemicals and materials we're made out of get replaced too (maybe those are the same DNA and phospholipid molecules from birth but just about everything else ought to have been replaced several times over). Throughout our entire lives we're constantly being slowly destroyed and replaced by an exact copy and we don't notice. How would gradually exchanging squishy bio matter for hardware be any different?

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[dsanfte]

The human mind is the software, not the hardware. You are not the same person you were ten years ago. We lose ourselves to slow changes over time.

I believe a slow, incremental transfer would preserve the essence of "self". It's not where the instructions are being executed, it's what they're doing.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[hypermanng]

Just so - is the Mississippi of today the same river as the river draining the same area in the Olmec era? There are similarities, of course, but there are also big differences. What about when Homo Erectus arose? And so on. Exchanging neurons for electronics is like exchanging water precipitate for another liquid - it would still have to flow to the sea down a course we'd call a river.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[StikyPad]

Of course that's not a very good analogy since an axe is an inaminate object, the definition of which is determined solely by its physical characteristics. Additionally, "the same" is an extremely vague phrase -- so vague that there is no right or wrong answer. Are these the same letters: AA? I would argue that the question is irrelevant anyway, since we're never exactly the same -- either physically or mentally -- as we were at any point in the past.

If this is "my axe," and I replace the handle, then replace the head, it is still "my axe." It may not be the same, but that makes no difference -- it is still an axe, and it is my own. If I pull out a hair and it regrows, it is not the same hair, but it is still my hair -- it is still "me," and if you do the same, you are still "you." Likewise, if a person replaces their brain, in whole or in part, they are still themselves. They may be functionally different, but our functionality is constantly changing throughout our days and years. When someone is intoxicated, we may say they are "not themselves," or we may tell our significant other that they are "not the same person they were when we met." Like the letter comparison above, the statements are both true and untrue; only answerable in relative terms. Is this still someone we like? Someone we love? Someone we trust? Someone we can no longer abide? Those questions are relevant, and they're relevant whether or not the changes are natural or artificial, complete or partial.

Re:Raises some interesting questions

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Yes, but only on a friday. This might be a tough one to understand, but give it a try.

Re:When was the last time you encountered a glitch

[D4rk Fx]

I'd had to lose my mind as often as the average PC loses it's.

I'd say you already do.

Great mambo Chicken

[bigattichouse]

See: The Great Mambo Chicken explores this somewhat.

At what point are you more machine than person?

Re:Great mambo Chicken

[ciaohound]

At what point are you more machine than person?

Well, if Obi-Wan is any authority on this, I guess it's when you have both arms and legs cut off and you can't live without a breath mask and respirator.

Re:Great mambo Chicken

[Bat Country]

At what point does it matter?

Prosthesis is great, artificial organs are wonderful, and in fact anything which makes my body function better than its stock equipment is OK by me.

I think the only point it'd begin mattering is if the alterations began reducing your capacity to feel emotion.

And a few people could use a little reduction in that department.

Re:Great mambo Chicken

[Orange Crush]

This makes me wonder how they'll address the chemical interactions in our brains. What'll happen when large portions of bio-brain have been replaced or augmented by hardware that doesn't respond to or produce neurotransmitters like seratonin or hormones? No sense bolting on silicon if it just turns us into bipolar schizophrenics.

Re:Great mambo Chicken

[rabiddeity]

Come now, I think that joke was a bit forced.

Same as it ever was

[hypermanng]

The "software" of the mind isn't the sort of thing you can sit down and code any more than our genes code for basketball skill. I'm sure they could teach people with hardware brains to be all sorts of things, but that's nothing new. The brain may be suitable for Von Neumann implementation, but the mind can't be written in C++. Or LISP, for that matter.

Minds have to write themselves, or they don't work.

Re:Same as it ever was

[EllisDees]

We aren't talking about coding a mind, only replacing neurons with their functional equivalents.

Re:Same as it ever was

[hypermanng]

The person to whom I replied said "...for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today..."

Sounds like coding a mind to me.

Re:Same as it ever was

[EllisDees]

Sorry...I think I missed the parent post somehow.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'll be able to remember where I left the keys to my skycar.

Vista Implant?

[shdwtek]

You have just been given a memory. Cancel or Allow?

Bender Quote on Considering Move.

