Substrate-independent minds

[dannytorrance]

I have nothing against links. It's just that when somebody is reduced to blubbering and cursing unless they can resort to links then I question their intelligence. Once in awhile they need to be able to articulate something for themselves. As for Sam Harris, he does have some intersting things to say. But, please don't let my way of looking at things reduce you to following my links without any critical thinking. Critical thinking is not a one way street and one side or the other. It's a way of going through life in general. It's not limited to me or my fellow atheists or to philosophers. It's a way for everyone to learn to think for themselves. I just notice a group think on this forum from the few things I've read here. Also, I've noticed that snarky comments and propaganda are mistaken for intelligence.

 

[mike]

It's just that when somebody is reduced to blubbering and cursing .

Which more or less describes your posts here.........................Do as i say but not as i do ?


You dont think it can happen ? Fine, no one here will change your mind, to quote Stanton Friedman on ppl like you "Dont bother me with facts, my mind is already made up"
You also do another of the tricks Mr Friedman mentions, attack the person , not the data. Its easier

But that doesnt explain your hostility and name calling towards those who do wish to discuss this topic.

Your exhibiting all the signs of fear, clearly something about this idea frightens you.

Like it or not , millions are being spent on this research, like it or not many of the experts in this field are saying it can and will happen.

Youve said it wont happen, now move along you have nothing more to contribute since your position is closed and inflexible, unless you want to continue to stamp your foot and say "nah ah" every couple of posts, like a petulant child.
But its not a good look is it, and it will just be more of the exact same over and over like a cracked record.

I on the other hand will continue to post new links, new experimental results as they occur for those who wish to explore the idea further

 

[mike]

He isnt' the only woo pitcher on here. Anyway, transhumanism has been so thouroghly debunked that it's in the same catagory as Slyvia Browne and Uri Geller and the Obama birth certificate truthers as far as I'm concerned.

And this is just plain silly, you cant possibly compare sylivia browne with this, How is Browne in any way shape or form " in the same catagory" as the scientific research being done ?

Scientists Successfully Implant Chip That Controls The Brain

Scientists working at the University of Southern California, home of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, have created an artificial memory system that allows thoughts, memories and learned behavior to be transferred from one brain to another.​

​

​

​

In a scene right out of a George Orwell novel, a team of scientists working in the fields of “neural engineering” and “Biomimetic MicroElectronic Systems” have successfully created a chip that controls the brain and can be used as a storage device for long-term memories. In studies the scientists have been able to record, download and transfer memories into other hosts with the same chip implanted.​

​

​

Decade-long work led by Theodore Berger at University of Southern California, in collaboration with teams from Wake Forest University, has provided a big step in the direction of artificial working memory. Their study is finally published today in theJournal of Neural Engineering. A microchip implanted into a rat’s brain can take on the role of the hippocampus—the area responsible for long-term memories—encoding memory brain wave patterns and then sending that same electrical pattern of signals through the brain. Back in 2008, Berger told Scientific American, that if the brain patterns for the sentence, “See Spot Run,” or even an entire book could be deciphered, then we might make uploading instructions to the brain a reality. “The kinds of examples [the U.S. Department of Defense] likes to typically use are coded information for flying an F-15,” Berger is quoted in the article as saying.

[...]​

In this current study the scientists had rats learn a task, pressing one of two levers to receive a sip of water. Scientists inserted a microchip into the rat’s brain, with wires threaded into their hippocampus. Here the chip recorded electrical patterns from two specific areas labeled CA1 and CA3 that work together to learn and store the new information of which lever to press to get water. Scientists then shut down CA1 with a drug. And built an artificial hippocampal part that could duplicate such electrical patterns between CA1 and CA3, and inserted it into the rat’s brain. With this artificial part, rats whose CA1 had been pharmacologically blocked, could still encode long-term memories. And in those rats who had normally functioning CA1, the new implant extended the length of time a memory could be held.​

​

​

Real science, tested and reviewed. Proven proof of concept.
Its absurd to compare hard science with religion or sylvia browne, oh i get the tactic, its another old trick, guilt by association. But it fails the test im afraid.

There is no connection between valid well funded neuroscientific research , done at some of the most prestigious learning facilitys like Oxford,Harvard, Uni of SoCal and Max Planck institute and sylvia browne. You may as well throw santa claus into the mix for all the credibility thats going to give your argument.

How the hell does multi million dollar research at such places compare to Browne ?

It clearly doesnt.

Which makes me wonder again, why you would be so desperate to debunk this research with such straw clutching.

Its irrational frankly.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

I think my point speaks for itself, milage naturally varies. But for myself im inclined to accept the predictions made by experts worldwide that this is doable, over the opinions of those here who say it cant be done.
Precisely because those doing the research, seeing the positive results of their experiments, are imo in a better position to make those predictions.













