Why you will never be able to load your brain into a computer

[Jings]

Downloading the brain would be to duplicate the exact structure of the brain(different lobes for memory etc) in the specific person. From organic to bio-organic/mechanic.

"Backing up" memories would only give the illusion of conscious. You need variance of chemicals(bio-mechanical)/structure for the distinct variation of how the brain "works". Not every brain is exactly the same.. what makes us, us.

Okay so downloading a brain doesn't mean it's going to be truly conscious.

 

[koeksGHT]

Okay so downloading a brain doesn't mean it's going to be truly conscious.

You would have to "download" the whole structure to a cell level to replicate.

 

[saor]

It can, we just don't have tech yet. Organic can be replaced mechanic. Emotions are just the random chemical imbalance between people which can be mimicked.

It's like minecrafts random seed level generator.

And just like the 8-bit computers created within Minecraft - there exists also the possibility that the substrate of the copied brain will be purely digital. It might just be easier to build a machine capable of the computational power required to simulate a whole brain - which then gives rise to subjective experiences. It seems that if consciousness reaches all the way down to the subatomic, that simulation might be preferable over the complexity of physical re-construction. One would take snapshots of varying levels of magnification of the brain (structures, neurons, cells, molecules, ions, etc.) and simulate them accordingly.

Any maybe it turns out that simulated consciousness is such that we don't need to simulate the goings-on of every cell all at once - we could create local clusters that light up as consciousness and thought venture along the winding road of being. In much the same way as when you're playing a game there is no computation devoted to the trees & birds you aren't looking at.

 

[koeksGHT]

And just like the 8-bit computers created within Minecraft - there exists also the possibility that the substrate of the copied brain will be purely digital. It might just be easier to build a machine capable of the computational power required to simulate a whole brain - which then gives rise to subjective experiences. It seems that if consciousness reaches all the way down to the subatomic, that simulation might be preferable over the complexity of physical re-construction. One would take snapshots of varying levels of magnification of the brain (structures, neurons, cells, molecules, ions, etc.) and simulate them accordingly.

Any maybe it turns out that simulated consciousness is such that we don't need to simulate the goings-on of every cell all at once - we could create local clusters that light up as consciousness and thought venture along the winding road of being. In much the same way as when you're playing a game there is no computation devoted to the trees & birds you aren't looking at.

Yep, soon it will be just a simulation. Then the 3D printing starts :twisted:


Soon it will be like this http://logic.ly/demo/

 

[johnjm]

Pretty much everyone who claims that something will never be possible is eventually proven wrong. Titling an article "Why you will never be able to load your brain into a computer" and then stating in it that "no one knows if it will ever be possible to upload a brain to a computer" is also pretty silly.

As Ayn Rand said, whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. In this case, assuming that our understanding of the human brain will not advance tremendously in the coming decades negates a conclusion that relies on such an eventuality.

Our currently limited understanding of the human brain also renders the article preceding this one as misinformed conjecture.

Personally, I think virtual reality is the future of humanity. That's not to say I want such a future more than any alternative, but I can't imagine any other route that can overcome the problem of scarcity (compounded with overpopulation, environmental degradation and the likely difficulty of space travel).

Yup. It takes just one major breakthrough to change everything as we know it.

Similar to refrigeration, clean water etc.

 

[redarrow]

It's one thing to replicate the brain electronically, it's another to upload a "mind"... How would you do that without just making a copy? How would you ever be sure it wasn't a copy? The electronic "personality" having the same memories etc., would obviously be totally convinced they're the original but that by itself wouldn't prove anything..

I'm definitely not going first..

 

[Garson007]

It's one thing to replicate the brain electronically, it's another to upload a "mind"... How would you do that without just making a copy? How would you ever be sure it wasn't a copy? The electronic "personality" having the same memories etc., would obviously be totally convinced they're the original but that by itself wouldn't prove anything..

I'm definitely not going first..

Pointless ****ery.