[srobert]

"I have a lot of great memories about my place (presses button) and now they're gone."

Dr Korby?

[XanC]

Is that you?

What Are Little Girls Made Of?

Re:Dr Korby?

[badboy_tw2002]

Heh, its definitely not a new idea. I think TNG had an episode along the same lines. :)

Embrace absent-mindedness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, embrace abse... what was that again. Why do I have a crayon in my ha... Ow! I better get this out of my no... Ow!

Re:When was the last time you encountered a glitch

[Elemenope]

No, no, no! Obviously it's the new and highly successful shotgun approach to English grammar! Shotguns are the wave of the future in lingustics; don't you forget!

Fixing something that might not need fixing...

[486Hawk]

Why did I think of this after reading this?

I can have dead brain cells repaired?

[Azathfeld]

YES! Time to go back off the wagon!

At what point do we cease being human?

[Giometrix]

At what point are we no longer human? Our thoughts stem from the firing of neurons. If half of those neurons are computer chips, was it a human thought or a computer generated though. I'm all for finding cures to Alzheimer's disease, but I do not want to be a glorified computer case. I did not read the article (yet), and I realize that the part of the brain discussed in the article is probably different than the creative parts of the brain, but I still think its a valid question; at what point do we stop being human (as we know it)?

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[Bat Country]

Wait, you are a Slashdot reader and you'd prefer not to be a glorified computer case?

Shit, half the people here would mod their skull to have a mini-ATX mediacenter, a beer tap, and a glow in the dark USB R2D2 jammed in there if they thought they had better than average odds of survival.

I'm all for replacing my shortcomings with hardware - hell, I do it already.

Why remember anything when you can Google it?

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[DragonWriter]

I'm all for finding cures to Alzheimer's disease, but I do not want to be a glorified computer case.

If you would be that with artificial neurons, why are you anything else with natural ones?

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[dj_tla]

Our thoughts stem from the firing of neurons. If half of those neurons are computer chips, was it a human thought or a computer generated though.

Is there really a difference? Our brains are incredibly complicated, but just because they are biological doesn't mean they're not just computing devices. It may be unsettling to some to believe, but this idea of 'free will,' that we're in control of our minds and can freely choose to do whatever we want is an illusion created by the very brain that tells us what to do. Sure, you can just randomly say "Hey, let's break the monotony!" and jump off a building, exhilarated by the feeling of freedom, but it's all a function of the inputs your brain has received over its lifetime. I have no doubt that, given the same inputs, you would do the same thing all over again.

This also brings up something interesting I remember from classes about computability theory. The halting problem can be expressed as: if a turing machine is given a turing machine as an input, can it determine if the input will finish running? Keeping in mind that a turing machine can simulate another turing machine. If one considers the brain a computing device, like a turing machine, then extending the halting problem metaphor, will we ever be able to reverse-engineer the brain to the point that we can recreate it?

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Isaac Asimov's "Bicentennial Man" for excellent commentary on the idea. (I haven't watched the movie so I cannot comment on how well it follows the book). Bicentennial Man [wikipedia.org]

At the very end, the protagonist (the robot) is declared to be human after he goes through a complicated brain transplant (computer-to-human). The resulting operation makes him very weak, and he dies soon after.

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[marcosdumay]

"This also brings up something interesting I remember from classes about computability theory. The halting problem can be expressed as: if a turing machine is given a turing machine as an input, can it determine if the input will finish running? Keeping in mind that a turing machine can simulate another turing machine. If one considers the brain a computing device, like a turing machine, then extending the halting problem metaphor, will we ever be able to reverse-engineer the brain to the point that we can recreate it?"

The halting problem is not a metaphor. It is a well defined mathematical problem. Using our brain to create a brain is also a well defined mathematical problem that has no relation witht the halting problem.

(Assuming we are right, and our brain really is a computer.) Recreating our brain is a matter of having enought data about it. We can argue if our brain has enough capacity to hold all that data and compute a usefull result, it probably don't. But that is a useless argument since we are using external storage devices for a few milenia now, and external computation devices for a few decades.

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[Lorkki]

It may be unsettling to some to believe, but this idea of 'free will,' that we're in control of our minds and can freely choose to do whatever we want is an illusion created by the very brain that tells us what to do.

