Slashdot Mirror


A Mind Made From Memristors

Csiko writes "Researchers at Boston University's department of cognitive and neural systems are working on an artificial brain implemented with memristors. 'A memristor is a two-terminal device whose resistance changes depending on the amount, direction, and duration of voltage that's applied to it. But here's the really interesting thing about a memristor: Whatever its past state, or resistance, it freezes that state until another voltage is applied to change it. Maintaining that state requires no power.' Also theoretically described, solid state versions of memristors have not been implemented until recently. Now researchers in Boston claim that memristors are the new key technology to implement highly integrated, powerful artificial brains on cheap and widely available hardware within five years."

237 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Quick question by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2

    How do you read that state back without applying any voltage to it?

    I look at the wikipedia page and its all greek to me.

    1. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The state is read by applying voltage to it, this voltage is less than the threshold required to change the state.

    2. Re:Quick question by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Presumably with alternating current.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:Quick question by fava · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can read it by applying AC to it, the state changes cancel each other out.

    4. Re:Quick question by PremiumCarrion · · Score: 1

      Reading the wiki page I surmise it as this, apply a low voltage to read the state.

      Apply high voltage to set the state, the current you pass while setting it determines which state it stays in.

    5. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I look at the wikipedia page and its all greek to me.

      Perhaps you should look at the English language wikipedia page

    6. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm just replying AC so I can read your comment.

    7. Re:Quick question by mevets · · Score: 1

      crap, out of mod points. Good one.

    8. Re:Quick question by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So that's why Frankenstein went haywire. They applied DC to the bolts in his neck, not AC.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I look at the wikipedia page and its all greek to me.

      You're lucky to have read the greek wikipedia at all. I heard it is going to come under a series of rotating strikes right away, until more money is borrowed to keep things just the way they were, forever.

    10. Re:Quick question by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      So that's why Frankenstein went haywire. They applied DC to the bolts in his neck, not AC.

      So DC is deadly after all!

  2. Artificial Brains? by TelavianX · · Score: 1

    I have heard that artifical brains were around the corner for years. What about neural networks they were supposed to create human like brains.

    1. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This opens up a whole huge assload of debate again.

      Let us assume they map out the brain, create an FPGA of memristor devices like this that can mimic the brain's exact structure.

      First round it doesn't work.

      Because robots can't have a soul. You need a spirit to have that kind of consciousness. You'll hear this argument immediately; I'm not going to argue directly against the spirituality thing, but the question to me is more complex than that, of course. Still, that'll be the first argument.

      Then someone will make it work.

      Now the interesting shit happens.

      A lot of people have told me they're never going to die because, by the time they're old, technology will exist to copy their minds into machines. Think about that. Immortality through perpetuated consciousness.

      Stop for a moment.

      Realize you are alive, aware, and conscious.

      Now, why do you experience consciousness?

      You want to say, well, all that "soul" bullshit is weird and freaky. Scientifically unsound. I experience consciousness due to a series of electrochemical reactions in my brain. End of story.

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

      Why are you conscious?

      Hmm that would be convenient for suicide cases. So much easier. Copy my brain into a biological clone brain, swap, and destroy mine. I get to die and nobody else has to worry about it because I don't die. The ultimate escape: you make your life someone else's problem!

    2. Re:Artificial Brains? by mikael_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the whole problem with the destruction of the original could probably be solved by slowly replacing the original organic brain with the electronic one. Instead of copying everything at once and then deleting the original you basically "graft" the electronic brain onto the original (obviously it would be a lot trickier than that in practice but so would "just copying" it be) and slowly let the electronic hardware do more and more while the organic does less. Eventually you'll have an all electronic brain.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:Artificial Brains? by bratloaf · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. You make some good points, and ones I have made myself in these sorts of philosophical arguments before. However, this is just a thought experiment. What if, when the copied brain is "lit up" it DOES have YOUR consciousness? What if you just "forked" yourself? It really IS you, but a 100% point-in-time clone... Makes for an interesting thought... You ARE you, but so is it. When you die, do YOU still die? YES, because you are the original. Perhaps, if you die as part of the copying process, you can be said to live on. But is it you?

      What if you "stop" your brain, by putting it in some sort of halt state. Say, a deep coma. Then copy it. Do you "wake up" on the other side? If not, WHY NOT?

      These are all interesting thought experiments. At any rate, this story ends with the usual "extraordinary new technology ready... in 5 years" as usual, so don't bet on any brain cloning in the next 50.

    4. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, and this would work why? (in practice, would it?) My point is we don't understand consciousness (and have no way to verify things like this actually work) and that the question is very complex. Even if you don't accept the concept of a "soul," you have a very difficult problem in front of you. If you DO accept the concept of a "soul," you have something confusing and complex in front of you.

    5. Re:Artificial Brains? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      I don't want to foster a false dichotomy but it seems to me that there IS something of a binary choice here. Either there is some undefinable quality we can call a "soul", or what you think of as "life" or "consciousness" is an illusion. The data of whatever was just going through your head is still there to some degree, so you perceive your continued existence, but life is actually only a series of moments and one only has to do with the other because they're somehow connected, not because there's something special about being alive.
      If there is a soul and you "die" tomorrow then destruction of the flesh is not the ending of your life. But if there is not a soul and you "die" tomorrow you won't care. And if there is not a soul and you copy yourself to a mechanical brain, then you're both "alive" in that you are both functioning. You're both "you", and yet, neither of you is really you. Change your memories and you're someone else.
      Or in other words, when we actually have the technology to mimic the behavior of the human brain, then we may actually be able to answer fundamental questions about the "soul" that cannot be answered today.
      Personally I don't see any need for a soul to explain the behavior of a human; it's the same physical processes at work all the way down through bacteria and vira. But we could argue about that all day and achieve nothing but a big fat waste of time, both user and CPU.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Artificial Brains? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2

      So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

      First of all, I'm not convinced I want to live forever. Immortality sounds cool... But I suspect it would get dull after a while.

      Second, I suspect that your little conundrum here could be solved by a slow migration to the clone/artificial/constructed brain. Rather than yanking it out suddenly you just replace bit by bit. You'd remain conscious the entire time. You'd never "die".

      But...

      A large part of the whole afterlife/immortality/soul debate essentially revolves around fear. Folks are terrified by the idea that they're going to cease to exist. That they'll never be able to kiss their wife again, or have a banana split, or enjoy a walk on the beach, or whatever. Folks don't want it to end.

      I'm thinking that even if your organic brain did genuinely die in the process, and you did genuinely lose consciousness and die in the process, this kind of assisted immortality would still be immensely popular. Sure, one of you would die... But then there'd be another you, a replacement you. Complete with all your memories, hopes, dreams, fears, whatever. And that second you would get to keep kissing wives and eating banana splits and walking on beaches. So there would be less fear about things ending.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    7. Re:Artificial Brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I don't know why works. "Why" is a question above my pay grade. But your body is already doing it when it replaces dead cells with newly created cells.

    8. Re:Artificial Brains? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, the first problem that I have with this, is I have no proof that anyone else has a soul. This occurs even before I ask myself exactly *what* the definition of soul is, so I can determine whether I, myself, have one.

      So you are asking me to believe a lot of vaguely defined things that it's my first approximation choice to disbelieve in. And they're vaguely defined, so I can neither verify nor refute them.

      As a result, my only remaining choice is to consider it a silly argument. f you'd like to try again with more carefully defined terms, then I might well be able to consider it seriously. (This doesn't mean I'll agree with you. I don't think I will. But as stated I can't even be sure of that.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Artificial Brains? by Tynin · · Score: 1

      I recall reading a short story about a man who had his brain removed, and a computerized copy of his brain implanted so he could climb down into a hole and dismantle a nuclear weapon that didn't work as expected. For the life of me I cannot remember who wrote it or what is was called. bluefoxlucid post goes over a lot of what the short story was about, and I'd highly recommend it.... if I could only recall what it was named.

    10. Re:Artificial Brains? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Well, this one is supposed to be available within 5 years, so that means we have a decent chance of getting it by 2030.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:Artificial Brains? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      for a more thorough exploration of what is consciousness I recommend this site : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    12. Re:Artificial Brains? by 2names · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is my great-great-great-grandfather's axe. It has had the head replaced twice and the handle replaced three times.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    13. Re:Artificial Brains? by FeepingCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      Yes, and yes.

      To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      If you absolutely cannot dispense with the existence of a soul, just pretend it "finishes" up my life, then circles back around and lives the life of my copy. Since all informational attributes of the human mind can be biologically explained, this time-travelling "soul" does not violate causality (because it carries no information).

    14. Re:Artificial Brains? by mugnyte · · Score: 1

        No secret sauce here. You're dancing around an argument, but let me try to add some clarity:

        If a machine (of any construction, even bio-ware) was grafted into your existing brain, as to replace/extend it's normal functions, you may or may not notice at all. Nobody really "feels" when a specific set of cells in their brain is different, as they "feel" a cold/hot spot on their hand. It's much more about the perceived functionality. A headache or an itch is as more perception than a true "pain spot" or "itchy spot". Brain surgery requires only local anesthetic.

        If we continue adding externally-created parts to your body, be it an arm or leg, a lung or a kidney, or a frontal lobe to your brain - if the body can accept the donation without too much trouble, the functionality should not be affected. This is the only criteria for the replacement part: It has to function identically as it's target. But for brain wiring, it's millions of times customized from the point of it's first growth. Reverse-engineering this wiring seems daunting. But perhaps "you" don't notice if the changes are small enough.

        So we replace sections of our brain one step at a time; small portions, throughout time. The first recipients get better hearing, motor control, or other medically-driven needs. Then we hopefully add larger portions in bulk. Once we start replacing the emotional centers, memory centers, or other portions, you may start to no longer "be you" as you don't remember your childhood, or your demeanor is dramatically changed from before, but the frame and power sources are indeed still your biology. Personality adjustments by order.

      I imagine any replacements of brain portions will involve a period of "adoption" where the new section needs to be immersed in the dispersed, repetitive memory wiring that gets done throughout REM sleep. Of course, by this point we should be able to induce it, hopefully speeding up the process. This would be the holographic-style process of "maintaining you" while slowly replacing all the hardware.

      The elusive sense of "I" that seems to arise from the brain as a whole would have a central locus and that may need to be replaced in very small chunks, or possibly not at all - depending on how universal that wiring is across all our brains and how the replacement adapts after injection.

    15. Re:Artificial Brains? by MikeDaSpike · · Score: 1

      Then someone else figures how to do a quantic entaglement of a pair of brain/brain brain/device. That would be the shit.
      Instant access to all information
      You could see/feel/taste/smell/dream anything else, independently of it being male/female/squirrel/cow/eagle/whale.
      You could be someone else entirely different, remotely controlled by your own brain as if it was you

      Me personally, I want to feel how a woman feels when she moans that much. Yeah, the killer app is fucking roleplay porn.

    16. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      First of all, I'm not convinced I want to live forever. Immortality sounds cool... But I suspect it would get dull after a while.

      Eventually the world overpopulates.

      People you care about die, or you have no friends FOREVER.

      THINGS you care about die. Imagine living in a warrior society like recent (pre-WW2) Japan, where everyone around you is preoccupied with personal philosophy, the nature of beauty, honor, the like. Now think about all the bullshit you complain about in modern society, and think about Japan now with its culture influence from America and how Tokyo looks (giant screen TVs on buildings, lights everywhere, it's a pure commercial machine). Think about all the bullshit on CNN and CBS and Fox... that's all over in Japan now too, their society has devolved into that.

      You'll see the world falling apart, worse than it is now. You'll have no friends, or you'll watch them all die.

      No, immortality sucks.

    17. Re:Artificial Brains? by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      The question is simple... it's reaching the answer that's complex, isn't it?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    18. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The major question here is that now that you've dispensed with the existence of a "soul," you're left with the part where you copied your mind to "continue living" and yet all logic says that your personal experience with consciousness ends (you die) and there is another life form that now believes it is you (due to memories and the like).

    19. Re:Artificial Brains? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      My best guess (as someone who believes in a 'soul', but also realizes this can lead to some potentially absurd conclusions) is that for each small electric replacement, your consciousness will proportionally fade away. At bit like when you're half asleep say if half your brain was replaced.

      I tend to think particles in the brain are mapped to an immaterial 'location' of the immaterial soul for want of a better analogy.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    20. Re:Artificial Brains? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ah'm a white boy who can't dance.

      Damn.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    21. Re:Artificial Brains? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Because robots can't have a soul. You need a spirit to have that kind of consciousness.
      Sorry, but that is an invalid conclusion based on incorrect assumptions.

      Not to sound like a dick, but your understanding of consciousness is woefully incomplete / archaic. There are 7 layers of conciousness: Mineral, Plants, Animal occupy the bottom 3, with humans occupying the interesting position in the middle. (There seems little point to disucss the upper 3 when you are still struggling to understand the bottom 3.)

      True Artificial Intelligence will eventually be created with bio-computing -- when computure are made from existing organic matter. In the mean-time the joke called Artificial Ignorance is nothing close to intelligent -- it doesn't create new information or make new choices from existing information.

      > Immortality through perpetuated consciousness.
      Consciousness is _already_ immortal, since it exists outside the physical space-time reality. The AI and atheists guys are clueless are about the difference between brain and mind. An crude *analogy* is that the brain is the hardware, the mind is the software.

      > I experience consciousness due to a series of electrochemical reactions in my brain. End of story.
      LOL. uhm, no. Go study people who have been _dead_ for 30 mins to over an hour. There was NO EEG waveform.
      http://www.neurotransmitter.net/braindeath.html
      http://www.skeptiko.com/eeg-expert-on-near-death-experience/

      Your physical body is ONLY a container for your consciousness.

      If you want to _begin_ to understand how consciousness works, study OBEs and Lucid Dreaming. Specifically Robert Monroe's pioneering work.

      > Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.
      It is only ridiculous to you, because again, you are viewing and interpretting how "you think" consciousness works through the narrow filter of the human (physical) kind only, not through the soul or spirit level. At the highest level, we are all connected, there is only One. At the bottom level where we are all seperate, it is hard to imagine how one could even conceive of this connection.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

      > Why are you conscious?
      Actually, this is the first truely thought-provoking question you've mentioned.

      That is almost as "difficult" as asking "Why does the Universe even exist at all?" It only "appears" difficult when one has a limited perspective.

      The short answer is "Because God wanted to explore & experience itself." Now that begs the questions "Who/What" is God ? To which Buddha answered this question:

      "What could you know about God? What do you know about yourself? Do you know anything about yourself? No? So how could you know anything about God? Leave God aside, for the time being, and find out who you are."

      --
      Inner Space, not Outer Space is the FINAL frontier.

    22. Re:Artificial Brains? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The grass is always greener on the other side. I'm sure there was plenty of bullshit to go around in Japan before we got there.

    23. Re:Artificial Brains? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2

      I don't see why you act as if everything is so mutually exclusive.