The you of yesterday is also dead, while you are in your current body. This is no different. The present is the only thing that matters.

 

[redarrow]

Pointless ****ery.

The you of yesterday is also dead, while you are in your current body. This is no different. The present is the only thing that matters.

No idea what you mean by that.. I'm still the same me I was yesterday.

As far as I'm aware the majority of our braincells stay with us for our lifetime, ergo, they're not being replaced and therefore I'm still me.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yes, it might be difficult or impossible to upload an entire brain to a computer. But that doesn't mean we could one day build a computer that could contain a consciousness and function almost as well as the real thing.

The article sounds like it is written from the point of view that only an identical carbon copy of the brain will be good enough. But, I think we could get pretty close by other mimickry. I mean, our virtualization capabilities get better all the time. Perhaps you could have BrainOS running on a chip containing hundreds if not thousands of small low power processors.

 

[saor]

It's one thing to replicate the brain electronically, it's another to upload a "mind"... How would you do that without just making a copy? How would you ever be sure it wasn't a copy? The electronic "personality" having the same memories etc., would obviously be totally convinced they're the original but that by itself wouldn't prove anything..

I'm definitely not going first..

It's an interesting idea. We will have two versions of ourselves:

1.) The physical (original) version will experience continuity in the physical world,
2.) The digital (copied) version will experience the same continuity, but will go from the physical into the digital.

Both will experience continuity. However, if we've split - what rights does the digital version have with regards to accessing of funds, decisions regarding will & estate, relationships to family etc? Or would the digital self be entirely self-contained in the digital realm with no recourse & communication with the physical realm?

 

[Bryn]

It's one thing to replicate the brain electronically, it's another to upload a "mind"... How would you do that without just making a copy? How would you ever be sure it wasn't a copy? The electronic "personality" having the same memories etc., would obviously be totally convinced they're the original but that by itself wouldn't prove anything..

I'm definitely not going first..

This is a concern I mentioned previously in this thread. The same reservation applies to teleportation devices - how would we know that it's not instantly killing us and assembling an atomically perfect replica on the other side? The copy wouldn't know that it's a copy, and no one else could possibly suspect a thing. Kinda scary.

That's why I hope teleportation (if ever achieved) is more of a wormhole/portal type thing where you simply step through.

Pointless ****ery.

The you of yesterday is also dead, while you are in your current body. This is no different. The present is the only thing that matters.

It's quite a major difference. The difference is you'd be dead.

It's an interesting idea. We will have two versions of ourselves:

1.) The physical (original) version will experience continuity in the physical world,
2.) The digital (copied) version will experience the same continuity, but will go from the physical into the digital.

Both will experience continuity. However, if we've split - what rights does the digital version have with regards to accessing of funds, decisions regarding will & estate, relationships to family etc? Or would the digital self be entirely self-contained in the digital realm with no recourse & communication with the physical realm?

I think a more likely scenario is that you would only exist in digital form, and could then participate in virtual reality simulations and stream your consciousness to avatars if you want to participate in actual reality. Much simpler, and if something happens to your avatar your stream just cuts out.

 

[Ho3n3r]

They should use Zuma's brain to experiment with this first - it's simple and nearly empty anyway.

 

[saor]

I think a more likely scenario is that you would only exist in digital form, and could then participate in virtual reality simulations and stream your consciousness to avatars if you want to participate in actual reality. Much simpler, and if something happens to your avatar your stream just cuts out.

There would still be a load of ethical considerations to terminating a life (the physical body). Remember - the physical you still exists the same after the copy as before the copy. From your perspective you still exist with your memories and dreams and desires - you telling me you'd willingly destroy yourself because you know you also exist in some digital realm? I don't think it'll be so easy .

 

[Bryn]

There would still be a load of ethical considerations to terminating a life (the physical body). Remember - the physical you still exists the same after the copy as before the copy. From your perspective you still exist with your memories and dreams and desires - you telling me you'd willingly destroy yourself because you know you also exist in some digital realm? I don't think it'll be so easy .