I'm not exactly sure what people mean by free will in any case, but I think "incredibly complicated" is a key part. Supposing one could transcend to a point where you are aware of and can track every variable in the universe, it would be a simple thing to go on and say, "Hah! I knew that would happen!" forever. The essential part is, we most probably can't; so in the absence of spoiler sheets the relevant remaining thing is the experience.

I guess what this means to say is just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[Anonymous Coward]

But think about all the cool mods: Modular PSUs, fans, LEDs, cold cathodes. You could totally Dremel some holes in for plexiglass windows.

"Verbing weirds language."

Re:At what point do we cease being human?

[DragonWriter]

We can argue if our brain has enough capacity to hold all that data and compute a usefull result, it probably don't. But that is a useless argument since we are using external storage devices for a few milenia now, and external computation devices for a few decades.

Actually, we've been (from the perspective of any one brain) using both since, at least, the invention of language, which is a considerably longer time than "a few millenia", by most usual definitions of "a few". But, yeah, your general point holds.

I'd call that a feature

[Opportunist]

Imagine you're led to believe to see some nice hot babe reclining on some car and instead you get to see some rather grossly overweight woman (you know, the one you have to roll in flour to find the wet spots)...

Wouldn't it be really a feature if you could simply eliminate that picture from your memory with but a click?

Re:I'd call that a feature

[shdwtek]

Yeah, I had thought it could be used in a positive manner also. It's a bitter sweet thing, perhaps.

Re:I'd call that a feature

[jojoba_oil]

Haven't you seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?

I think if someone was to simply eliminate images/experiences from their mind, they wouldn't learn from anything. They'd end up repeatedly going back to the grossly overweight woman -- and hell, why not just marry her? I'm sure she has a wonderful personality.

Re:I'd call that a feature

[Kandenshi]

While there have been women I'd rather forget(or have the memories of fade), there are SLIGHTLY more interesting applications to that sort of idea.

Namely the thousands and thousands of people out there with crippling post-traumatic stress disorder. The ability to alter those memories, or turn down the emotionality component of them, would be very welcome for some.

Playing the Alzheimers card to get funding?

[KokorHekkus]

I don't thing this could be useful for any Alzheimers treatement in a very long time if ever (and we've probably solved it in another way even if it ever gets there).

As I understand it Alzheimers is basically a case of protein misfolding creating amyloid plaques on the neurons and that really screws up the functions (perhaps some with actual medical/biological knowledge can expand on that). Anyway, it's not just one part that you can hot-swap to use a computer term... it's happening all over the affected area. So you're not going to just plop in a new frontal lobe and call that a cure are you?

And yet the researcher goes on and makes a big point of this:

Today an estimated 4.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's, at an annual cost of some $100 billion, according to the Alzheimer's Association and the National Institute on Aging. "And those figures are just going to climb as my generation gets older," says Berger, who can rattle off the grim statistics from Alzheimer's and other brain disorders that disturb memory. Another 5.3 million Americans are victims of traumatic brain injuries

I do belive that this technology could have many many wonderful uses but that Alzheimers isn't one of them... and by using on of the scariest biggest diseases just to flag down some interest he's doing not only himself but the whole research area a disfavour.

Re:Playing the Alzheimers card to get funding?

[Lord Ender]

I wouldn't say that. The sort of people who are willing to sink big money into pie-in-the-sky Alzheimer's research are probably going to forget what they did with that money after a few years, anyway.

Re:Playing the Alzheimers card to get funding?

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

We already have a substance which helps prevent Alzheimers, marijuana... As you've stated Alzheimers is a plaque build-up on the brain. The binding and releasing of cannaboid to cannaboid brain receptors literally keeps the pipes clean....

Let's not forget...

[petepac]

...The_Terminal_Man by Michael Crichton.

Mentat inside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mentat inside?

Use for the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of cool, but couldn't be sort of used for the opposite (i.e. forget on demand). Granted the technology is in very early development... suppose, I commit some great, amazing crime. I hit the "Wipe" button. Now, I no longer remember what I did, or where I put the money (until I find the "breadcrumbs" to the money). So I clearly do not remember anything and I can pass a lie-detector test pretty safely.

Another use could be for spies and the like (no better way to send a message than a mental one-time pad).

Sounds sort of like a movie (Bourne Identity).