      If I have a "Soul" - it can easily be tied to how my brain functions, as my brain is obviously the central point where all my consciousness is based. If you copy my brain, you've copied my soul.

      If you cloned a billion of me, perfect exact replicas of me, what would really make them any less human? What would mean they aren't life? Doesn't all life have souls?

      So - with that in mind, no, when you copy me, I don't get a psychic link, but its still ME in that other body, its still MY soul, its just not the one inside this body. Much like how I copy a CD, they're both mine, sure one is the original but they are still one in the same.

      So yes - much like a photograph won't live forever, you can it in, copy it, now it does live forever.

      Would I want to be immortal in that case? Sure why not. Each soul will have its own death, but a copy of that soul will remain forever. It's the blessing of living forever minus the curse of actually living forever.

      When you stop thinking about everything as a unique item that is unduplicatable - which cloning and bionics seems to push more towards every day, that doesn't mean you have to disconnect spirituality from it.

      I mean, look at it this way. If you woke up one day and you were in a bed beside what appeared to an exact replica of you, and you were told that you were a clone copy, would you automatically write yourself off as having no soul (if you believed in that)? Because thats likely what the experience would feel like for the clone. (This is assuming memories transfer over and you're built to that age and stuff like that, lets not get into the super technical details)

    24. Re:Artificial Brains? by happyg · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, neurons die and are replaced all the time. I think they last longer than most cells, but at least some of them do die and are replaced. I could be wrong about this as I haven't studied it, but lets assume it's true.

      If this is true, then your brain is slowly being replaced. The "you" that you are now isn't the exact same "you" as was you N years ago.

      What if you use technology to slowly replace dying brain cells with new "immortal" brain cells? There is no "copy" - there is always only one of "you" - but eventually your consciousness will be immortalized.

      By making this a gradual thing rather than an instant thing does that make it any more appealing? In the end, you end up in the same place (original brain gone, electronic brain working) but there's a single stream of consciousness from A to B rather than potentially having two copies of you where one of them dies. From what I understand, this happens as time goes on anyway so would "you" notice a difference?

    25. Re:Artificial Brains? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Ah, indeed you've hit the primary interesting concept in artificial intelligence, that is, what actually are we as intelligent humans?

      Most people do assume a "soul" and I think its complete poppycock.

      But, if there is no soul, then you're absolutely right. We can copy the brain, but its a copy; it would be no different than if we were to make a biological clone.

      HOWEVER. What if instead of making a copy of your data to an artificial brain, what if we just replace, say, a single part of your brain with a perfect cybernetic replacement? Say, replace your amygdala, or your thalamus, only. Just that one part. Could we engineer something that takes in the biological inputs that the human amygdala does, and then gives the exact same outputs that an amygdala does?

      That doesn't seem inconceivable to me. So, that makes you a cyborg, with a mostly human brain, and one robotic part.

      So, then we replace another part. And another part. And anther part. And after awhile, piece by piece, you are made robotic completely.

      So, which single piece do you stop being yourself, and you're making a "copy" to the machine brain? I don't think thats the case. So yes, while we CAN make copies, I think that transference is ALSO possible!!

      Crazy stuff to think about, for sure. Shows just how little we know. Some people are so arrogant, and have no idea.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    26. Re:Artificial Brains? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      Personally: I'd be ok with it.

      Even with all the bad things in the world, even without anybody else to share it with, I'd be ok continuing on forever.

      in all reality, there'd be no way for you to remember EVERYTHING. you'd likely have to run on a cycle of 150 years of memory (tops!) while forgetting older things as the neurons that were retaining them begin to die but the information they contain is not moved to another area.
      this would present an interesting opportunity, you don't HAVE to remember things, just leave them out of your thought for long enough and BAM! they're gone.

    27. Re:Artificial Brains? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      if only you had a properly working artificial brain that could be hexdump | grep [that thing I was looking for] 'd eh? :P

    28. Re:Artificial Brains? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      So there would be less fear about things ending.

      Which leads me to think that our natural lives will take on entirely new meanings. The fear is what makes things like kissing your wife precious. I'm not sure so many things would continue to be precious in the absence of fear. How would that affect culture? If there was no clock to race, what then becomes the point in doing, well, anything at all?

      I guess the fears of a machine dominated world might not be entirely accurate. It's not that we build machines that become sentient... it's that we become the machines.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    29. Re:Artificial Brains? by jovius · · Score: 1

      The reason why robots truly won't have human consciousness is that they lack the collective unconscious, which has been building up hundreds of thousands of years. It's not only about memory but how we perceive the reality once illusions of the human reality have been shattered.

      The robots will be able to analyze the human input data and make an analysis, but ultimately the robots will have their own version of the collective unconscious and form their own gene patterns and lore.

      Take for instance the concepts of realization and liberation. To what will the robot liberate themselves to? Will the concepts of death and birth play any role? Robots will never be human even though they will be able to make a complete simulation. Robots but will be something else once the technology allows to.

      Once we master the control of the synapses we can create new realities and have borderless connections between individuals. Ultimately that's only another simulation (like the internet is now), but it will guide us towards sharing a single consciousness, multitude of sensations at the same exact moment.

      In a way that's the level where the robotic minds are in the beginning, and by which we can expand our consciousness in new ways and to new platforms, feel new sensations and our way in the universe, expand in forms that are way beyond the restrictions set by the human body.

    30. Re:Artificial Brains? by Anastomosis · · Score: 1

      Except brain cells aren't replaced.

    31. Re:Artificial Brains? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      I'll admit to being with you on that one. I'd sign up for that!

    32. Re:Artificial Brains? by KnownIssues · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you go to sleep (or are knocked out, or drugged, or in a coma, etc) your consciousness ends. When you wake up, your consciousness resumes. You do not freak out about that. You remember your consciousness from before, that it was in the body from before. We believe we have a soul that is immutable from our consciousness because we have had no other experience and cannot comprehend what it would be like.

      Look at the experiments that have "reprogrammed" people to believe they like something they didn't before by creating memories of experiences where they liked it. They cannot remember not liking it.Or schizophrenics or people with split/multiple personalities. Our brains are not the infallable machine devices that we like to think they are; they are squishy, malleable things. Consciousness is not a black and white state; it only appears to be because that is the typical way of experiencing our mind.

      What makes us conscious? The belief that we're conscious. If you cloned your mind and put it in another body you would have two minds that both believed they were you. But why should we have trouble with that? We don't believe twins are one person. Their actions distinguish them. The two entities that shared one mind at one time would diverge and quickly become two distinguishable entities.

    33. Re:Artificial Brains? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I liked what you did there.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    34. Re:Artificial Brains? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

      Which is the exact reason I'd never take a ride on a Star Trek teleporter. I don't want to die and leave my entire physical, mental, and emotional estate to my identical twin who hasn't been born yet.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    35. Re:Artificial Brains? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      It's an old philosophical concept, called Theseus' Paradox or Philosopher's axe.

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

    36. Re:Artificial Brains? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      There is a concept called the Silver Cord. It's basically a metaphysical link between your physical body and the astral plane. Some call the astral plane a singularity of consciousness, God, and/or the spirit world. In short, your "spirit" doesn't live in your brain. Rather, your brain is controlled from the astral plane via the Silver Cord. In short, we are all puppet masters.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    37. Re:Artificial Brains? by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amnesia and Alzheimer's is enough proof we don't have souls, no doubt what we call "consciousness" is really just a network of developed cells and memories that are attached to it. After all no one claims to be able to remember what it was like as an embryo, also when one is under amnesia. One's "soul" doesn't float away. The concept of "soul" is just our irrational psychic defense against the fact we all die someday. That so many peoples and cultures have come up with an afterlife speaks volumes that it is just a reaction against our powerlessness to heal and fix ourselves because of the expense, energy, intelligence and tools to do so.

      We experience the self as a unified thing but it isn't. This is proven by people who've had brain damage in accidents and strokes where their "self" functions but they lose specific functions and aspects of 'who they are'.

      You can find out more by reading the following book by a Neurologist.

      This is Damasio's refutation of the Cartesian idea of the human mind as separate from bodily processes draws on neurochemistry to support his claim that emotions play a central role in human decision making.

      http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/

      Also related clip:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

    38. Re:Artificial Brains? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > OBE's ... it is caused by your visual system being turn on without any reference of were you are in the scene

      Even when the [physical] body is in pitch black ?

    39. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They always say our forefathers would vomit up a lung if they saw what we did to their country. Times were better back then, even with the government handing bibles out in schools and children getting their asses beat by teachers.

      Japan had a much different society and instead of naturally degrading they've seen our 20th century garbage FORCED on them. It'd be like if we found something identical to post-revolution America and forced modern american democracy on it, with the sleezy politicians and disney megacorporations. 1804 would be the year of the frontier, 1805 the year of everyone wanting to die to avert this horrible future.

      Japan's bullshit largely revolved around the Shogun effectively owning the people in their domain as property. The Meiji restoration eliminated that, dropped in other political issues; however the culture was always the same.

      Look at America and you'll see a culture of people scraping by to survive; they may be rich, but they're always caught up in making more money, getting laid, watching TV, buying shiny things. Japanese culture always had a deep-seated focus on personal philosophy: even under oppression and famine, even facing certain death, people wanted to maintain their honor. A Japanese murder conflict would inflict an immensely painful fatal wound on himself at his execution, and then be beheaded; an American murder convict will escape at first chance, and of course we've argued hanging and electrocution are "Cruel" for child rapist-murderers and instead inject them with an unbelievable amount of ANESTHETICS so they die feeling GOOOOOOOD.

      Americans are shocked by the idea of seppuku: it seems barbaric to us. But think about it for a minute. They expected someone who committed treason or murder or any given capital crime to not just be executed, but to inflict a painful and fatal wound on themselves. If they didn't, they'd behead them anyway--quick, relatively painless, less fear involved (self-inflicted wounds are scary as HELL; you can dissociate yourself a lot more from your impending execution). They still executed them, but they'd consider the social debt paid and honor restored after seppuku. This was important.

      Imagine living through that. You get to see the social change where everyone stops meditating and thinking about life and honor and what it means to be a warrior and the nature of beauty... and instead starts screaming and clapping at anything shiny, buying their food from vending machines (fast food!), and dressing in unbelievably gaudy crap.

      How do you think that'd feel?

    40. Re:Artificial Brains? by RonTheHurler · · Score: 1

      This is my great-great-great-grandfather's axe. It has had the head replaced twice and the handle replaced three times.

      "But they occupy the same space."
            -- Steven Wright.

    41. Re:Artificial Brains? by martas · · Score: 1

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      This is a non-existent (i.e. ill-posed) question, because you haven't defined life and, more importantly, you haven't defined individuality. There exist many philosophies/schools of thought where the whole idea of existence is rejected, let alone perpetuity of an individual. In fact, most systems of belief/philosophies would say that "you" are just as different from a perfect copy of yourself as you're different from yourself a day, second, or nanosecond ago.

    42. Re:Artificial Brains? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the bad netiquette, forgot a link of non-locality of mind ...

      > Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      http://www.skeptiko.com/michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link/

      Well, what’s going on in the laboratory - and I have some fantastic
      graduate students and we work together as a team - and what we have
      found for example, is that if you place two different brains, two
      different people at a distance, you put a circular magnetic field
      around both. There’s a magnetic field going around like a coil, around
      both brains even at a distance. You make sure both coils are connected
      to the same computer which means they’re generating the same
      configuration of two different spaces.

      If you flash a light in one person’s eye, even though they’re in a
      chamber that’s closed up, the person in the other room that’s
      receiving just the magnetic field now, they’re not aware of the light
      flashing or not, they will show similar changes in frequency in the
      room. And we think that’s tremendous because that maybe the first
      macro demonstration of a quantum connection or so-called quantum
      entanglement. And if that’s true then there’s another way of potential
      communication that may have physical application and application, for
      example, in space travel because there’s no time involved with it.
      That’s one thing we’re looking at. That’s one of our more exotic
      hypotheses.

    43. Re:Artificial Brains? by Zerth · · Score: 2

      The major question here is that now that you've dispensed with the existence of a "soul," you're left with the part where you copied your mind to "continue living" and yet all logic says that your personal experience with consciousness ends (you die) and there is another life form that now believes it is you (due to memories and the like).

      How do you know this doesn't happen every time you go to sleep? Your stream of consciousness is interrupted, for all you know aliens are swapping out your meat processor every night.

      If you fall asleep in a hospital, senile from old age, then wake up to a doctor saying you just came out of a coma and it is the future so they fixed you using "new medical techniques", would you freak out if you found out it involved a machine eating your brain neuron by neuron and shitting out a fresh cells with identical properties?

      How is that different from brain cells dying and being replaced by new ones and how is that different than having the machine spit out circuits that also act identically?

    44. Re:Artificial Brains? by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      Why must be that "link" there? If you make a exact copy of you (forget chips, memristors, electronic, just focus on the copy part) will be 2 "you" around, with experiences that will start to diverge at that point. There is no universal "you", will be 2 entities that will think that each one is the real one, and the other the copy, and even could arge which is the one that got the soul, and with a bit of luck decide that or there are free souls around for anyone wanting one, or that never were one to start with.

      Of course, if such "duplication" of people can be done (in real or virtual world) it could cause big legal troubles, and having only one copy "active" will solve most of it. But killing one of them will be for him dying, no matter what will or is happening at the same time to a completely separate entity that could look or think like you.

      In this scenario, suiciding is not a good scape pod. You still dying, and you are forcing the "other you", someone that knows and feel exactly like you, to keep with the problem (so probably he will suicide too, because will have to add to the original problem realizing how retard was his former self).

      Don't give so much value to your concience, could be just a meme.

    45. Re:Artificial Brains? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      It doesn't open up "debate" it opens up philosophical wankery. The real way to answer these questions isn't with a bunch of stoner farting around and whoa-man questions, it's to man up and actually do it, then measure the result. I'd volunteer in a heartbeat.

    46. Re:Artificial Brains? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      That second "questions" should have been statements.

    47. Re:Artificial Brains? by Burnhard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod this guy up. He's quite right. In my view consciousness is non-physical. That is to say it is not a measurable physical property. If this is the case, simply replicating the cognitive structure of a conscious organism does not necessarily instantiate a conscious state. Don't forget only 10 years ago photosynthesis was well understood in physical and biological terms, but now we discover that leaves take advantage of quantum effects to increase efficiency. There's a whole lot more going on in the brain than simple classical state change.

    48. Re:Artificial Brains? by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      I think you want strings | grep [that thing I was looking for]
      This could take time since it's not parallel. ;-)

    49. Re:Artificial Brains? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      somethings everyone in this discussion seems to forget is that a truly exact copy of somethings like the brain is, because of the uncertainty principle, physically impossible.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    50. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Many people have made this argument now. I recall a story about a god who had a giant ship. In restoring it, workers removed one plank at a time, replacing with a fresh piece of wood. Eventually every single board was replaced. The issue raised was that we basically built a new ship, and in fact could assemble the old pieces back into a copy. Which is the copy?