Im also of the opinion a copy can be superior to that which its copied from

Just because something is a copy, does not then imply its somehow inferior to the original

As you know i dont place any stock in supernatural mechanisms.
I see "us" as biological machines, the mind as a quantifiable program albiet a complex one, but not one thats beyond our eventual ability to reverse engineer and duplicate.

The transfer/copy scenario has been already discussed, but i stand by my hypothesis that its both, depending on the pov of the observer.

Again this is real research its being done

Lets start at the top and work down



Head transplant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Whole-body transplant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly then these two examples involve transfer rather than copy of the neural matrix, would the transfer of just the neural patterns rather than the platform on which they reside acheive the same result ?
For me the answer is "for all practical purposes" YES.
If the target felt a sense of personal continuity, and those interacting with it could not tell the difference then from the pov of everyone except the source, its a transfer, it feels and behaves like a transfer

Watch this again, and imagine its really happened to you, that you have just been told you are dead, and digitised.....

Watching it, do you still "feel" like you ?
Thats how it would seem from the pov of the transfered conciousness, they would experience the very same sense of continuity you do watching this video.

Ha! I am, however, dearly attached to my illegal mental patterns. Can I download a workaround to this feature? And are there any other service providers who might not fuss about the copyright material? For those afraid of the Orwellian or corporate aspects of this future, be consoled that for every market, there is a lovely black market. Seriously though, if we were to assume that it would play out like that last video, do you think there would be a way to prepare to offer--let's call it a free market approach--to things without all the cumbersome regulatory material?

The head transplant info is fascinating. The drawback that I see is that the brain is an organ which decays from things like Alzheimer's disease, substance abuse, and just plain old oldness. Would we be seeing a bunch of young-looking people who hate everything except Matlock? It does seem though that this is an area of research that could be further along than it is. I mean, these landmark pieces were done in 1959, 1960. It seems like we should be able to resolve the spinal cord problem by now. I imagine that the Frankenstein fear may be inhibiting this research. People get squeamish when you talk about head and brain transplants. But if you could clone a spare parts body, why not do so? I mean, I have all kinds of irrational and crazy ideas about souls and consciousness, but I agree that the body is just a vehicle.

And with this talk of cultivating organs, why can't we cultivate brains, or at least brain tissue? I know, I'm still stuck on the whole physical form thing. But could we replace decaying tissue with new tissue? Could new brain tissue be colonized with memory from the old?

There's another aspect that I'm wondering about. There is a tendency for people, as they age, to become inflexible in their thoughts. There's a term for this phenomenon but I'm drinking really strong cider and I can't remember it offhand. But I think that would be a concern in a transhuman, or immortal human (is there a term for that yet?), a world of old minds no longer receptive to new ideas.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

I'm looking at the extremes mind you. If at some point in the future the technology exists to essentially create artificial human beings and somehow transfer the minds of dying human beings (or living ones for that matter) into them it will create a new class. Bear in mind only the wealthiest and most privileged will be able to take advantage of these technologies in the first place so this new class will already be pre-rarefied. Whether this new group is accepted as a new class of human being will be one of the major points of contention within society. There would be the matter of legal rights for artificial humans and how they are allowed to interact with real human beings. People being what they are I see this as having the great potential to produce a major schism in society. Religion, rights, relationships, law, social interaction and every other aspect of human life and experience would have to undergo a major adjustment. Looking at history that sort of thing never goes down without a great deal of strife and upheaval.

I can see a large political gulf between those who would view these things as machines programmed to behave as though they were human and not some continuation of the living beings they were modeled after and those who feel differently and fight for equal rights for them under the law and the continuation of their rights to their artificial replacement upon death or download.

Logically it seems there would be a gradual process where this becomes more acceptable to society so that by the time a total prosthetic body/brain is commercially viable the overall mindset of society would be more likely to buy into it. Perhaps in the far future where insurance pays for your total prosthetic replacement everyone will already be programmed not to see the difference.

Well, as it stands we already do have an economic class distinction between those who can or cannot afford plastic surgery. That's a superficial distinction, but poverty remains the biggest risk factor in life (or what would you say, meta risk factor?). So would this wealthy group be accepted as a new class? They would be accepted if they were wealthy. TV would portray a positive image and consumers would accept them as an ideal.

The real conflict would come when and if this technology becomes available for un-wealthy people, or on an unregulated basis.That's my hope for the future. That tech will allow us more independence from government and corporate interests.

You know, part of me feels like this is a moot point, in that, well, a startling number of Americans do not even accept evolution as science. They would be very far, at this point, from any discussion of this sort. But then I also wonder if there is not a growing rift between people interested in science and those, to wax Lovecraftian, fleeing "from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." I'm not discounting anti-transhumanist arguments, but we're increasingly faced with technologies that will force us to re-examine our own positions.