Re:Use for the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Another use could be for spies and the like (no better way to send a message than a mental one-time pad).
Sounds sort of like a movie (Bourne Identity).

More like Johnny Mnemonic.

Some memories need to go away.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really want out minds to be cursed with a crystal-clear, never-fading mental image of things like goatse.cx or tub girl? This could give new meaning to the phrase "some things can't be un-seen."

immortality and identity

[harlows_monkeys]

Suppose you add artificial neurons to a brain, and remove natural neurons as they die. Eventually, you end up with your mind running entirely on artificial neurons. Is your mind now effectively immortal?

And is it still you? Or a copy of you running on the artificial brain? If it is a copy, when does it cease to be you?

Re:immortality and identity

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Your mind would be immortal.
It would functionally still be you.
However, once the copy is made, The differing experiences would cause the consciences to diverge. So, you could end up with 2 you(s) that may have differing opinions on a subject. This would essentially create a different person for all intents and purposes. This could great for behavioral psychology research. Clone a brain at a particular development stage and solve the behavior v. envrionment debate.
It may be necessary to issue a new SSN or whatnot once the copy is made.

Re:immortality and identity

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of Greg Bear's "Eon"-series. A blurring of the difference between organic and machine intelligence. In one short story, he explored an early step; humand with cybernetic implants that operated as a part of his self, but were in relation to his cerebral cortex like that of his cortex to his cerebellum. An extra layer of processing that exceeded the previous but which required the previous to operate.

Later in the Eon series, a person existed either in flesh or in machines. After an organic lifetime, ported to a machine. If merits it, could be ported back to a new body at some point. In fact, a couple of machine intelligences create an 'offspring' by merging elements of themselves to create a new 'person'. This person could earn the right to be instantiated into an organic being.

Re:immortality and identity

[x2A]

It would still be your mind, thus your brain, but not your original brain.

As to whether it's still "you"... well that depends on whether your definition of the word "you" (or "me") includes the original brain... if it does, then it breaks the definition and so is no longer you, and if it doesn't, then the definition isn't broken so it is still you.

Re:immortality and identity

[EllisDees]

I really like this thought experiment, because it makes it very difficult for the people who say that a computer will never be able to think like a human. After all, if you can replace every single neuron in your brain without "you" noticing, you can also simulate the whole process on a computer.

The beauty is that we don't even have to understand how it all works. We don't have to program the "virtual brain" at all. It works simply because the original configuration works. Hell, at that point, we can start doing virtual brain surgery to figure out what is really necessary for consciousness. Not that I'd want to be the subject...

Re:immortality and identity

[ThePsion5]

Your consciousness is still you assuming the artificial neurons work as they're intended. After all, consciousness is emergent behavior resulting from the interaction of several billion neurons - though It might be possible to "alter" one's consciousness if these artificial neurons don't function quite the same way as natural neurons. I'd equate it to having Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, or Schizophrenia (though not in a negative sense). Whether those diseases can cause a person to "cease to be themselves" is a different debate in my opinion.

it depends...

[vena]

do you define yourself by your fleshy overcoating, or by the thoughts, emotions, and actions you experience and provoke? "human" can be considered purely biological, a species classification, or as the root of philosophical definitions like humanism and humanity (adj). i think there is a problem with your question, though - there is a very big difference between computer generated and stored.

Re:Bra!n Augm3ntat10ns....

[sxtxixtxcxh]

GUARNT33D 2W0 4DD THR33 1NCH3S T0 Y0UR BRA!N

If they can act like neurons....

[PotatoHead]

then, we've got an interesting interface here. Sprinkle a few of these into the motor cortex, then have the person work with feedback systems to learn to differentiate those controls from the natural ones. From there, all sorts of potential exists for communication.

Instead of the computer being an active part of the brain, it becomes more like a PDA that you don't have to carry. Motor feedback signals, generated from the neurons would then become something like morse code.

Would be damn nice to be in a job interview, using Google in real time, while answering the questions with ordinary speech!

Is absent mindedness something you can "cure"

[Anonymous Coward]

or is it just part of being human, and more importantly, a part of who you are as a person? I exhibit all the signs of adult ADD(lets not go into the debate of whether it is really a disease or not) but I refuse to take personality altering drugs. I may wind up more successful etc. but I lose a fundamental part of who I am. I won't take anti-depressents for the same reason. So I personally fail to see how absent mindedness is something different. Its part of who you are, embrace it!