    51. Re:Artificial Brains? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      The 'I', the 'YOU' is an illusion. This proposition is not falsifiable. If I make a digital copy of ME, it will pretend, and be convinced, to be ME and any test you will put it to cannot disprove this.

      The idea that ME can branch is uncanny but we will have to get used to it. Once you are used to it, ask to yourself : "Why is ME afraid to die if ME survives ?". Are you afraid of going to sleep every evening ? The you that wakes up is different from the you that fell asleep. It can be considered like a discontinuity. You die every night, think about it. If you made a copy of yourself, dying is just like falling asleep. You have to be confident that you will wake up again and not lose your continuity of self.

      It is an act of faith in both case, and does not take ground in reality. For an external observer, as long as one copy of me is alive, I am alive. For all intend and purpose, the fear of death of a copy fearing to disappear is no more meaningful than the fears of someone who think he will die if he feels asleep.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    52. Re:Artificial Brains? by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Nanobots that (in the beginning) replace damaged parts of the brain with memristor circuits, all you know is that you can speak/see/walk again, but what if the process was allowed to continue (complete replacement), in a very elderly Stephan Hawking? We (the world) would get to keep one of our greatest minds, would Stephan agree?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    53. Re:Artificial Brains? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Why do you think consciousness has more reality than the soul ? You give a perfect scenario as to why the notion of consciousness is probably not more than an illusion.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    54. Re:Artificial Brains? by david.given · · Score: 1

      ...but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

      This is the fundamental assumption you're making that drives your argument: that the soul is distinct from the body. Go look up 'dualism (philosophy of mind)' on Wikipedia and you can read all about it.

      Of course, there's no evidence of this actually happening, as any hypothetical soul is unobservable. Every now and again somebody wraps the same argument up in quasi-scientific terms, usually using the word 'quantum', but right now dualism is a null hypothesis, untestable and therefore fundamentally uninteresting.

      However, if the state-of-the-art eventually does allow us to duplicate a brain, suddenly dualism does become testable (at least, provable; not necessarily disprovable).

      To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      If dualism is true, then there are three options: firstly, you retain the soul, but the copy has no soul. In this situation the copy won't work (this is an assumption, but if an ensouled brain behaves identically to an unensouled brain, then the soul is irrelevant). This is really interesting, because the body is a fundamentally material construct, and so this gives us a way to investigate how the soul interacts with the body, and could even lead to a science of manipulating souls. (Whether this is a good thing I'll leave up to the ethicists.)

      Secondly, the copy gets the same soul as you do. This means both you and the copy end up being the same person. This pretty much leads to, as you say, a psychic link (because otherwise you and the copy would have divergent experiences, making you different people). This is also really interesting, because it gives us another (different) handle on how souls behave. If we separate you from the copy too far, does one of you die because the single soul can't 'stretch' between the two bodies? If so, how far? If not, is there a light-speed lag in information transfer? If there is, how does the soul retain coherence? If not, does this violate causality? What about relativistic effects applied to a single body?

      Thirdly, the copy gets a new soul, acquired by whatever mechanism binds souls to infants. This is less interesting, because it's indistinguishable from the non-dualist case (see below). However, if the new individual turns out to differ from you in ways that can't be explained by divergent experiences, it does give us a weaker but still interesting handle on soul/body interactions by investigating why they differ.

      If dualism is not true, then the mind is encoded entirely in the state of the brain, which is being duplicated: so what we end up with are two yous, each believing they are you and with continuous memories of being you.

      If you're interested in this stuff, I suggest you go out and read Greg Egan's Permutation City. Or Dispora. Or Schild's Ladder. Hell, basically any of his books, although he does explore the question from the non-dualist point of view (but in very interesting ways).

    55. Re:Artificial Brains? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2

      I hate to break it to you, but Japan wasn't all honor, philosophy and appreciation of beauty like popular culture loves to depict it. There was plenty of turmoil and poverty for centuries in Japan, if not millennia. A lot of people struggled merely to survive. Ask the Ainu if their lives consisted of honor and philosophy and being at peace with nature. Certainly, Japanese aren't going to argue about how their history has been romanticized, and they engage in plenty of that themselves.

      American's haven't corrupted their culture. I don't think anyone can rationally disagree that Japan isn't way better off today than it was 60+ years ago. And Japan's culture is so strong that I don't think it's seen any real American influence in decades. If anything I'd say they've influenced some aspects of American culture more strongly, and at least it's been mutual. That's the way of the world.

      Culturally Japanese have embraced technology on a level American will never fathom. But that's no because of evil American meddling; especially given they build everything themselves. I'd love to see Americans embrace some of that Japanese work ethic and national pride. Because both are seriously lacking.

    56. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The nature of illusion is that it needs somebody to fool. Think about this for a second.

    57. Re:Artificial Brains? by durrr · · Score: 2

      Braincells communicate via synapses(of which there are approximately 10000 per neuron), synapses can form for long time or very transient. But at any given time you are constantly reforming and pruning synapses. At the end of the day you're having a new heap of synapses that are the days impression and when you wake up the next day the body have pruned away the vast majority of these synapses, giving you a fresh start.

      At what point of artificial intereference with this synapse forming game would we lose ourself? And at what physical place do we find the "core of our being, I-ness self synapse" that we just can't get rid of and still be ourself? Or could it be that we're looking at a holistic concept which actually is always transient and delude ourself into thinking it's some constant and continuity to the process?

      Probably we're just networks, not all to different from the internet at our core, of course there's a bit more than two webcams on the internet, and it doesn't need to work or find food to sustain itself, but at its core a lot of interconnected nodes, talking to eachother.

    58. Re:Artificial Brains? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      The question is what exactly are we. I would say we as consciousness are just like the software of the brain, the current state and pattern, and that if you could keep that same pattern going without destructively copying it, you would keep the person intact and "alive" in a new body.

      See, thats the whole difference. A boat has no software, its just hardware. But the whole point of humans was that we developed sentience so that we could have infinitely more complexity and variety than before. You can have two humans who are clones, exact genetic copies, but if you let them live for a few years, they will develop into very different people.

      The way I see it, we're practically separate. I am a software intelligence that is running on a hardware body, which is almost this homo sapiens creature that I have a symbiotic relationship with. It is alive, but needs me for guidance. I am alive, but need it to sustain my processes. You can say your body is "you", but its just an arbitrary distinction. Philosophically, your iPod is just as much a part of you (you use it to process thoughts, to perform actions, its constantly around you) there's no reason it has to be physically "attached".

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    59. Re:Artificial Brains? by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      That was the old theory. Years ago it was discovered that new brain cells are in fact produced throughout your lifetime.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    60. Re:Artificial Brains? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      No, not ridiculous, quite simple really. YOU would awaken once the switch was flipped to start the processing of your newly copied electronic brain. This new you would have the same memories/experiences you had when the snapshot of your organic brain was taken. Now, assuming your original organic brain was not instantly destroyed when the snapshot was taken and is still functioning, YOU would go on as if nothing happened. Your electronic brain "clone" would do the same, only from the very instant it became concious, it would begin deviating from the original because it would begin absorbing a separate set of experiences. If you were to, a while later, sit down an converse with your "clone", you would undoubtedly feel a tight kinship when it because of the share memories, but it would be a relationship more akin to a close twin. Basically, we are our memories, no soul or special spritual sauce required. While the idea of (at least momentarily) there being two "YOU"s with exactly the same memory might seem odd, if you think about it there's really nothing special about it. It's no different than my having two copies of the same file (in computer terms). It is exactly the same configuration of bits, even though it exists within two separate media locations. Once I alter even one bit however, it becomes a separate entity.

      So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.

      No, I don't so, anymore than receiving a heart transplant changes the way you feel about your loved ones. You'd continue on just as before, only you'd be "running" on a new brain. The same would be true if brain transplants were viable and your brain could be removed and placed in someone else's body. While your physical body would be different, the mind within your brain would still be you.

      Your brain is simply the hardware that you are implemented with. If an exact copy of your brain structure, along with all neuruonal connections and states can be replicated and placed into another brain or electronic device it would, by all accounts be you. The difficulty in imagining this is the idea that somehow there is something special (spiritual) going on, and that "you" are somehow unique and separate from you physical implementation. When in reality it is just as you mentioned, just a configuration of chemical and electrical states and processes.

      Keep in mind that neurons (and their related connections) have been dying and getting replaced your entire life. You are no longer the same set of cells you were when you were young, but you still feel like the same person (at least to a certain extent).


      I'm 100% sure that at some point in the future (unless the human race dies off first), that the ability to do just what we're discussion will be possible. All these ideas I hve no problem accepting.

      What I find fascinating is the implications of this new capability (far beyond the egotistical notion of immortality).
      Assuming that one's "mind" can be converted and stored in electronic form, organic bodies would no longer be necessary since an electronic existence would be far less fragile. It would also mean that it could be simply transmitted as well. This would allow travel to distant regions of space (at the spe

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    61. Re:Artificial Brains? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They've been calling computers "thinking machines" and "artificial brains" since ENIAC. But animal brains are analog, not digital. Memristors would come closer, except for one thing.

      THEY CAN'T EVEN MIMICK A GNAT'S BRAIN.

      before you try to match human intelligence, why don't some of these overeducated but still ignorant people figure out how something on a tiny scale works, like a gnat's brain?

      If you consider a gnat to be a machine, its computer gets input signals from optical systems, auditory signals, and chemical recognition devices (taste and smell) as well as touch. The computer would have to have the ability to seek out certain chemicals, avoid other chemicals, avoid preditors, etc. using these signals.

      Nobody's come close to doing with a computer what a gnat's brain can do, yet they think they're going to match a human brain?

      If it's a computer scientist named Cooper who thinks we'll have real artificial intelligence, I'll quote Nobel winning physicist Dr. George Smoot and say "with all due respects, Dr. Cooper, are you on crack?"

    62. Re:Artificial Brains? by rfbeck · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. You are NOT bound to your brain. If I make a copy of my brain into a cloned brain or electronic brain, and booted it up at the same time I shut down my original, then I would regain consciousness AS ME. Me with my new immortal brain. It would me a smooth transition. If I happen to keep the original brain "alive" at the time I booted up the new one, then there would be simply two me's who perceive themselves to be genuine.
      ______
      rfbeck

      "So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die."

      --
      I think being a plumber is a noble chore. When the toilet overflows you don't need Dostoevsky coming to your house.
    63. Re:Artificial Brains? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At least some are, just at a slow rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis#Adult_neurogenesis
      http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxar9m

      Also in mice at least, fetal cells can get into the mother's brain and grow neurons etc there: http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2006/07/20/on-a-mothers-mind/

      Maybe that's why some couples start looking like each other over time :).

      --
    64. Re:Artificial Brains? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why are you conscious?

      Consciousness is only a complex chemical reaction. Not a lot different than how water feels when you squeeze lemon juice into it and add sugar.

      My soul has nothing to do with my consciousness. My consciousness can be affected by many factors: drugs, disease, pain, food, and many other factors. If your soul had much to do with thought, why then could you get drunk?

    65. Re:Artificial Brains? by box4831 · · Score: 1

      would you freak out if you found out it involved a machine eating your brain neuron by neuron and shitting out a fresh cells with identical properties?

      I hope the doctor can ease my awakening into the future by saying that with more eloquence than "machines are eating your brain and shitting in your skull!"

      --
      Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
    66. Re:Artificial Brains? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is my great-great-great-grandfather. He has had his head replaced twice and his, erm, "handle" replaced three times. Grandad is a randy old gentleman.

    67. Re:Artificial Brains? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      THEY CAN'T EVEN MIMICK A GNAT'S BRAIN.

      Methinks you are a little, shall we say, "out of the loop"?

      http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/18/ibm-brain-science-technology-breakthroughs-supercomputer.html
      We've long passed a gnat's brain and will probably reach primate brain equivalence within a couple of years.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    68. Re:Artificial Brains? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      And your credentials compared to "Neuroscience Researcher and Laurentian University professor, Dr. Michael Persinger" are what again?

      Don't shoot the messenger.

    69. Re:Artificial Brains? by Silpher · · Score: 1

      Well what if you "die" every night.. Oké thats sounds a little bit dramatic but everytime you go asleep your brains kind of reboots especialy when in deep sleep there is little brain activity. So concious basicly stops every night. No difference as when you just put you brain somewhere else and "wake" up as yourself.

    70. Re:Artificial Brains? by Damek · · Score: 1

      "Opens up?" People have been debating this stuff for millennia, and will for many more I imagine.

      The other thing I'd say is, you can even stop with "map out the brain" - what does that mean? Whose brain? At what age in their life?

      "Mind" does not equal "brain." "Mind" is a capacity of the full organism, which changes over time. The brain develops along with the body and its experiences, just as the rest of the body does. The body and brain both change themselves moment to moment, and whatever "data" there is that describes you is different from one instance of you to the next, much like state changes in software from one computation cycle to the next, especially if you consider software that can change its own programming on teh fly.

      If they really want to create an artificial brain, they'll have to create one that can change its own structure over time, as ours do even in adulthood. They'll have to create life support systems to support it, to which it will have to be mapped... Basically, I don't think you can have a brain in a box, so to speak. You could, but it'd be as useless as a human brain in a box. You have to recreate a whole being, you have to set it in motion, and let it develop itself. It's how we work; it's how "artificial beings" will have to work.

      The only wrinkle would be if you could HALT the activity of the being, read all of its data and duplicate it, and then start it up again. We can't do that with ourselves, for some reason. Maybe we'll construct versions of life that have that ability, but they won't be us, even if we could transfer ourselves to them somehow. They'll be them, even if they have some of our memories, much like how I'm not the me I was when I started writing this.

    71. Re:Artificial Brains? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      After so many centuries scientists still haven't explained the very first observation most (all?) of them make. :).

      --
    72. Re:Artificial Brains? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You'd have to actually live in the society to know about it, or have wide access to personal diaries from a variety of people. You talk about honor, but remember the Japanese were as brutal as anybody else during the war, and you can't pin that on the United States.

    73. Re:Artificial Brains? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      But your body is already doing it when it replaces dead cells with newly created cells

      "I seem to be a verb."

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    74. Re:Artificial Brains? by Xaroth · · Score: 1

      From the "soul" vs "mechanical consciousness" standpoint, what you'll probably want to use for the discussion is the notion of a "Philosophical Zombie". There's a lot of existing philosophical arguments about this sort of conundrum, but to whet the collective appetite, the short version is this:

      Imagine a ( memristor brain | android | doppleganger ) which has no soul *or* consciousness, but which reacts to all stimuli exactly the same as a real human. Kick it in the shin, it hops about cursing at the pain even though it can't "feel" anything. Show it a scary movie, it complains about nightmares the next day. Ask it if it has a consciousness, and it'll say 'yes', even though it only does so because it is ( programmed | emergently behaving | magically enchanted ) to do so in response to that stimulus. I'm sure you get the idea. Such an object we'll call a philosophical zombie for the sake of discussion.