Of course not. We're assuming that it's a transfer of consciousness, not a copy. It would be a lifeless body being disposed of.

 

[saor]

Of course not. We're assuming that it's a transfer of consciousness, not a copy. It would be a lifeless body being disposed of.

Why assume a transfer though? I think that's the point made earlier - that a digital copy wouldn't require anything to be transferred (what would be transferred?) so much as for the brain to be replicated in some sense. In this context I usually take the word 'transfer' to imply a bifurcation in consciousness rather than a literal transplant from one domain into another.

 

[Bryn]

Why assume a transfer though? I think that's the point made earlier - that a digital copy wouldn't require anything to be transferred (what would be transferred?) so much as for the brain to be replicated in some sense. In this context I usually take the word 'transfer' to imply a bifurcation in consciousness rather than a literal transplant from one domain into another.

Because to not assume as much throws all the conjecture in this thread out the window. The demand to create a perfect digital copy of oneself would be small - that copy could instantly replace your existence and perform better in all respects.

It is in everyone's best interest to develop a technology that does not copy your consciousness, but transfers it. Just because it's more technically challenging doesn't mean it won't happen. It is by far the best bet for humanity's future after all.

 

[saor]

It is in everyone's best interest to develop a technology that does not copy your consciousness, but transfers it. Just because it's more technically challenging doesn't mean it won't happen. It is by far the best bet for humanity's future after all.

A transfer could be exactly the same as a copy with a 'kill the physical body' command at the end of the process. The idea of a technology built around a transfer of consciousness seems to me way further down the line than creating a copy. Technology develops as it does, and I'd be surprised if some moral imperative (like one regarding the 'best bet for humanities future') could entirely divert the development of the tech away from copies of consciousness toward transfers of consciousness. It's a bit like believing there to be a moral issue with magnetic disc drives and stalling / diverting progress toward solid-state, even if it pushes the tech another 3 years into the future. There are too many independent research labs around the globe for some centralized moral dogma to dictate development pathways.

 

[Bryn]

A transfer could be exactly the same as a copy with a 'kill the physical body' command at the end of the process. The idea of a technology built around a transfer of consciousness seems to me way further down the line than creating a copy. Technology develops as it does, and I'd be surprised if some moral imperative (like one regarding the 'best bet for humanities future') could entirely divert the development of the tech away from copies of consciousness toward transfers of consciousness. It's a bit like believing there to be a moral issue with magnetic disc drives and stalling / diverting progress toward solid-state, even if it pushes the tech another 3 years into the future.

A transfer is nothing like copy+kill. Rich people want to live forever, and if the technology is possible they will invest billions trying to achieve a genuine consciousness transfer. A copy will be much easier to achieve, unless the technology used is geared purely towards a transfer, but either way we don't know. What we do know is that the financial incentive to create a process that transfers will be overwhelming.

 

[saor]

A transfer is nothing like copy+kill.

Subjectively you will still experience a continuous consciousness. All we've done is introduce a moral dilemma with the copy+kill route. I think the simplest tech will emerge first and we'll structure our ethical considerations around that, rather than structure our tech around ethical considerations. It's tricky because I don't have any rational grounds to argue my position other than copying seems more natural an evolution than transfers. And your perspective is as rational to you .

 

[access]

our current bodies are biological computers, once our 'invention' or version of the computer catches up it will be possible, or something similar to the idea, maybe we still need to discover a metal or silicone or some such material off-world to make this possible, who knows. our computers can talk, read, hear, feel, smell is coming along, smoke alarm, co2 detectors, smell bedside alarm, smell FX at 4DX, next our smart phone will detect we are sleeping and smell smoke and wake us or some such.

anyway, it was also said man will never fly or it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound, this was proven science, the sound forces would rip us apart. the world was flat. centre of the universe.

lies damned lies.

maybe we find out our consciousnesses are unique, like a MAC or IP address, and this needs to be transfered differently to our personality(life experience).