(Note to self....Wait a minute, I vaguely remember reading something about "Hardware Implants Mimic Brain Cells" but I can't remember where. I might as well find it and post it on Slashdot because it couldn't possibly be a dupe and it may allow me to express my outrage at it.)

Sounds good to me!

[Hampton_Comes_Alive]

what could possibly go wrong with this? I'm sold.

I Am Dyslexic Of Borg

[wiredog]

Prepare To Have Your Ass Laminated!

Obligatory Johnny Mnemonic reference

[HangingChad]

I'm wet-wired for 80 gigs.

I'm tired of /., Cowboy Neal and all...this! *I want ROOM SERVICE*! I want the club sandwich, I want the cold Mexican beer, I want a $10,000-a-night hooker! I want my shirts laundered... like they do... at the Imperial Hotel... in Tokyo.

Lots of research, both ways

[L4m3rthanyou]

I know Ted Berger, actually. TFA isn't joking about the "spent the last decade" part. He's been working on this stuff for as long as I remember.

Last time I saw him in the news, iirc, he was putting neurons on silicon chips to create functional circuits of some kind. Amazing stuff.

All Things Can Change

[EgoWumpus]

People have been considering these issues for thousands of years; Buddhism is based around the idea of 'mindfulness' - of being able to give the entirety of your attention to one thing (be it a task or a problem or what have you - or nothing at all), to fill your mind with it and not let your mind become distracted by other things. It has even been shown that consistent 'practice' allows you to alter your brain chemistry to something closer to what you want: perhaps the ultimate expression of free will. But not everyone is in a position where they can make a reasonable attempt at that. Depression is a real problem, even if you deny that ADD is. There are many therapies, and I think the one thing anyone can take away from it is that no one solution fixes the problem. People need help over their pain points; sometimes that is cognitive behavioral therapy, and sometimes that is drugs, and sometimes that is them choosing to get over themselves. But all of this is predicated on the idea that you *want* to change; if you don't, then eschewing such options as anti-depressants is probably fine. On the other hand, if you want to change something about yourself you have to remember that change is change; that you are always losing a part of you for a new part of you - be that time, or the 'quiet' part of your personality, or what have you. Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing that a person who is losing hours and days and years of their life to depression can seek a chemical aid to help them regain that time. Indeed, I know plenty of people for whom 'losing part of their personality' is not such a risk, given the opportunity cost of staying depressed, or staying ADD or what have you. We are humans, and as humans we use tools to achieve our ends; sometimes chemical ones. As W. Somerset Maugham said, "If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news?"

Interesting Timing

[jfdawes]

This guy is making chips that can "talk" to the brain in signals the brain can understand, even if he doesn't know what the signals mean. Pure mimicry.

Oddly enough, the people mentioned in Hacking Our Five Senses (Apr-03-2007) are using similarly arbitrary but mechanical means to also send signals to the brain (admitedly using existing pathways).

Would it be possible to combine these two techniques, as well as a few miniturization techniques (and perhaps standard "ports") to enable people to not just replace storage capacity but indeed "add" senses?

Instead of using a belt to buzz "north", use implants to send one of a set of predetermined signals. It won't matter what the signals would originally mean (if anything) - because if Hacking Our Five Senses is any indication, the brain is capable of creating maps for the the new signals anyway.

Borg indeed.

Artificial brains?

[phorm]

Quick, install one in a politician, I can nominate a few!

Re:Artificial brains?

[Churla]

I take it you haven't seen The Manchurian Candidate ;)

Re:Artificial brains?

[phorm]

Nope, none of those third-party candidates for me, I voted democrat!

(that's a joke, BTW, I'm not in the US)

Real Life Ghost in the Shell?

[Sinbios]

Sounds like the beginnings of cyberbrains... Ghost in the Shell fans, rejoice!

Groundwork for a "backup"?

[erroneus]

If we were to create a "backup" of a human mind, this would be were I would start. We liken information to bits in memory or magnetic storage. The [human] brain doesn't really seem to operate on the concepts of stored and retrieved information. The brain actually seems to operate under a concept of recalled processes and pathways. So it's not the content that is as important as the path to getting there if that makes any sense. So in order to backup a brain, you would have to record the configuration of pathways rather than attempt to store "the data" in whatever mysterious means it may be which is bound to be vastly and wildly different from person to person.