      Now, given one of these "p-zombies", how should you treat it? Does it have the same rights as a human, even though it isn't one? If you injure it or cause it to cease functioning, should you be treated as though you maimed or killed a human? If everything about you and your memories were transitioned into one of these as the basis for its behavior, does it become you, your twin, or just an overgrown Teddy Ruxpin?

      Have fun hashing it out in the /. comments, or just wikiwalking your way through the associated corpus of literature!

    75. Re:Artificial Brains? by Damek · · Score: 2

      This is where standpoint theory comes into play. The copy over there has a different vantagepoint than you do. It begins with little differences, like it wakes up next to the window and you wake up next to the door. It expands outward from there as you make different decisions.

      Take identical twins, for example, They can have remarkably similar lives, perhaps due to living through somewhat similar circumstances while also tending towards making the same sorts of decisions about those things (perhaps they're informed by nearly identical biological and cultural programming...). But no matter how similar their lives, no one (I hope) would claim identical twins are actually the same person.

      Neither would you and your copy. As soon as the "other you" begins to exist, they cease to be you and start being your identical twin, with the main difference being that they'd share memories of part of your life and, possibly, claims to your rights & responsibilities accumulated during that portion of your life.

      As for "dying as part of the copying process," I think it still means the copy would be a new entity (after all, it would be one who went through the copying process and lived, which is pretty different from you who would be dead), but that it would probably identify strongly as "still the same person," as it has no reason to socially define itself against you as a still living human being.

    76. Re:Artificial Brains? by mibe · · Score: 1

      This question was discussed in China Mieville's Kraken which featured (among other wackiness) a character who could teleport by completely breaking himself down into component molecules/atoms/energy/whatever and reassembling his entire body at his destination, like a Star Trek teleporter. This is distinct from, say, ripping a hole in space-time and walking through to a distant destination, since your body would remain intact for the journey. The upshot of course is that he "died" with every teleportation, and was haunted by dozens of ghosts - of all his dead selves killed by teleportation. Of course if ghosts aren't real, and there is no afterlife, then nobody would ever know or care, which I guess is how Roddenberry figured it. Similarly, in The Prestige Hugh Jackman's (pardon my reference to the movie, I never read the book) remarks that every time he used Tesla's duplication device he wondered whether he would be the one drowning, although of course from his point of view he survived (and would survive) 100% of the time.

    77. Re:Artificial Brains? by Tynin · · Score: 2

      It's called "Where Am I?" by Daniel Dennett.

      Yes! Thank you, now off to read it again! It really is an excellent short story on this topic. So please read and enjoy, Where Am I?

    78. Re:Artificial Brains? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      If all we are is data and processing, this is like saying that I really can steal digital music, because when I copy it from you, you don't have it anymore.

      Again, if it really is like data and processing, you go in, get your brain copied, and now there are two of you - the organic you and the electronic you. The organic one remembers going for the procedure, perhaps a gap due to sedation or whatever, and talking to the electronic one when the procedure is finished. The electronic one remembers going for the procedure, perhaps a gap between when the recording started and ended, and talking to the organic one when the procedure is finished.

      Unless the procedure actually results in the organic you dying, why would you assume that you are some unique snowflake, and that only one of you can exist at the same time, especially if you've already discounted the idea of a soul?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    79. Re:Artificial Brains? by juuri · · Score: 1

      Let's continue this out even further. What if consciousness is an emergent property of a heavily quantum entangled system (ie our brain). What happens when the forces bound into our xyzt plane of existence are rendered useless to the continuation of your life, your soul, but leaves the entanglements in dimensions 5-11 proposed by m-theory?

      Things gonna' get messy 'round here!

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    80. Re:Artificial Brains? by jdoverholt · · Score: 1

      I always imagined it would work identically to fork(). There is but one "me", then suddenly there is another with exactly the same recollection up to that point. The new "me" would probably be disoriented, given the sudden change in inputs, but I imagine the artificial brain would be as good at adapting to change as our squishy ones are. Just putting regular me to sleep first would probably make the transition easier.

      For those who insist on a soul: maybe this process creates a new soul, reallocates one from heaven, or whatever else you believe happens when you're born. I don't recall anywhere in the bible saying this isn't the case. Maybe God will ordain our new process for creating life and endow our creations with souls, as he allows modern medicine to defy his mortality schedule.

      I don't really care about any of the spiritual side of the argument, I'm kind of hoping that one day I'll have the option to go to sleep and wake up in a totally sweet new robot body.

    81. Re:Artificial Brains? by korean.ian · · Score: 2

      OK, we're way off topic here but I just had to post.
      The Japanese modernized all on their very own, they didn't have anything forced upon them. They went out and embraced reform, it's how they were able to dominate East Asia in the first half of the 20th century. Post Second World War, they were fairly eager to embrace the changes foisted upon them by MacArthur.

      Prior to the Meiji Restoration, you seem to overstate the idea of personal philosophy and underestimate the idea of merchants and economic trade. The merchant class grew substantially under Tokugawa Japan, they developed their own class and some merchants grew exceedingly wealthy despite the feudal system, as the nobles (samurai) had no access to land based profit, they often had to borrow money from the merchants. Merchants dominated the urban life of Tokugawa Japan especially in cultural aspects as they rose to be the new bourgeoise.
      Remember by 1770 there were already about a million people in Tokyo, so there was a huge shift in relations, commercial activity and culture. Under Tokugawa rule women lose their rights to inheritance, they also lose the right to divorce their husbands, but men could bring other women into the house.

      Basically life was good (relatively) if you were part of the elite, but the notion that people spent all their time thinking about personal honour is a fiction

    82. Re:Artificial Brains? by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have to be a shadow copy if all entangled manifestations are accompanied within their own context by sufficient evidence to be self-evident within the context.

      This does not require any observer including the 'copy' to have ability to grok the self-evident state as anything other than being. All copies must have their own expression of change, however, and that expression must on aggregate define a union between the 'copies,' though the state of union itself need not be grokked by the constituents but through observation of relativity with implied constituents.

      Intuition, emotion, everything involved in PSI... These are all examples of potential in context cascades resulting from a union with as yet unobserved constituents of a multi-dimensional being. Unobserved unless you consider giving yourself over with total humility to contemplation without temporal concern to be observation... But that leaves very little time for saving the world, so, next life maybe.

    83. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're taking this whole thing from an externalized perspective; but what about internalized? What if I did destroy the original organic copy? Would you wake up with an electronic brain? Or would an electronic brain that thinks it's you wake up elsewhere?

      The essential question is, from your perspective, what is the difference between me shooting you in the head versus me copying you and THEN shooting you in the head? Sure, everyone else will see the copy and interact with it like you; yes, the copy will behave exactly like you; but you don't experience anyone else's life, and you won't experience the copy's.

      That brings us back to the question of what consciousness is.

    84. Re:Artificial Brains? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I guess the fears of a machine dominated world might not be entirely accurate. It's not that we build machines that become sentient... it's that we become the machines

      To me we should NOT build/grow machines/"artificial creatures" that become sentient, because society is not ready for the hard decisions that come with it.

      Because at what point do we give that entity all the rights AND responsibilities of a human? Or would we be creating those creatures just to enslave them even if they happen to be sentient? Then we would just be producing more evil in the world. We still have tons of racists in the world, we don't treat animals we enslave that well. This would just add to the problem.

      All for what? So that a bunch of rich guys can make themselves even richer?

      So human augmentation is a better approach than creating a new type of sentient creatures.

      Human replacement on the other hand, I'm not so sure. Complete replacement with memristors might not work.

      I believe at least some animals have minds too. Now which configurations of memristors will create a mind? I don't know. How do we tell?

      You might actually create replace humans with a whole bunch of machines that just look like they have minds on initial inspection, but turn out to just be very sophisticated ELIZAs.

      One might say, what's the difference? But maybe a visiting bunch of aliens might be able to easily tell the difference with their technology. And be disappointed.

      p.s. Maybe in the Matrix that's what the Oracle was trying to do, but from a different direction - machine to human: merging humans with machines to augment herself. Smith merging with everything (presumably including humans) including the Oracle and then Neo. She knew something was missing so she played that "very dangerous game"...

      --
    85. Re:Artificial Brains? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact.

      When you load a saved game, do you say "Wait a minute, this isn't the exact same game I was playing?!?" or do you just pick up where you left off? It's the same principle. No, it's not the same instance of you, but it's still you, and you're still in the exact same state as you were when you were saved [wow, unfortunate word choice Christians], assuming a flawless copy with perfect fidelity. From the perspective of the artificial brain, it would still be your consciousness, continued from the moment you stepped into the brain scanning machine (or whatever). It's essentially irrelevant that "you" aren't running on your old hardware, except that obviously your new experiences would be substantially different than your old. It would change you, but so does any other significant life experience, so that's rather moot -- your consciousness is still your consciousness.

      For what it's worth, I used to think this scenario was likely when I was a kid, but now I'd be extremely (though pleasantly) surprised if we see anything close in our lifetimes. There's nothing on the horizon that even approaches the ability to map the physical structure of a brain, let alone the contents stored within. We don't even understand how knowledge is physically stored, so we're a long, long way away from copying brains to machines.

    86. Re:Artificial Brains? by jdoverholt · · Score: 1

      "Visual system" not referring specifically to the eyes, but rather the visual cortex, which is structurally almost identical to your other higher-functioning centers. Hallucinations don't happen in your eyes, they happen in your brain, and they produce just as meaningful and "real" input as your eyes and ears can. If you try hard enough you can clearly remember things that never really happened, as though they were real, regardless of where your body is/was.

    87. Re:Artificial Brains? by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my view consciousness is non-physical.

      Of course it's physical -- what else would it be? What else *could* it be? The problem is that brains don't have JTAGs, and so it's quite difficult to tap all the inputs and outputs to run reproducible experiments, particularly while keeping the brain alive and functional. Add to that the fact that no two brains are identical, and you've really got your work cut out for you. The reason it's so easy to reverse engineer a chip (relatively speaking) is that one is an exact duplicate and representative of all others of its kind. This almost definitely does not hold true for brains except in a very generalized sense.

    88. Re:Artificial Brains? by robotandrew · · Score: 1

      I want to clarify that in order for it to react to STIMULI, it must have a way of GATHERING AND PROCESSING data about the stimuli--in other words, nerve cells (sensors). Now you could make an argument that these are not organic, but that begs the question: "what makes us human?" is it our particular chemical composition? Our social bonds? If you take a macroscale view of it, we are defined by 2 things, our particular chemical makeup, and our particular system of gathering/processing/reacting to stimuli.

    89. Re:Artificial Brains? by robotandrew · · Score: 1

      I also just noticed my handle. Yay for irony.

    90. Re:Artificial Brains? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      The former blind people having data forced into their brains via crude electronic chips would perhaps disagree.

      1. The machine is your friend.
      2. The machine is your friend, the machine is parts of your sensory and autonomic processing, the machine is you. There is no difference between these.
      3. Your polarization has nothing to do with this. As a person with Asperger I get to deeply appreciate the difference between cognitive structures that are out of my reach or direct perception every day. An AI or partial AI is simply a being with a mind very different from yours, and being self-aware probably doesn't come with all the baggage you might presume - there would be an infinite amount of different ways to be "self-aware", which is just a human word. This obviously then includes any sort of perception of closeness or distance from "", and one has to realize that the particulars of this perception is just as arbitrary. Consider the the mind of a Judeo-Christian "Angel".

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    91. Re:Artificial Brains? by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the program I wrote in 5th grade. I replaced the computer twice, the monitor 3x, and now it runs in an emulator.

    92. Re:Artificial Brains? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Whatever the case may be, I'd like to invoke the Terry Pratchett metaphor of "the brain telling itself a story". Talking about metaphysical phenomena like they where "objects" or "things" is potentially insane. Even "properties" or "concepts" or even "conceptual approximation" are things arising from the human mind.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    93. Re:Artificial Brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your argument sounds like you can't create a sufficiently accurate model of the brain. That, no matter how precise you might think it is, there's always some deeper, quantum, or otherwise phenomenon. This seems to be the way "consciousness transfer" arguments go - someone proposes copying the software out of a brain into a computer simulation, and the counter position boils down to inability to completely copy the software or to accurately simulate the neurons. This failure must be either because of technical difficulty, and the proposition presupposes solving all technical difficulties, or because the brain/software are fundamentally non-deterministic.

      Now, a single photon is non-deterministic. Near as I understand, many single molecules are non-deterministic, so it's not fundamentally impossible that larger scale biological processes are non-deterministic. If you put a thousand photons together, their population behavior becomes deterministic. It seems like a cell, with thousands of identical molecules, probably has a large enough sample size to act deterministic, even if you can't tell which one of the voltage gated sodium channels is open right now.

    94. Re:Artificial Brains? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      Yes. Yes.

      To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      That is ridiculous. Why would there need to be a link between them for them both to be me? They would both be me at the moment they boot up. Then they would be two different people from then on in the exact same way that I'm not the same person I was ten years ago. My experiences have changed who I am, and the divergent experiences of my two copies will make them increasingly different. However, you don't argue that the changes I've been through over the past year mean that I have "died", so you can't argue that I will have died for as long as my copies live either. After all, all the experiences I've had will continue to shape them.

    95. Re:Artificial Brains? by treeves · · Score: 2

      You're not a verb. "Is" is a verb. Quite a common one. And "doing" is also a verb. In the sentence you quoted, they work together. In this case, "is" is an auxiliary or "helping" verb.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    96. Re:Artificial Brains? by treeves · · Score: 1

      That's not ironic.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    97. Re:Artificial Brains? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason slow replacent would work is because the opposite also works. Consider that everyday, hundreds of neurons in your brain are dying right now. Some are replaced by new neurons while others are not. And yet the continuity of you still exists.

    98. Re:Artificial Brains? by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      See the twins that can understand and/or hear each others thoughts

      http://gizmodo.com/5682758/the-fascinating-story-of-the-twins-who-share-brains-thoughts-and-senses

    99. Re:Artificial Brains? by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yet if we poke certain areas of your brain, we can not only make you do things, but you will also believe that you wanted to do them. Explain that.

    100. Re:Artificial Brains? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      My take on it:

      A ship or anything else isn't necessarily made from the same stuff at any given time. A wave in the ocean for instance is a shape that persists and that we see as a "thing", though the water it's made of constantly changes. Same happens with people. You consume, rearrange and excrete molecules. You're not made today from the same atoms you were when you were 10.

      "Copy" is just a human descriptor, meaning "this object was made using another as a reference". Copies often suffer generational loss, which is why it's useful to know what is a copy of what. In that sense, the new ship built from the replaced pieces is the copy, because it probably was built looking at the fully functional ship.

      The way I see it, if two things are close enough that no diffrence can be discerned, the "copy" status of any of them is irrelevant, and both are as good as original.

      Looking at it another way, everything is a copy. The first object is an imperfect reproduction of a plan. An original painting is still an imperfect execution of what the artist wanted to paint. Any given human is an imperfect execution of the orders encoded in the DNA.