 

[Wade]

...and for the thread that will never die a program about people that will never die. just kidding, but here's a recent program from Warren Olney's always excellent, always timely and always even-handed "to the point" about some of the things that have been discussed here recently. Good Listening

Will Today's Disability Be Tomorrow's Super-
ability? (12:07PM)

Prosthetic devices have reached the point they don't just help people in need. They can make them as fit -- or fitter -- than everyone else. South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius , an amputee with question-mark-shaped carbon fiber prosthetics below his knees, may qualify for this summer's Olympic Games. Is that fair to competing runners? Neural implants are helping to cure mental deficiencies. Will they also be used to enhance the functions of "normal" brains? How long will it be before human beings can decide to transcend biology? What are thend practical obstacles and the ethical issues?
Guests:
Daniel Wilson : Carnegie Mellon University,
Marc Rigas : National Science Foundation
Ray Kurzweil: inventor, futurist and author
Peter Schwartz : Indiana University Center for
Bioethics

Prosthetics, Brain Implants and the Future Human - To the Point on KCRW

 

[mike]

Neural implants, also called brain implants, are medical devices designed to be placed under the skull, on the surface of the brain. Often as small as an aspirin, implants use thin metal electrodes to "listen" to brain activity and in some cases to stimulate activity in the brain. Attuned to the activity between neurons, a neural implant can essentially "listen" to your brain activity and then "talk" directly to your brain.
If that prospect makes you queasy, you may be surprised to learn that the installation of a neural implant is relatively simple and fast. Under anesthesia, an incision is made in the scalp, a hole is drilled in the skull, and the device is placed on the surface of the brain. Diagnostic communication with the device can take place wirelessly

Recently, researchers at the Institute of Neurology at University College London stimulated the brains of human subjects to push the brain toward beta band frequencies associated with focus to study the effects on motor processing, with the hope of helping those with Parkinson's disease. In an elective setting, a user with this type of implant could potentially choose to stay focused on command, while constantly strengthening circuits of the brain associated with concentration.
The neural implant of the future also could strengthen neural pathways associated with physical tasks. It could recognize "practice" movements and deliver stimulation to associated neurons to help your brain learn faster. Initial users would be people learning to walk again after having a stroke. But you could just as easily be swinging a tennis racket or a baseball bat. Or hitting perfect jump shots. With help from a neural implant, it might be possible for athletes to hone their skills incredibly quickly.

Bionic Brains and Beyond - WSJ.com

This article looks at the ethics

The sudden appearance of "super-abled" people could put new and unforeseen strains on our society. For example, what happens when mentally sharp, physically capable retirees return to the workforce by the millions? When your child is the only kid in her class without an implant and she has the lowest test scores to prove it, will you agree to put her under the knife? Will professional sports teams let superabled people play, or is that cheating? Would you hire one over a "regular" person? Should a person be required to reveal the presence of an implant? Or will that just open the door for discrimination?
Humanity has been co-evolving with technology for more than 100,000 years. Together with our tools, we are on a grand, generation-spanning trajectory. Whether we like it or not, the next step of this evolution is on the near horizon.

 

[mike]

ScienceDaily (June 7, 2012) — Scientists at the Gladstone Institutes have for the first time transformed skin cells -- with a single genetic factor -- into cells that develop on their own into an interconnected, functional network of brain cells.

In findings appearing online June 7 in Cell Stem Cell, researchers in the laboratory of Gladstone Investigator Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, describe how they transferred a single gene called Sox2 into both mouse and human skin cells. Within days the skin cells transformed into early-stage brain stem cells, also called induced neural stem cells (iNSCs). These iNSCs began to self-renew, soon maturing into neurons capable of transmitting electrical signals. Within a month, the neurons had developed into neural networks.

Skin cells reprogrammed into brain cells

Synthetic brain tissue, who'd have thought it would be possible.... what a clever species we can be

 

[trainedobserver]

Skin cells reprogrammed into brain cells

Synthetic brain tissue, who'd have thought it would be possible.... what a clever species we can be

This sort of thing is more palatable and a different in my mind that something truly synthetic or artificial. This is a manipulation of our biology. To fix the body to continually renew itself and resist all disease and remain completely biological would be hard to argue with and seems actually possible at some future date. However, I can't see how such an advanced medical technology would be something available to the masses. In fact, someone might think it would be unwise to dole out perfect health and incredibly long lives to everyone seeing as how with the mortality rate as it is, we have a problem with population growth. It doesn't take much of a gloomy disposition to see where such a thing might trigger something like a Georgia Guide Stones mentality in some.

At any rate, yes. Give me the biological perfection version of faux-immortality.

 

[tyder001]

Have to agree with trained here. This is actually feasible and sounds more like science than science fiction.