Neuromancer here I come!

[SpeedBump0619]

As others have pointed out alzheimers is just a money grab here. Alzheimers is a systemic problem, requiring a pervasive solution rather than a localized one. Besides, who cares about Alzheimers? When am I going to be able to get my damned datajack? I'll deal with the black and grey ICE, but man am I ever tired of using a mouse and keyboard.

Memory Upgrade

[PPH]

Just in time for Vista.

"reduce memory loss to nothing more...

[Anonymous Coward]

...than a computer glitch"

WTF does that even mean?

6 million dollar troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic man. Anonymous Coward will be that man. Better than he was before. Better...stronger...faster."

Can we choose?

[tim620]

Can we choose which OS to use? I would hate to be running anything from MS. Although the hospitals would love it, because millions of people would be in a short comma once a week...that is unless they rebooted every night.

Re:Can we choose?

[andy_t_roo]

this is a data conduit, not a separate computation unit doing parallel calculations - the question makes as much sense as asking 'what OS does an ethernet cable run' - the alternative is the os is 'you' as 'you' would directly control the calculations in any attached devices.

Re:Can we choose?

[tim620]

Believe me, I fully understand what you are saying and I realize my comment didn't make sense. You took my comment WAY too seriously. It was suppose to be a joke.

And a flashing blue LED

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope it comes with Bluetooth.

Then I'd be able to use my cellphone EVERYWHERE!

Re:When was the last time you encountered a glitch

[Demon-Xanth]

Note to self:
Do not attempt to post unless under the effects of caffine.

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our mind enhanced cyborg overlords.

This seems like a bad idea

[FR007]

How are we ever going to evolve to the point of ascension if we come completely dependent on machines to deal with our memories? Let's not repeat the asgards mistakes now... (if only in a general sense)

ADD is not a disease

[Morkano]

ADD is not a disease. What you're thinking of is ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a developmental disorder. ADD was rolled up into ADHD in the DSM-IV, and no longer exists on it's own.

Absent mindedness is something separate, and is likley caused by someone thinking about too much stuff at once, filling up their working memory (ie, the absent minded proffessor, always thinking about new research, not what he's doing now).

That being said, drugs are often overperscribed, because it's easier to take a pill every day than do anything active. Forms of therapy can be very effective in helping people with psychological disorders. Cognitive behavioural therapy and depression/anxiety, for example. Not the Freudian psycho-analytical crap.

good

[nanosquid]

I volunteer Bush. Either way, we can't lose.

so, in the future when you divide by zero

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Your eyes will glaze over and you'll go fetal in the floor quietly going

"eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..."

RS

SCSI Cable? Seriously?

[calzplace]

Anyone notice the SCSI LVD cable on page 4? Doesn't that seem a bit hack-ish for a real research lab? Seems a bit like finding duct tape and a rusty hammer in an Emergency Room!

Here's the question...

[RobertM1968]

"and reduce memory loss to nothing more than a computer glitch"

What type of computer running what interface would our brains mimic? Can I get an MS Bob style implant? Or how about a WinME one?

Monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Berger's implant could remedy everything from Alzheimer's to absent-mindedness ...

And Monkeys could fly out of my ass. Good god, what a crap summary.

How well do they mimic?

[jpellino]

Does grain alcohol dissolve them by the thousands?

nothing more than a computer glitch

[nurb432]

These days thats too damned common for my taste.

Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?

[tmateosian]

I think so, Brain, but...

"programming" humans

[nurb432]

I really doubt it. It takes far more neurons to make us who we are then could ever be replaced and 're-programmed'.

Its much easier and effective to just brainwash or blackmail someone into doing your bidding.

80gigs should be enough for every man

[arcite]

I mean, after you've uploaded all of the worlds porn, just hit "shuffle" and "repeat" and collapse onto the floor drooling in perpetual orgasm until you die of thirst.

No...this technology could only help humanity.

Incidently, sign me up for version 2. Mwhahahahahaha

Don't forget to defrag

[arcite]

Hitting restart could open a whole new can of philosophical beans. Are you still you? Or...does something change after a reboot?