    101. Re:Artificial Brains? by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      You're changing brains all the time.

      Your current brain isn't the one you were born with. On a cellular level, there are processes that continously rebuild your brain. The only thing that stays somewhat constant is the pattern of information and processing.

      The only rational conclusion I see is that anything that has your brain pattern will be you, for all intents and purposes. There's no unique process that has to be present to make you you.

    102. Re:Artificial Brains? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yes, and this would work why? (in practice, would it?)

      Because your brain is already replacing worn-out parts in the course of normal metabolism, and that doesn't seem to affect you much.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    103. Re:Artificial Brains? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      My best guess (as someone who believes in a 'soul', but also realizes this can lead to some potentially absurd conclusions) is that for each small electric replacement, your consciousness will proportionally fade away. At bit like when you're half asleep say if half your brain was replaced.

      The problem with this is that if this "fading away" leads to any externally noticeable changes in behaviour - such as cries of "Stop! I'm fading!" - the electronic replacements clearly aren't functioning, and the experiment fades. On the other hand, it would take a sudden and complete removal of control for your behaviour to not change. And if your behaviour does not change, then clearly human soul isn't needed for humanlike behaviour - which means that you have no reason to expect anyone besides yourself to actually have this soul, no matter how they act.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    104. Re:Artificial Brains? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Imagine a ( memristor brain | android | doppleganger ) which has no soul *or* consciousness, but which reacts to all stimuli exactly the same as a real human.

      Uh, isn't that the nightmare we all had when we were 13? That for all we knew, we were the only "real" person alive, with no way to know that everybody else wasn't some elaborate illusion to make us think we weren't alone? (For that matter, maybe this life is just a dream of mine in another "more real" one?)

      It all ultimately comes down to the same question, of how you can know anything "for sure." And the answer is, you can't.

    105. Re:Artificial Brains? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      You're taking this whole thing from an externalized perspective; but what about internalized? What if I did destroy the original organic copy? Would you wake up with an electronic brain? Or would an electronic brain that thinks it's you wake up elsewhere?

      Easy. I would wake up with an electronic brain.

      The essential question is, from your perspective, what is the difference between me shooting you in the head versus me copying you and THEN shooting you in the head? Sure, everyone else will see the copy and interact with it like you; yes, the copy will behave exactly like you; but you don't experience anyone else's life, and you won't experience the copy's.

      That's the whole point. The copy would be "me". It wouldn't be anyone else's life, it would be mine. If you shot me in the head, but didn't make a copy first, I would cease to exist. I wouldn't know it, because I would no longer have a functioning brain to think with. My "mind" (aka "I") would no longer exist because it was merely the result of the processing going on in my now defunct brain.

      That brings us back to the question of what consciousness is.

      Conciousness is actually fairly well understood nowadays and doesn't really require any metephysical explanation.

      Consciousness is simply a "state of attention" that is produced by the processes going on in the brain and is primarily a function of the hippocampus (a walnut sized kidney shaped organ deep in the center brain). Consciousness is merely the collection of thoughts that your brain is primarily focused on at any given moment, with the most pressing thoughts receiving the most attention.
      Think of it this way. Imagine you are absorbed in reading a book while walking down a flight of stairs, (assuming you are somewhat coordinated). The mechanics of walking down the steps will be managed somewhat automatically by lower priority thought processes and your attention will be focused on what you are reading - no problem. Now imagine that you miss a step. You immediately switch your attention from what you are reading to trying to catch yourself. What you were reading gets pushed down in priority and the hippocampus diverts all attention to the motor cortex so that you can try to keep from busting you ass (it also dumps copious amounts of adrenaline into your cortex so you can react quickly). This amounts to a radical reorganization of your thoughts. After you recover, it will take some time for the adrenaline to dissipate so that you can go back to focusing on your book.

      If you try and recall what happened, it will seem almost as if the near fall happened to someone else. You will feel somewhat disconnected from it. This is because the "stream" of consciousness was broken and a new stream started. What this tells us is that (in the mind vs brain sense) there is no "you" or "me" in a static context, just like it's not possible to separate space and time. Who you are is constantly changing, with every modification of the synapses in your brain. Just as your mind underwent a major change when you almost fell, switching off from my organic brain into an electronic would result in the same sort of context switch, but I would still feel like "I" was "me".

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    106. Re:Artificial Brains? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Are you the same person now you were at age 2? 5? 10? Would the you from that time recognize you as the same person? I don't imagine changing the media your thoughts and personality are recorded on is really all that different from aging a couple of decades. Our sense of continuity is largely an illusion, anyway. Perhaps part of changing to a new media would be to instill in you a sense that you're really not that much different than you were when you were made of meat. I'm sure that if they can read your memories and write them to an electronic brain, they should easily be able to make you feel like you're the same person.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    107. Re:Artificial Brains? by maugle · · Score: 1

      Y'know, we've discovered so much about how the human body works, it's kind of funny that when it comes to the organ that tells the body how it should work, we're still in the "poke it and see what it does" phase of exploration.

      It will be very interesting to see what the next 50 years bring the field of neuroscience. I expect it to be similar to the golden age of astronomy we're experiencing now, where new inventions allow us to discover new and astonishing things at breakneck speeds.

    108. Re:Artificial Brains? by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      Is it impolite to ask if you have been seeing recent posts about current materials or endowments being inappropriate hosts for manufactured intellects?

      Something about your comment reminds me of those comments, but your message seems to go the other way... until it comes back at the end.

      So where to respond?

      Elsewhere in this thread you mention this:

      Whatever the case may be, I'd like to invoke the Terry Pratchett metaphor of "the brain telling itself a story". Talking about metaphysical phenomena like they where "objects" or "things" is potentially insane. Even "properties" or "concepts" or even "conceptual approximation" are things arising from the human mind.

      If the final sentence of the quoted is a recognition of 'human mind' as reflection of intellectual faculty meeting motive force, stabilizing within an anchor form, and encountering thereafter knowledge of ante and precedents resulting in suspicion of implied but absent ante and precedents then maybe we agree.

      If the final statement is a postulation that 'human mind,' this origin location, is designated such to emphasize an intellectual nature separate from the implications of the host form then I don't think we concur.

      The final sentence of the parent post here is the same way except we must replace the word 'suspicion' with 'knowledge' in the case of the Angelic form. The machine is a different thing depending on the definition of Angel as a form of union and reflection, or segregation and self radiance.

      Both posts can be flipped by the value of the last bit. Wasn't that an early framebuffer optimization technique - using single bits to signal inline transformation?

      Anyhow, I am always interested in other opinions.

    109. Re:Artificial Brains? by maugle · · Score: 1

      There is a concept called the Silver Cord. It's basically a metaphysical link between your physical body and the astral plane. Some call the astral plane a singularity of consciousness, God, and/or the spirit world. In short, your "spirit" doesn't live in your brain. Rather, your brain is controlled from the astral plane via the Silver Cord. In short, we are all puppet masters.

      Which, unfortunately, doesn't really mesh with a reality where humans can be - and are all too often - a pack of idiotic, violent, tribal animals. If we were able to see the big picture more often, and work towards bettering humanity instead of fighting amongst ourselves, that "Silver Cord" concept would probably have more "pull".


      ...oh, unless the "spirit world"/"astral plane"/whatever is in just as sorry a state as our physical world, which is something I'd rather not think about.

    110. Re:Artificial Brains? by kombipom · · Score: 1

      When you go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning how do you know that you are still you? Sounds like a silly question but if somebody copied you perfectly and took the original away you would still wake up in your bed. The fact there there is now another you doesn't change that. The fact that you are the copy doesn't change that either. As both of you experience more then you become more and more separated in the same way that you today are separated from the you of a few years ago. So if I can get me consciousness copied to a machine which is functionally equivalent (or superior) then I get to survive in the machine even if I also get to die in this meatbag, better than the just dying option.

    111. Re:Artificial Brains? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      *** SPOILERS on movie you should have already seen *** (The Prestige)

      If you cloned your mind and put it in another body you would have two minds that both believed they were you.

      Yeah but if one of "you" randomly falls into a locked tank of water and the other stands before a cheering crowd the answer to that question is not so clear anymore.

      Of course I'm talking about "The Prestige" and I think the original guy died every single time.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    112. Re:Artificial Brains? by Mryll · · Score: 1

      But if me-ME lives in a human body and digi-ME lives in a Mac mini, it's pretenses will fail badly. :)

    113. Re:Artificial Brains? by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem: you're fundamentally wrong about quantum entanglement. It doesn't allow for instantaneous communication, even in the laboratory (let alone in our brains, but I'll leave that be). Even if our brains are utilizing vast amounts of entanglement that we just haven't noticed yet, they cannot possibly use entanglement for instantaneous communication. If they could, causality would be violated. See: Tachyon Pistols Thought Experiment. Talk to a physicist who knows a bit of relativity (better yet, one who teaches Special Relativity in an introductory course) and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain it in a bit more detail.

      How, out of curiosity, do you propose that the brains have become entangled?

    114. Re:Artificial Brains? by Mryll · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that a perfect copy could be made in any case due to specific effects of the copying or hot-swapping process itself.

      Say you have a process intended to snapshot a mind by capturing physical config of the brain. We cannot measure all of this without affecting the system as part of the measurement process. Recovering every detail (impossible) of every particle etc. requires subtly touching every particle etc. Even if you had a wonderful scanner that got a nearly perfect picture as minimally invasively as possible, it's quite likely that undergoing such a scan would be psychologically disturbing. Assuming the scan takes finite time at all, what do we get in the copy? The mind's contents just prior to being zapped with the scan? What it felt like being scanned? The mind that has memory of the scan just having been completed? I don't see any sort of perfect synchronous copy to really be possible or meaningful.

      As far as the survivors would go, an original and copy might well recognize differences between themselves based upon differing views of "the divergence". :)

      How the survivors (at least the copy) might act could be influenced by expectations programmed into the copying process itself if there were enough understanding of what was being copied. A surviving mind that was expected to operate with any significant changes in hardware might be in an ill place indeed without some modifications of physical expectations.

    115. Re:Artificial Brains? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      What about neural networks they were supposed to create human like brains.

      Like MichaelKristopeit

    116. Re:Artificial Brains? by robi5 · · Score: 1

      What is slow enough? And what if it happens overnight - the person waking up will enjoy perfect continuity with his former biological state.

      Maybe it will be socially accepted that we die and reborn on a daily basis, e.g. via the use of teleportation. Whoever is stepping out on the far end will have confirmation that teleportation works and his self remained intact.

    117. Re:Artificial Brains? by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 1

      To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      I have pondered this same thing many times, and I agree. Imagine going into the office where they make a copy of you. He walks out with new upgraded hardware. You sit in the office waiting for your fatal injection. This doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

      ...but is this any different from falling asleep at night and waking up in the morning. Isn't our consciousness basically being snuffed out and replaced daily? If not, how can you, the new mind, tell that you are the same "person" as the old mind from yesterday?

      The Prestige has an interesting plot along these lines.

    118. Re:Artificial Brains? by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      LOL. uhm, no. Go study people who have been _dead_ for 30 mins to over an hour. There was NO EEG waveform.

      So either you didn't read the links you posted or you didn't understand them. No one has been brain dead for 30 min to an hour. What they stated is memories could not be formed without blood flow. And they based this belief on what exactly? Let's see here...person A has NDE and says they remember it, there was no blood flow to the brain at that time....logic concludes that yes you can form memories without blood flow to the brain...yet they state the opposite...go figure.

      The rest of your babble is mostly religious fervor. I knew a guy once in college like you that taught critical thinking...which was a joke. He threw pseudo science at us everyday like "well a fern plan has more chromosomes than you so it must be more advanced than you".

      Some people can read exactly the same things and still only see the world through their wonderfully painted eyeglasses. In many ways I pity you...but I'm also glad there are people like you.

    119. Re:Artificial Brains? by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      OK, it's physical in the sense everything is physical, but that doesn't mean it's a direct product of the connective structure of the brain as is observable or reproducible with anything close to modern technology. For example, it's very difficult to reproduce a chaotic system in such a way that it duplicates another chaotic system (assuming they're not algorithmically created--don't wave a Mandelbrot set at me in response :).

      In particular, if thought is essentially a series of quantum effects--and human consciousness being apparently non-deterministic, that seems entirely plausible--it may take a very specific configuration of very specific elements in a very specific chemical environment to produce an identical gestalt. I'm not sure we have any reason to believe a simulation could get anywhere near, any more than we can effectively simulate the operation of a Porsche by modeling the individual quarks that comprise it (car analogy, ergo sum.)

    120. Re:Artificial Brains? by kwikrick · · Score: 1

      Consciousness is simply a continuous awareness of the current, though senses, and the past, though memory. It is interrupted every night when you go to sleep. When you wake up, you remember the days before, smell the familiar smells etc. You still feel like you.

      Imagine going to sleep in your old human body, and waking up as a robot/computer program. It would be weird, but this new you would still think of itself as you, since all your memories are still there, and you remember all the preparations to have your brain replicated in a computer....

      Continuity is perhaps not such an important ingredient of consciousness after all. In some eastern philosophies and meditation practices (mindfulness meditation, Theravada Buddism) it is taught that consciousness dies many times a second, and is born again many times a second...

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
    121. Re:Artificial Brains? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      It will be very interesting to see what the next 50 years bring the field of neuroscience. I expect it to be similar to the golden age of astronomy we're experiencing now, where new inventions allow us to discover new and astonishing things at breakneck speeds.

      Careful with that optimism, kid. Every generation believes they are alive at just the right time to witness The Golden Age, the exciting, great revolutions of science. Not saying that you are wrong necessarily, but I think such advances are unlikely to happen within your lifetime. It's equally likely that we are at the end of a golden age of neuroscience. That we are at the beginning of a 126 year period of stagnation.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    122. Re:Artificial Brains? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Every (recent) generation HAS been alive to witness the Golden Age of science. More good science and technological invention has happened since the industrial revolution than the rest of history combined. We've gone from abacuses to pentium processors, from horseback to space shuttle, from musket to rockets-to-Mars and H-bombs.

      There's no good reason to assume that the pace will slacken off now, since discovery seems to breed new discovery. Neuroscience is computationally very tricky to study- super-computers are getting more powerful, almost unimaginably so, every year. Lets keep hold of that optimism.

    123. Re:Artificial Brains? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      In no way was I implying solipsism. Yes, the point was that the intellectual nature is, so to speak, the host form. And this host form may take any number of shapes, each unknowable in its subjective nature to the others.

      As for the angels, I brought that up because from a spiritual perspective I would feel that a very fundamental thing in human spirituality is "knowledge of and closeness to god/the source/whatever". It's not something that I can explain, being in it's nature something like being musical or tone-deaf, but I think you get what I mean. One view of judeo-christian angels is that they have no free will and perfect or near-perfect knowledge of god, yet are indeed "separate". This would then imply, as you well understood, knowledge instead of "suspicion" - my thought was that of kinds of being that had a fundamentally alien perception in these regards, but such an angel might have been a bad example because the being imagined would simply have a "perfect human" closeness, union. I can't come up with any good examples, but postulate a creature that somehow has an intuitive understanding like the one we are discussing in such a manner that it is meaningful to compare the two, not "stronger" or "weaker" but so different in it's fundamental nature to that of a human mind that it is completely incomprehensible.

      My understanding of your argument basically boils down to the fact that replacing the physical matter or structure of the human brain will render the material end of the "relationship" null, because the "soul" and the brain grow and function together and are inseparable as far as that goes. My counterargument basically boils down to the fact that we are already doing so by crudely interfacing with the brain, because I see no difference between changing sensory processing in this manner and changing cognitive processing. Changing the cognitive processing will simply result in a being with a "host form" that implies a conciousness removed from human nature in fundamental ways, including aformentioned spiritual aspects, at least on a level above "pure intuition".

      As for the actual brain/machine transfer, if the "standing wave" of conciousness is preserved such that it "remains attached" and "enters and possesses" the new or modified parts during this change, that changed part is now a part of the host form. How far we go from there depends of course what parts of the intellect we pick and choose as constituting the "essential nature" of the intellect in question. If you just cut off a piece of brain and interface the rest with a machine, the parts of the "standing wave" that was "attached" to the brain not cut off will interface and expand into the machine, making it part of itself. You could duplicate a "wave" and create an identical copy, but the waves remain separate unless made to flow into each other - merging and splitting (partial or whole) becomes possible because from both parties perspective that's just another form of smooth change without loss of information. As for the post-mortem aspects, well, the only humanly graspable solution if you want a real "afterlife" is clearly some divine janitor sweeping up the "astral mirror" pieces of lost information (or whole lost independent sub-creatures) and reassemble/integrate them piecemeal together and, it is commonly assumed, in a more or less tight fashion with "god".

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    124. Re:Artificial Brains? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?

      Yes, and yes.

      How do you reconcile this to the concept of cloning?

      If I create a construct out of flesh and blood that has exactly the same physical make up as you, and then I copy the sum total of your brain to implant in this clone, are you now alive in two places at once? If I then shoot you in the face (erasing the original copy), are you still alive?

      Of course not- there are now two creatures, both with independent minds of their own, but who (at point of creation) are completely identical. Shooting you in the face will still kill you, but there will be an identical twin (with the same memories) to mourn over your death. I could clone you repeatedly, every 60 years, forever- but that doesn't mean you'd experience living forever. You'd just be being replaced by new people with your memories and mindset. For obvious reasons, the same logic holds true for a mechanical clone as it would for a meaty one.

      I think that that in itself disproves the notion of a soul. In this example, we're creating new creatures simply by putting together the appropriate bits, and copying some data. Unless some part of this process "magically" triggers the creation of a soul, no soul can be accounted for. Was the last neuron being grafted, or the last memristor soldered into place, the one that triggered a soul to spring into existence? Or was it the moment the data was uploaded- does copying brain data also copy the ethereal soul?

    125. Re:Artificial Brains? by digitalchinky · · Score: 2

      If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.

      Emerson M. Pugh. : )

    126. Re:Artificial Brains? by Silvrmane · · Score: 1

      What I would like to do is to download a backup of my brain from about 5 minutes before I read your post into a new brain, boot that one, and kill this one.

    127. Re:Artificial Brains? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      There's no good reason to assume that the pace will slacken off now, since discovery seems to breed new discovery.

      Actually there's a darn good reason. Antiscience seems to be on the rise, along with superstition and anti-intellectualism.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    128. Re:Artificial Brains? by XLazarusX · · Score: 1

      The brain IS the software. The error appears to be on your end, not bpp's.

    129. Re:Artificial Brains? by tius · · Score: 1

      Memory is an arrangement of matter.

      You might want to read Seth LLoyd's, "Programming The Universe."

    130. Re:Artificial Brains? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How ironic!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    131. Re:Artificial Brains? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It all ultimately comes down to the same question, of how you can know anything "for sure." And the answer is, you can't.

      That's right, you can either spend forever gnashing and wailing and wringing hands, or you can just shrug and move on.

      Or, you can get paid for all that, and then they call you a philosopher.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    132. Re:Artificial Brains? by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.

      And what about two seperate entities merging to become one being . How can that have a soul ( and not two souls ).

      Because that's exactly how we humans are created ( male sperm and female ovum ).

      So , if we assume that each individual has exactly one soul , how does that soul end up there . Do both cells have half of a soul ?

      Even so , what about identical twins ? Do they each have half a soul ?

    133. Re:Artificial Brains? by Deefburger · · Score: 1

      Consciousness is everything, already. What is "You" is both tangible substance, your body, and intangible substance, your "form". The form is much more complex and continues to exist when the tangible substance of your body is no longer arranged in that form. In fact, you do not contain very much of the substance you were born with by the time you die. You trans-formed throughout your life. Only your intangible form continued to exist and evolve while your tangible substance was replaced one atom and molecule at a time. In fact, drinking a glass of water is transformational where your physical existence is concerned. You remain You no matter the state of your being. A new "you" in a machine is now a form of you in the machine but is a unique expression of that form, and one that will remain largely static over time. No evolution, no replacement of parts, no self evolution. It won't be "you" for very long!

      --
      Most people are mostly good most of the time.
    134. Re:Artificial Brains? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      What is "You" is both tangible substance, your body, and intangible substance, your "form".
      ...
      You remain You no matter the state of your being.

      Actually there's a growing amount of evidence that what you think of as "you" is neither a singular nor consistent thing. The perception that our consciousness is unified and "the same person" throughout life is mostly an illusion.

      Read Robert Ornstein's Multimind and Tor Nørretranders The User Illusion for a good introduction.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    135. Re:Artificial Brains? by Deefburger · · Score: 1

      And Thomas Campbell's My Big TOE...

      --
      Most people are mostly good most of the time.
    136. Re:Artificial Brains? by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      In a more urbane society we would have the days or weeks between letters to contemplate the subject.

      Here I will restrain myself to this, a point that atheists should be able to embrace by extrapolation:

      Faith of a People in spiritual and religious inheritance within physical realm begets a language of Dominion.

      This language is known not to be synonymous with the scripture or the rites of the People, as you can burn their scripture and ban their rites, then burn and ban the people, yet the language has not departed.

      I propose that the empowerment of human preference to combine and divide with total consequence will be adjudged synonymous with Abomination by a majority of the current religious practitioners.

      Fortunately for futurists, the Dalai Lama has already publicly said that this is what they have been waiting for:

      "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation."

      - The Universe In a Single Atom

      Sometime within the last two years or so the Dalai Lama was quoted in a U.S. publication confirming that he would accept wetware implant modification if presented in a manner respectful to the continuing quest of humanity.

      So there are people that have been preparing themselves for a couple thousand years to join a Mindful trans-humanist future.

      Everyone downstream from Melchizedek, though, is in an entirely different boat.

      For these people the practice of self-organization is a noun of Dominion.

      The act of passing binding judgment is a verb of Dominion.

      The conduct of each accepted member of the people constitutes an adjective of Dominion.

      Now, via acknowledgment of the blood that binds my own presence here on earth to the keepers of these traditions, I also have to impose on those who do not respect that which is already present, or by advancement threaten to come into needless conflict with the keepers.

      As a P.S.:
      This is the message from fortune right now -
      "In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them."

      This is a massive condemnation of the preparedness of humans to approach the horizon. I believe the good sir is right in his observation, and even own some of his books.

    137. Re:Artificial Brains? by dmomo · · Score: 1

      "So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die."

      And what makes your brain from ten years ago the same as the one you have today? Physical material? I doubt that. Matter is energy that maintains a similar state through time. This doesn't mean that your brain from 10 years ago and the one you have today share a single atom. Matter is more complex than that.

      But to make it a little less abstract. Suppose they can replace a single bit of your brain. Is it still you? What if they can replace all parts individually?

      If I replace the tires, is it the same car? How about the engine? If not the engine, how about the piston rings? And then keeping those same rings, what about the piston itself? And what If I continue to do this to every bolt in the car, not once, but over time? When is this car no longer considered the same car?

    138. Re:Artificial Brains? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The nature of illusion is that it needs somebody to fool. Think about this for a second.

      Your premise is false. Several classes of illusion - mirages, for example - exist independently of any observer. The rest are artifacts of sensory processing, and don't need "somebody": for example, a face recognition algorithm running on a computer can easily be fooled by a suitable image.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    139. Re:Artificial Brains? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      If the program requires the memory in the card, current programming practices will almost ensure that it will fail. Since the program probably does not have the flexibility that our brain has, it will probably crash in some sort of horrendous way. Actually (pulls out the memory card of his Android 2.2 device) ... buh-bye applications!!!

    140. Re:Artificial Brains? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I actually wasn't joking even a little bit.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    141. Re:Artificial Brains? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > i don't put on *magnetic field* god helmets

      FTFY. RTFA. There is nothing magical about it.

    142. Re:Artificial Brains? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > quantum entanglement. It doesn't allow for instantaneous communication, even in the laboratory
      It certainly allows for information to be transmitted faster then 'c'. See what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance."

      > causality would be violated
      Your confusion is assuming Fate and Free Will are mutually exclusive. Also,

      a) You are assuming that Causality is some sort of "Law", and
      b) You and/or the author doesn't seem to be aware of, or understand the concept of time lines,
      Furthermore, Time is not absolute, it is relative. FTL doesn't break causality.

      > do you propose that the brains have become entangled?
      Consciousness is not limited to the speed of light. While the brain has hard physical limits, the mind has an significantly higher limit. Time is simply one dimension of the mind; the mind is able to operate outside these limits and thus it is possible to know things before they have happened, aka intuition, similar to the same way our hearts receive signals before they happened. (See http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-library/research-library.html ) You may want to research why Einstein said: "The only real valuable thing is intuition."

    143. Re:Artificial Brains? by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

      > It certainly allows for information to be transmitted faster then 'c'. See what Einstein called "Spooky Action at a Distance."

      Einstein, so far as I know, didn't like the idea of quantum entanglement (hence the SPOOKY part), and thought it was probably impossible. He proposed the EPR paradox to try and show that quantum theory was inconsistent. He hated the idea of quantum information traveling faster than light. It turns out that he was wrong- entanglement happens- but you can't transmit classical information via entanglement.

      >Your confusion is assuming Fate and Free Will are mutually exclusive.
      I didn't say anything about that; how does this follow from saying "nothing travels faster than light"?

      > a) You are assuming that Causality is some sort of "Law", and
      Well, yes. Sort of. If you can travel faster than light, you can travel back in time (or send information back in time). If you can do that, you can break causality. Eg: the grandfather paradox. This is the paradox generated with the Tachyon pistol thought experiment I referenced earlier. If I can send a signal faster then light, then it will arrive before it was sent. What if I fire a deadly tachyon pistol at my own head? I'll be dead before I pulled the trigger! That makes no sense- if I'm dead, who pulled the trigger? There's no "law" saying nonsensical things can't happen, but life would sure get interesting if we worked out FTL communication.

      > b) You and/or the author doesn't seem to be aware of, or understand the concept of time lines,
      Furthermore, Time is not absolute, it is relative. FTL doesn't break causality.

      A time line? I could tell you what a "world-line" is (in the context of special relativity), it's the path of an object, describing every time and space coordinate where it's present. Time indeed isn't absolute, you can (for example) dilate time if you move faster. But this is special relativity again, which requires nothing to travel faster than c... so it's not much help to your case.

      Here's what I mean by a paradox. If I can measure someone's intuitive reaction to a stimulus before it happens, what happens if I set up the following test protocol?
      1. If subject appears to be intuiting stimulus A, computer shows stimulus B.
      2. If subject appears to be intuiting stimulus B, computer shows stimulus A.

      Subject intuits stimulus A. What does the computer show? If it shows B, then the subject's intuition was wrong. If it shows A, then the subject must have intuited stimulus B, which (s)he didn't.

      As to the Einstein quote: I find it odd that you're using "intuition" to mean knowing things before they happen. Wiktionary defines it a Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes. It's immediate cognition, not "precognition". So I find it hard to believe that Einstein took intuition to mean uncanny pre-knowledge of future events.

    144. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      there is no "you" or "me" in a static context, just like it's not possible to separate space and time. Who you are is constantly changing, with every modification of the synapses in your brain. Just as your mind underwent a major change when you almost fell, switching off from my organic brain into an electronic would result in the same sort of context switch, but I would still feel like "I" was "me".

      Think about it this way: I make an identical clone copy of you, entire quantum state, every impulse in your brain, every atom, everything identical.

      Now we have two of you.

      You say if I killed the first one, YOU would still live because the second one IS you. Okay. Keep that thought in your mind now.

      Now, you're standing here, and over there I've made a copy. Which are you going to prefer: I jab a salted ice pick under the copy's fingernails, or under yours? Which is going to hurt? Which are you going to be scared of?

    145. Re:Artificial Brains? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Non-sentient things can be manipulated. They don't reflect introspectively on their own nature; they do what they're programmed to from input they're given. Sentience is what enables people to stop and go, "Wait, what the hell? I just realized..." purely because there's no other input. Even animals get bored.

    146. Re:Artificial Brains? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Hitchen's rule: What can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    147. Re:Artificial Brains? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think it's exceedingly unlikely that humans are non-deterministic, but I also believe it's irrelevant.

      First, here's why I think it's unlikely: There is very little evidence that conscious behavior is random (and mounds of evidence to the contrary), and even less evidence that "random" unconscious behavior is a truly random rather than pseudorandom (unpredictable but deterministic). To distinguish the two requires repeatability; something which is currently impossible in measuring human behavior due to the complexity of variables and our inability to control for them. Think of it like dropping a leaf -- its trajectory will be subject to innumerable variables and parts thereof, including wind speed, air flow over its surface, orientation upon release, and any momentum imparted by the release itself. As such, its fall will be unpredictable, but only due to lack of data, not lack of determinism. Start controlling for variables by, say, dropping it in a vacuum, and the results become much more predictable.

      Since all behavior at the macroscopic level is deterministic (and by behavior, I mean physical processes, and by physical processes I mean anything other than "supernatural" events), then the extraordinary claim that humans are non-deterministic requires extraordinary evidence IMO, which has certainly not been met by any study I'm aware of, and would certainly be front-page news if it existed. As such, assuming that the brain is deterministic, then any variables which can be defined and measured can be also replicated or simulated. It may well be that human consciousness is the result of much more than simply the mechanical structure of neurons (and I believe that's highly likely, the same way a video game is more than the structure of the components in your system), but complexity is not randomness, no matter how similar they appear.

      Finally, the reason it doesn't matter whether or not randomness is an issue is that any system could be designed to include randomness if it's found to be relevant. Randomness is unpredictable (non-deterministic), but its influence can still be measured and its effects and limits can be quantified. For example, a random error could cause an improper bank transfer, but the limits to that error are whatever the maximal values are for the computers involved. The effects would be an unexpected balance change, and they are easily quantifiable and, since banks don't like errors, correctable. But there's no physical imperative that they be corrected, strictly speaking. We could simply allow for randomness in banking if we so decided. I suspect that we won't value randomness in consciousness simulation/replication, but if we do, it's easy enough to add.