Re:Don't forget to defrag

[FatdogHaiku]

At some point M$ would try to get WGA running in there, then brand your brain as pirated and force you to buy a licence for yourself...

Pulling the USB Plug

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess, its resonable to assume that the man of the future will have a USB hub! If you pull the USB Memory card from this "high tech person", that will induce instant Alzheimer!

compulsory

[ohsmeguk]

But will it run Linux? :)

A star trek thought experiment

[arcite]

Flashback to "The Gamesters of Triskelion"

In a century (or sooner) a private corporation could buy a piece of real estate on the moon. They could carve out a cavern to store thousands (or millions) of individual consciousnesses; all networked together. The whole facility could be powered by solar panels and maintained by androids running on nuclear power. The facility could run for thousands of years with little maintenance. The question is, would this be a heaven or a hell? What would people think about? Or would everyone just end up going insane?

Re:A star trek thought experiment

[RespekMyAthorati]

It is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

Just one thing I want

[Plekto]

Imagine being able to have an implant where you could understand 20,30, or even a hundred different languages.

The advantage of computer storage is that it's miserable for thoughts but fantastic for all of those tedious tables and charts and such that are in language, math, and so on.

Re:Just one thing I want

[Nirvelli]

The problem is, we can't even get speech-to-text in English, let alone "Let's set so double the killer delete select all" in 40 other languages.

berserker 0.1

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be released as version BSD (Berserker System Distribution) 0.1.

Tweaking?

[Somewhat Delirious]

Your brain has failed to boot due to an incorrect clock speed setting...

Nothing more then a computer glitch?

[MadnessASAP]

and reduce memory loss to nothing more than a computer glitch Does this strike anyone else as a bit scary? I find it a bit uncomfortable to think that I could wake up one morning and my entire past existence has been erased because of some programming error. And they will happen we have plenty of hardware and software bugs already and this device will be no exception. I personally would not won't to be the person whose brain does a "BSOD" because of a mistake.

Yeah of course

[Somewhat Delirious]

to nothing more than a computer glitch Because computers are so much much more stable and fault tolerant then brains?

I've seen this...

[Randseed]

I think I've seen this show... It was called "John Doe." :)

Perhaps it can be..

[Meph_the_Balrog]

While I agree with the philosophical implications in your statement, perhaps data storage is the only truly necessary function of the brain. If we invented a computer that could store data as efficiently as a brain, and also gave it artificial senses (touch, taste, hearing, etc), and the standard neurological processes (pain, pleasure etc), who is to say that it wouldn't develop a consciousness.

Give an efficient data storage and processing system the ability to sample the world around it at its own speed, and who knows what might occur.

Re:Perhaps it can be..

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That is, of course, the million dollar question. The problem is that we can't currently rationalize it either way, because it seems consciousness must arise out of information processing (nothing special about a nerve vs. an electronic circuit) yet it must arise out of the physics of the situation (no true dualist position allowed) and thus who's to say a set of atoms in a circuit generates the same consciousness, whatever it really is, as a set of atoms in neuron formation.

It's interesting we're approaching the time when we can stop blowing hot air and put it to the test, at least in theory.

Re:SCSI Cable? Seriously?

[geekoid]

No it's not.
It is still used, has a number advantages, an it's probably what was in the lab.

Duct tape can be a good emergency medical tool, don't knock it.
And ER's have hammers. Not rusty, but either was the SCSI LVD cable.

I'm afraid ...

[PPH]

... that the aliens used my last available expansion slot when they installed their mind control devices.

Re:When was the last time you encountered a glitch

[mandelbr0t]

Yeah, you'd definitely want to be careful in that respect. As much as I <3 my computers, I'm not entirely keen on the idea of directly implanting them in my nervous system. I'm sure there's plenty of use to be gained from computing technology without giving the computer that much control of my physiology. Cyborg is a rather broad-reaching term. We can certainly afford to be conservative on the human end of that spectrum.

Read Greg Egan's "Learning To Be Me"

[dsands1]

"The Ndoli device was nicknamed "the jewel", monitored by a teaching device, it reads and follows your every thought and and action, corrected faster than thought by the teacher, so that it is identical to you. Someday, the organic brain will be removed and the reins will be handed over to the jewel, which will live forever, and it is you." ...or is it?

Will it help me forget my childhood?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please say it is so