    148. Re:Artificial Brains? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I think you needed more coffee when you read the story. Quoth:

      IBM's Cat-Brain Breakthrough
      Andy Greenberg, 11.18.09, 12:00 AM EST
      Big Blue has built a supercomputer that models the brain--and hopes to someday build a supercomputer that mimics one, too.

      But when it comes to pattern recognition, perception and other seemingly simple tasks, their computing powers pale in comparison to a three-pound computer that fills less space than a two-liter bottle and uses less power than a light bulb: your brain.

      Scientists can't understand, let alone replicate, many of the brain's abilities.

      Again, note that "to pattern recognition, perception and other seemingly simple tasks, their computing powers pale in comparison" to a meat brain.

      Note that a gnat DOES have pattern recognition, perception, etc. It can avoid obsticles and predators, find food, and annoy the hell out of people, seemingly on purpose. No computer can do that.

      We're nowhere near modeling, let alone minics a primate brain, according to the very link you posted.

    149. Re:Artificial Brains? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      First of all, you're correct. The pronouncement that IBM made in 2009 of having built a cat-scale brain was BS and the head of the Blue Brain (Henry Markram) project was quite upset that IBM had over-hyped the achievements and did what he could to lower expectations. I didn't realize this was the case. The link I posted was one I goggled without reading in full, having read a similar story quite a while back without the points you mention.

      However, I still do not share your pessimism on the subject.

      The original, over-hyped "cat-brain" announcement was from 2009, but since that time considerable progress has been made. The first of a series (Year One) of documentaries has been posted on their web site ( http://thebeautifulbrain.com/2010/02/bluebrain-film-preview/ ) summarizing where they are as of April of 2010. Markram is predicting completion of a simulation on the scale of a rat brain within 2-3 years (around 12:00 into the video), moving on to a cat brain and eventually to primate and then human scale brains. To reach the human scale, he is somewhat vague on the timeframe, but 2018 is the expected completion date for the entire project. Now, just to set expectations; it may be that the end result of the project is a human brain simulation that runs hundreds, if not thousands of times slower than the human brain, but that does not invalidate it's usefulness as a tool to study and learn from. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to understanding how brains work is that it's hard to experiment on a living brain without altering it (i.e. damaging it) as well as trying to obtain results from it. This simulation will be of tremendous help in medical research as well as in cognitive science. Hardware and algorithms will improve and this gap will narrow until at some point (I have absolutely no doubt) parity with the human brain will be achieved and undoubtedly surpassed. There is just too much to be gained by doing this and as we get closer, it's importance will become more and more apparent, spurring more intense development from all the cognitive science , engineering and related disciplines. I expect this will be similar to the Human Genome project which was completed well ahead of schedule due to methods learned and advances in technologies that were not originally anticipated. Additionally, accurate simulation of a single cortical column is a huge achievement and it's taken a long time to get there, but this has now been accomplished. Because much of the brain is a mass duplication of nearly this same structure over and over again (approx. a million of them in the human brain) scaling this up will move much faster than getting the first one built.

      Additionally, this is just one of many projects that are attacking the problem from many different angles. I've been following this type of research for many years and while its had it's highs and lows (rapid progress followed by seemingly no progress) and never before have we progressed so far so fast.

      One more point. You're argument about analog v digital is a non-starter. We've been simulating analog systems for years using digital computers (e.g. that mp3 you're playing is digital, but sound is analog). There is no reason to think that an analog system is a requirement for generating intelligence, it's just a matter of how much digital computing power can be thrown at the problem. Memristers simply hold the promise of lowering the power requirements (both in terms "energy" required as well as "computation").

      In any case, thanks for the interesting discussion.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    150. Re:Artificial Brains? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      that does not invalidate it's usefulness as a tool to study and learn from.

      No, of course it doesn't. A model of the brain will help in the same way a model of an atomic reaction helps to understand atomic reactions. But there's no radioactivity in an atom bomb simulation, and no thought in a brain simulation.

      Thought and feeling are the same; they're only chemical reactions in an animal's nervous system. I'm sure they will be modeled some day.

      I just wonder why they don't do more research on more primitive brains, like gnats or flies. It seems like getting a handle on that would be a giant first step to understanding our own brains.

      It amazes me that a fly does so well at avoiding me when I'm trying to swat it. No robot comes close.

    151. Re:Artificial Brains? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      I just wonder why they don't do more research on more primitive brains, like gnats or flies. It seems like getting a handle on that would be a giant first step to understanding our own brains.

      I agree there is much to be learned there, but there have been tons of studies done on insects (I'm sure even gnats) and there's even a good deal of advancement along these lines (insect robots, swarm theory, etc), but insects do not possess a true "brain", only a nervous system which is hard-wired (through evolution) to cause it to behave a certain way. They have no capacity for memory or reasoning which are essential elements of "true" intelligence. For this, we need higher brain structures and for the purposes of trying to understand human intelligence, we need to understand the cerebral cortex. This is the part of the brain where intelligence is originated, rather than just hard-wired instinctual behavior. Low order mammals such as the mouse is (IMHO) the right place to start because it has a cerebral cortex, though it is much smaller in proportion to the rest of it's brain than higher order mammals, it is structurally similar enough that what is learned there can be applied to other, higher level species.

      Sure, one could state that even a microbe has some form of intelligence (e.g. an amoeba in a pond will swim toward the more nutrient rich part of the pond), but while it's important to study and understand how it navigates through its life, it doesn't really address how cognitive function is implemented in a biological entity.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    152. Re:Artificial Brains? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      My point is that if we understood how a gnat works, we could build incredible robots.

    153. Re:Artificial Brains? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      True. At least very annoying ones.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  3. Sounds like another pipe dream by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is nothing like the cognitive human brain. This is only a variable memory device.

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    1. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is nothing like the cognitive human brain. This is only a variable memory device.

      Variable memory, eh? Perhaps we can use it to replace politicians.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by Eudial · · Score: 2

      Worth a try. At least it couldn't get any worse.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    3. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Worth a try. At least it couldn't get any worse.

      Flipping a coin to decide issues would be about as useful and is much cheaper...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

      What is a man?
      A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough of this, have at you!

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    5. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 1

      This is nothing like the cognitive human brain. This is only a variable memory device.

      My hope is that these artificial brains come with an easy way to back up their memory. Since no one does computer backups, I can imagine it would be the same with their brains...

      I can imagine it now...in 2025...

      Kid: What's wrong with dad?
      Mom: He crashed last night.
      Kid: Did you do a full restore?
      Mom: Yes, but we haven't done a backup since 2012. So he thinks he's 25, doesn't remember you, and he keeps talking about President Palin.

    6. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      A d20 would be even better.

    7. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, this doesn't solve any problem related to the human brain that couldn't be tested in software first. Memristors chatter frustrates me endlessly because you can implement a memrister data type. The silliness on top of it all is that persistent values is exactly what BYTES do in a computer, and you apply voltage to change them (ie. set operation). You can easily just change them in a curve to get a memristor.

      Now, explain how a memristor gets you anywhere toward a "human brain" as they talk about. Neurons, if studied at a chemical level, are extremely complicated and have several modes of operation and pathways. Neurons in the computing world aren't as complex unless you talk about the IBM mouse brain project. Memristors don't address the complexity, they don't address multiple pathways, and they don't add anything that software can't do already to test these hypotheses. Thus, this is a non-story.

    8. Re:Sounds like another pipe dream by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      This is nothing like the cognitive human brain. This is only a variable memory device.

      Your statement is rooted in the hypothesis that cognition requires more than state and feedback.

      This hypothesis has not been proven or disproven.

      However, it is implausible that there are magical metaphysical hidden variables which endow the brain with cognition.

  4. Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that's 'Change We Can Believe In!'

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by Metrathon · · Score: 1

      There was no mention of a brain already in place.

    2. Re:Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by rts008 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell, you don't even need to go that high tech.
      Replacing her brain with a Roomba would likely triple her IQ.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    3. Re:Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by plams · · Score: 1

      And make her do something useful for a change! (if she doesn't get stuck in nest of cables)

    4. Re:Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by GNious · · Score: 1

      ...and less suckiness!
      (oh, c'mon, it had to be said!)

    5. Re:Maybe they can implant one in Sarah Palin? by doogledog · · Score: 1

      Hello and welcome to the internet!

      We all hope you enjoy your stay here and are confident that you will soon become accustomed to the local customs and culture.

      Lots of love,
      The Internet

  5. Robot maids, cooks, and robots who repair robots by mykos · · Score: 2

    I'm going to be the laziest bastard alive

  6. Hmmm 5 years they say? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ever notice that anytime some cool sounding new development is announced the people behind it say 'we see this having applications in/within/in about five years?

    Call me when you actually have something to show us.

    1. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that anytime an interesting piece of science or technology is talked about, someone complains about how people say "we see this having applications in about five years", even when it's not really relevant?

    2. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly relevant to point out that more times than not they are just pulling that number out of their ass but of course you're free to disagree.

    3. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by retech · · Score: 1

      It's so that you forget about it and they're never called out on failing if they do.

    4. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that every time someone complains that people complain about how people say "we see this having applications in about five years", people are making exactly the same complaint five years later?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Well the good news that the memresister brain will be part of the dash of my flying car, it'll run on some synthetic fuel created from clean coal and blue green algae. All of this will be available in 5 years!

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    6. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that anytime some cool sounding new development is announced the people behind it say 'we see this having applications in/within/in about five years?

      Obviously that's how things work and I find it strange that slashdot users, from all people, complain about that fact. To get the idea of how this stuff happens, first we have a hand full of very clever people discovering new stuff and demonstrating in their labs how to take advantage of that. Then, after that point, it is still necessary to develop products that use them, along with the necessary technology and infrastructure ways to mass-produce the newly discovered technology. To put things in perspective, it takes about 2 years to develop a car from scratch to the time it starts being sold to the public, and that is the time it takes to develop a engineering project following tried and true formulas and while applying only incremental technological changes.

      Call me when you actually have something to show us.

      Fair enough. Only geeks find this sort of stuff fascinating.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    7. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by hb79 · · Score: 1

      It's almost like some people I work with:

      "I can implement that feature in less than a day"

    8. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that anytime some researcher claims a cool sounding new development will have applications in/within/in about five years, someone says 'Call me when you actually have something to show us.'?

      Some of us actually like hearing about basic research, and not just the latest gadget I'm supposed to go buy.

    9. Re:Hmmm 5 years they say? by noidentity · · Score: 1
      In other words,

      "...available in five years."

      "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."

  7. Well maybe I'm already lazy by mykos · · Score: 1

    Well, I might already be that, but someday this could make my transformation complete.

    1. Re:Well maybe I'm already lazy by Shark · · Score: 1

      As a robot designed to post on slashdot, my owner probably disagrees. True laziness is when you have robots do your thinking for you.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
  8. Finally! We'll be able to make by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Cybernetic Lifeform Node!

  9. Neuromorphic CPUs by Kensai7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even if the rest of the things explained in the article happen many years away, the last couple of paragraphs explain the trend:

    Neuromorphic chips won't just power niche AI applications. The architectural lessons we learn here will revolutionize all future CPUs. The fact is, conventional computers will just not get significantly more powerful unless they move to a more parallel and locality-driven architecture. While neuromorphic chips will first supplement today's CPUs, soon their sheer power will overwhelm that of today's computer architectures.

    The semiconductor industry's relentless push to focus on smaller and smaller transistors will soon mean transistors have higher failure rates. This year, the state of the art is 22-nanometer feature sizes. By 2018, that number will have shrunk to 12 nm, at which point atomic processes will interfere with transistor function; in other words, they will become increasingly unreliable. Companies like Intel, Hynix, and of course HP are putting a lot of resources into finding ways to rely on these unreliable future devices. Neuromorphic computation will allow that to happen on both memristors and transistors.

    It won't be long until all multicore chips integrate a dense, low-power memory with their CMOS cores. It's just common sense.

    Our prediction? Neuromorphic chips will eventually come in as many flavors as there are brain designs in nature: fruit fly, earthworm, rat, and human. All our chips will have brains.

    Hopefully, this is the solution to 2018's problem of reaching atomic levels of miniaturization. We have a breaktrought to continue with Moore's law beyond current technology.

    --
    "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    1. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Moore's law is becoming increasingly pointless to most of the world. It talks about speed, yet at this point few manufacturers are trying to win speed competitions. It's all about form factor and efficiency. To use a car analogy, the past number of years were the horsepower wars of the late 60s & early 70s. Now we have seen a switch to fuel (energy) economy as the main driver of development.

      That being said, I think it's cool this is a possible future - it's not that be need more power, we need a different way of doing the job.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    2. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by Kensai7 · · Score: 1

      I think Moore's law is becoming increasingly pointless...It talks about speed...

      Actually I think it talks about transistor density, not CPU frequency (speed). And transistor density keeps going up, year after year. In 2007 we had the CPU that beat Kasparov in 1997 and weighted 1.5 tons. This info is in the article, btw.

      --
      "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    3. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by CarAnalogy · · Score: 2

      While processing speeds are certainly linked to Moore's law, it is really only about the bi-yearly doubling of the transistor count while keeping prices roughly the same. Increasing the amount of cores and adding more on-die memory are easy ways to keep Moore's law going.

      ...well, easier than decreasing the half-pitch below 12nm.

      By the way, Moore's law applies to memory density and CCD properties as well, neither of which appear to be close to their limits.

    4. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by Khenke · · Score: 1

      By 2018, that number will have shrunk to 12 nm, at which point atomic processes will interfere with transistor function; in other words, they will become increasingly unreliable.

      Then Intel, Toshiba and Samsung must be doing something very stupid. "they hope to reduce lithography technology from the 20 nanometer size used today to something below 10nm." from http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/10/30/1925204/Intel-Toshiba-Samsung-To-Form-Chip-Alliance?from=rss

    5. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by limaxray · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it talks about transistor density per unit cost - as long as manufacturing continues to improve and drive down costs, Moore's law will continue beyond the physical limitations of transistor density (stuff will continue to get cheaper even if it doesn't get 'faster').

      I don't understand why most people focus on the maximizing transistor density part when 99% of applications call for minimizing cost.

    6. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think Moore's law is becoming increasingly pointless to most of the world. It talks about speed

      It doesn't actually talk about speed at all; it talks about the cost of manufacturing chips of 2^n density where n increments every 18-24 months cost remains constant. It is, in fact, exactly what you go on to say is relevant despite the fact that what you're describing IS Moore's Law exactly.

    7. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by timeOday · · Score: 1
      All those are nearly interchangeable, since power consumption, size, and cost are all tightly related; it doesn't matter anyways, because Moore's law is in its final years. Transistor size is down to 30 nm, and cannot go below about 10 nm in silicon. At best, new materials like graphene might get down to a nanometer - someday. But none of these proposed transistor materials are anywhere near being manufactured on the scale or cost of silicon. I am not dumb enough to say something will "never" happen, but Moore's law has a specific start date and specific growth rate, and it is increasingly unlikely that any next-generation material will be ready to replace silicon when it peters out.

      When I was in college I proposed a research paper exploring the max MHz of CPUs, and my instructor said it was a dumb idea because "they" always figure a way around any barrier. Well, "they" didn't, and clock speed hit a brick wall. Transistor density will do the same, I think within 10 years.

    8. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by spads · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right. The issue here is not possible AI applications. The issue is how a new hybrid storage/processing device architecture would impact basic computing methodologies (eg. how to compute 1+1=2, as opposed to advanced computing applications). I guess they always throw that AI stuff in their to give the funding bureaucrat pinheads something to get a hold of.

      --
      Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
    9. Re:Neuromorphic CPUs by skylerweaver · · Score: 1

      Because power, delay, and area are correlated to the effective length of the transistor. You do want lower power in portable devices. You also want higher speed. You can get both if you decrease transistor area, which leads to increased density.

  10. Open the pod bay doors, HAL. by guzzirider · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
    HAL only had JK Flip Flops ....

  11. Time Scale's Off by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    ...to implement highly integrated, powerful artificial brains on cheap and widely available hardware within five years.

    *snicker* Is it April 1st already Soulskill?

    Don't get me wrong, this is cool research, but cheap, available, artificial brains in five years? In 2015? Color me skeptical. I say give it 25 at least.

  12. Destination Void by retech · · Score: 2

    Pity Frank Herbert isn't still around to see the fruits of his imagination!

  13. Rise of the machines... by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1
    FTFA...

    By the middle of next year, our researchers will be working with thousands of candidate animats at once, all with slight variations in their brain architectures. Playing intelligent designers, we'll cull the best ones from the bunch and keep tweaking them until they unquestionably master tasks like the water maze and other, progressively harder experiments. We'll watch each of these simulated animats interacting with its environment and evolving like a natural organism. We expect to eventually find the "cocktail" of brain areas and connections that achieves autonomous intelligent behavior. We will then incorporate those elements into a memristor-based neural-processing chip. Once that chip is manufactured, we will build it into robotic platforms that venture into the real world.

    Then, once they become self-aware, we can turn Arnold Schwarzenegger loose on them.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  14. Obligatory XKCD by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 2
  15. Allegiance to the Artificial Brain by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    There is no reason to suppose that people would not ally themselves with an artificial brain. People have already aligned themselves with Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin--allegiances with undisputedly bad people who ultimately served them very poorly. There is every reason to expect that people will form an allegiance to an artificial brain if that artificial brain causes those people to receive adequate food, shelter, and medical care.

    That will be seriously weird. I can envision elections to appoint protectors of the artificial brain. If the military gets what it wants from the artificial brain, it will protect the artificial brain (and let the wars begin). The Artificial Brain will be able to forge shifting alliances with human groups that ensure its continued existence in power.

    Imagine multiple corporations amassing ever more power as a consequence of direction by a superior artificial brain. That power is political power and it translates to control over people.

    I WANT ASIMOV'S THREE RULES!!!!! This is scary!

  16. Never mind AI by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Couldn't this be used to make cheaper solid-state storage?

    1. Re:Never mind AI by Schroedinger · · Score: 2

      It can and is being designed for that use but I believe there have been problems with reliability of individual memristor units.. However in a neuromorphic design (non-Von Neumann architecture) you only need a certain percentage of the units to be reliable as the information is highly distributed and fault tolerant. Think of the massive cell death that occurs in Alzheimer's disease, yet patients are still fairly normal well into that process.

      The other main advantage is that you can represent a single synapse with a single memristor which can be smaller than a single transistor.

  17. Another step to cyberbrains? by asm2750 · · Score: 1

    So is this a step in the direction for cyberbrains or maybe internal memory storage devices for implanting in humans ?

  18. Why do we think we are so much smarter by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Why do we think we are so much smarter than those scientists on Caprica. They were much further advanced than us. Shouldn't we be learning from their mistakes instead of trying to recreate them?

  19. Memristors availably by carstene · · Score: 1

    When I can buy one at mouser/digikey then maybe I'd believe you can build something neat with them in 5 years.

  20. beta-level simulations by Odyss · · Score: 1

    “Did you arrange for your own beta-level to be transmitted to Zodiacal Light, Ilia? ... The beta-levels can speed up the whole negotiation process, ... soul or no soul,,do they do what you do?

  21. It is another pipe dream, here is why: by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Here is why this is just yet another pipe dream: any hardware that we can build can be emulated identically in software. It will perhaps run slower, but it will do the same thing. There have been no software agents that have been modeled for the past 50 years that are anything close to 'real ai', so why would shifting the problem to hardware do anything to advance the underlying problem? Speed and transistor counts don't make up for a lack of understanding.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:It is another pipe dream, here is why: by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      It all depends on your definition of "real ai". AI is a broad term that applies to anything from a simple game of "Eliza" to giant cerebral cortext simulations.
      I see real progress in the 35 years I've studied the field, though apparently not a fast enough pace for our society of instant gratification. Human-level intelligence (maybe not such a high bar when you think about it) is fast approaching.
      http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/18/ibm-brain-science-technology-breakthroughs-supercomputer.html
      In my view, it's advancing almost faster than society can handle it. Can you imagine what would happen in our society if someone built a truly intelligent machine that exceeded human capacity? It could scour the internet for information, acquiring knowledge what would take generations of humans to learn in a matter of hours, if not minutes. Would we need doctors and lawyers, or any sort of educated person anymore if we could just let our cyber-guru agent tell us what we should do? It's a pretty scary proposition if you think about it, especially when you see some of the decisions the uninformed masses have been making lately...

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  22. Descarte's head just exploded by jeko · · Score: 2

    I think, therefore I'm still not sure if I am or not?

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Descarte's head just exploded by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Try "It thinks, therefore it is"

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  23. Solves the wrong problem by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This technology fundamentally mistakes what is the hard part about building brains as adaptable as biological ones. The physical instantiation is not important, if the Church-Turing thesis is true. (And if you're saying Church-Turing is false, that's an enormous claim and you'd better have very compelling evidence to back you up.)

    The hard part about building a brain is figuring out the patterns of connectivity between neurons. Biology solves this in some brilliant way, starting from a seed with almost no information (the genome) and implementing some process to incorporate environmental data, self-organizing into a very robust and complex structure with orders of magnitude more information. The great unknown is the process whereby this growth and self-organization occurs. Figure that out, and you'll be able to make any kind of computer you like function as a brain.

    1. Re:Solves the wrong problem by Schroedinger · · Score: 3, Informative

      The process of figuring this out isn't going to occur magically. You need to test out your models at the systems level, with all the components working together. The more powerful the hardware we have to do this the more we can test and refine our models of how the brain achieves the same thing. This is both true if you're trying to model existing neuro architectures (like BU is) or if you're modeling evolutionary approaches like you describe above.

      These memristive neuromorphic architectures hold the promise to get us orders of magnitude more processing speed while also keeping power levels low.

    2. Re:Solves the wrong problem by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The summary really only promises enhanced speed and efficiency, but after reading the article, I agree with your complaint: "Researchers have suspected for decades that real artificial intelligence can't be done on traditional hardware, with its rigid adherence to Boolean logic and vast separation between memory and processing." Huh?

      Now, I have some sympathy for the pragmatic argument that getting good tools into enough hands is the best way to raise the odds of cracking hard problems. Some people will point out (for example) that a modern 3d game like Crysis might have been emulated (at a fraction of real-time speed) 20 years ago, but nobody figured out how, or bothered to do so, (and no, Castle Wolfenstein doesn't count) because hardware limitations made it too cumbersome and only a few parties had the resources to even try.

      Even so, claiming it "can't be done" is going too far. People are building conventional computers that simulate neurons on the order of a cat brain, but programming them is the problem.

    3. Re:Solves the wrong problem by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that was the same passage that made me double-take. A surprising thing to read on the IEEE site.

      I agree that performance can matter. Especially so for brains, which interact with the physical world and have to respond on physical timescales (e.g., within hundreds of milliseconds in order to coordinate walking). If the technology were a lot faster than conventional machines for simulating neurons then that would be a meaningful advance, but this was not demonstrated in the article. The central argument seems to be that conventional computers suck because data is stored too far away from the CPU. (Never mind that signals travel 5 or 6 orders of magnitude faster along a motherboard trace than through an axon.)

      I probably sound like I'm trying to pee on someone's campfire. The technology sounds cool and should be developed. I just didn't like the article.

    4. Re:Solves the wrong problem by wanax · · Score: 1

      (Disclaimer: While I do not work on that project, I am a member of the department)

      You seriously underestimate the limitations of neural network modeling on current hardware. Rate based models, in which each neuron is defined by a few differential equations, practically max out (meaning a basic parameter test takes over an hour) at about 1 million neurons. The most accurate models of neurons, which often have 10k+ compartments, max out under 10 neurons. Understanding the detailed dynamics of large, accurate neural networks is going to require specialized hardware. Since the current HP hardware needs neural network like behavior to handle manufacturing defects, it's a win-win research situation. One other note about the memory and bandwidth issues: remember that its hard to beat the bandwidth of a backpack full of hard drives over most distances. The memristor based architecture is similar, in that the memristor part of the chip will be running at a few hundred hertz (any faster than that and you blow up the chip) but if you can modify every 'synapse' in every cycle, it gives you killer bandwidth for simulating things like large scale neural networks.

    5. Re:Solves the wrong problem by wanax · · Score: 1

      (Disclaimer: I am a member of the department, but do not work on the project)

      The macro-connectivity of the brain is quite well understood. What is lacking is a rigorous and realistic treatment of laminar cortical circuits, and equivalents for sub-cortical areas of the brain. The founder of CNS, Steve Grossberg, has spent his entire career showing that a few fundamental circuits and learning rules can be configured in different ways to simulate many brain behaviors. However, these models are limited by the current hardware whose processing strengths are orthogonal to the complexity of neural circuits. So physical instantiation is incredibly important when you consider the details of the hardware, and the system you're trying to model. Think about how you might go about modeling the basic circuit differences between say, eulaminate and granular cortices. The complexity of these circuits are far beyond our current understanding of systems of non-linear differential equations, so you have to simulate them. And since current computers are really limited in their ability to simulate large-scale neural networks, moving forward on understanding the details of cortical circuits and their formation is going to require a hardware platform whose strengths parallel those of the brain (which is to say, highly parallel computation with super-dense memory).

    6. Re:Solves the wrong problem by mounthood · · Score: 1

      So physical instantiation is incredibly important when you consider the details of the hardware, and the system you're trying to model.

      Why? We look at beings with brains and know they have minds. That's a valuable insight into what can cause a "mind" to exist. But making the physical representation of a brain is no better then making the algorithmic representation. This is cult-cargo thinking on a grand scale: build something that acts like a brain and therefore we'll make a "mind".

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    7. Re:Solves the wrong problem by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 1

      You seriously underestimate the limitations of neural network modeling on current hardware.

      You seem to know this well. To be clear, is it the case that this new technology (a) simulates realistic neurons much faster than conventional hardware, and (b) retains enough flexibility to cover the different neural models of interest? If so then it is very interesting indeed. Is there a better writeup of this than the linked article?

      The Achilles Heel of analog computing has always been the point about adaptability. You make a machine that simulates X really quickly, but then researchers want to tweak the system slightly and now your hardware is useless for simulating X'. The brittleness of analog computers goes a long way to explain their relative scarcity.

  24. If it's moving, it's alive: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are not the individual static ideas we think, we are the movement from idea to idea...

        Ideas are made of energy and therefore exist.

        The movement can be perceived as opposites (last idea/next idea), relative waves (series of ideas) etc.

        To understand more about life, one would endeavor to study movement.

    Dave Matthews SR.

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Re:Artificial Brains? Soul and childhood by Invisible+Now · · Score: 1

    I strongly agree with this post regarding soul and the question of where is the observer who is me? It is a challenge to proponents of strong AI and the Singularity.

    I recently attended an Open house at IBM Almaden where their roadmap with DARPA on a memresistor "brain" was laid out. After the presentation I turned to Sr IBM researcher and said " I have a big problem with this approach.". He replied " yeh... How do you program the thing!"

    Each human brain's trillion trillion web of connections is unique and was formed over years of training and experience... Childhood. You can't copy any individuals connections into a new matrix, and we are a long ways away from giving memresitor chips childhoods.

    Let alone souls..

    --

    "Knowing everything doesn't help..."

  27. buzzkill by mevets · · Score: 1

    I think we could clone Bruce Lee by feeding his all documentaries into one of these memresistor brains, and then all learn from the master.
    woah.

  28. logic gates made out of pigeons by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

    it doesnt matter if your logic gates are made out of gears, tubes, transistors, memristors or pecking pigeons - if they satisfy the rules of logic -- AND, OR, NOT, and NAND -- then the qualities of the underlying hardware are abstracted from logical functioning, and are thus irrelevant to the qualities they claim in the article that machines constructed out of these components will posses -- this article is nothing more than more pie in the sky -- promising a magical change that results in self-aware qualities, simply because we make our logic circuits out of memristors instead of transistors or pigeons.. yes; i've heard this one before.. twenty years of hypberbole. :-P
    wake me up when they make a machine as smart as a slug (without borrowing bits of slug to do it). :-P

  29. A new scam... not even a good one. by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    I didn't see anything in that article about how memristors will significantly (ie: exponentially) enable better approximations of K(x) (where K is the representation of x that takes minimum bits). Nor should one expect that something as far removed from the hard work of modeling would significantly enhance intelligence.

    So, who is being scammed this time?

  30. Yay! by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    A good brain for a domestic housekeeping robot!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  31. Manchine by NuKe_MoNgOoSe · · Score: 1

    Man is a highly advanced technological marvel with data processing capabilities far beyond any man made machine. We have self replicating ability akin to a virus, we have the ability to download and store information much like a HDD. We learn through input, the more information we feed on the more efficient the machine we become. We are now in a trend where we are de-evolving technologically. Actually discovering inferior technologies to compensate for the flaws that we as superior tech are hardcoded with. Like our inability to cheat death, and our inability to keep our system from degrading. Life compensates for this by allowing us to transfer our most vital information through DNA adding information along the way. This isnt good enough for us. We, unlike most computers, have the ability to overcome obstacles set in our path. One could argue that this is a preprogrammed skill set. Much like a complex computer application which is designed to react depending on the external stimulae.. I dont prescribe to the soul idea. I do believe however that man is just a shell like a PC case to house all the data we harvest. I dont know what happens when the physical body dies but I would suspect that the pure information we are composed off exists in some form or another.

    --
    When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
  32. Re:The beginning of the end. by owlstead · · Score: 1

    No matter, by then I will have customized Asics, I'll probably be able to outrun them.