 

[Wade]

This sort of thing is more palatable and a different in my mind that something truly synthetic or artificial. This is a manipulation of our biology. To fix the body to continually renew itself and resist all disease and remain completely biological would be hard to argue with and seems actually possible at some future date. However, I can't see how such an advanced medical technology would be something available to the masses. In fact, someone might think it would be unwise to dole out perfect health and incredibly long lives to everyone seeing as how with the mortality rate as it is, we have a problem with population growth. It doesn't take much of a gloomy disposition to see where such a thing might trigger something like a Georgia Guide Stones mentality in some.

At any rate, yes. Give me the biological perfection version of faux-immortality.

As fun as it is to talk about and think about developing such issues, this is definitely not an option for the 99%er's, even today we are experiencing sustainable living failure. The environmental degradation aside (not that you can really "aside" such an issue) we are having problems with food and water scarcity even today and while these issues stem from the way we are wasting these resources as much as than the sheer number of people using them, it is the size of the population ( which IS a factor) that society will fixate on, mainly as it's the most convenient one to remedy. This subject of Human Enhancement does sound like it has all the markings of one of those best intentions things, then we realize we have to take drastic steps to remedy them. I was thinking about writing this book I wanted to write called " Logans Run through the Soilent Green" I'll let you know when it's done

Spoiler Alert : The hero WILL die at the end

 

[mike]

Rapid Evolution | The Paracast Community Forums

Some excellent references to the possibility of biomedical upgrades and uploads in this one

 

[mike]

If we are talking purely digital imortality, then population isnt an issue, its actually a better option than to waste land on the vast necropolis's we currently use to store the dead and our memorys of them

As for cost, you can already take out funeral expense insurance plans, upload insurance plans will naturally spring up when the technology becomes available.
Familys also invest time and money on cemetary upkeep, gravesite visits to leave flowers and even have a chat with the departed.

Personally i would rather pay for an avatar service, than lawnmowing fees at the local cemetary.
And i would rather fire up an interface and converse with grandma, have her tell me what things were like when she was little, than drop some roses over a box of bones.

Even if it were "just a copy" its still a more meaningfull way to remember her, than chatting to a granite slab, while i weed her plot.
But if her neural pattern once uploaded were able to continue to accept sensory input, to stay current with the biological reality, then grandchildren who are used to talking to her while she was a biological on skype, wont know the difference when she transfers to digital.
It will still be grandma on the screen asking them how they like school, remembering their birthdays etc etc.

Digital imortality may even help the population problem, a big part of procreation is about a type of imortality, living on in the next generation.
Remove death from the equation, you might even ease that imperative.

And as for cost, as long as you could earn money post biological breakdown, via such things as book writing, computer programing, help desk operation etc etc its likely to be cheaper to rent a virtual flat/house than it is a physical one.

The human brain runs on only about 20 watts of power, equal to the dim light behind the pickle jar in your refrigerator

Brain-Like Chip May Solve Computers' Big Problem: Energy | Computers | DISCOVER Magazine

Your access to virtual systems and the internet would be on top, but all and all it will likely be cheaper to "live" in the digital substrate than it is in the biological one.

 

[GeoShift]

If this vid has been posted disregard, if not I think it's somewhat relevant to this discussion.

2045: A New Era for Humanity

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

Skin cells reprogrammed into brain cells

Synthetic brain tissue, who'd have thought it would be possible.... what a clever species we can be

I wonder how many of the behavioral changes that occur in people as they age (e.g., the tendency to fixate on old information or difficulty in dealing with change) stems from a change in the health of brain tissue. Another implication of this technology could perhaps be applied to people who suffered lack of oxygen to the brain long enough to cause damage. A common movie trope: 'Even if she woke up from her coma, she would be a vegetable.'

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

Bionic Brains and Beyond - WSJ.com

This article looks at the ethics

In Lauren Slater's book, Opening Skinner's Box, she uses one chapter to discuss the history of psychosurgery. She talks about how, because of the horrific lobotomies performed in the mid-20th century, the topic has become taboo. Why do we dislike psychosurgery? Because it is perceived to take away free will, numb the patient, and affect huge portions of the brain just to fix one problem, creating a number of side effects. Yet, there are few such public fears regarding psychopharmaceuticals, which arguably may have similar results. Many of the psych meds affect so much of the brain, that an anti-psychotic may also be used to treat depression, for example. Meanwhile some surgical procedures have been able to target very specific points in the brain.

The reason I mention this is that fears of unequal performance have been expressed for years in regard to pharmaceuticals. I think that if we are worried about developing technologies giving unfair performance enhancement, we may need to first cover the currently existing issues with medications. For example, if I am on a college campus, how far do I have to walk before I encounter a student using or selling an amphetamine salt type of medication?

 

[nameless]

 

[dannytorrance]

mikey I really mean this. I have gone over some post since you are such a religious zealot. Man, there is mental health help out there for you. Aren't you the dude that dresses in Star Wars costumes and post them on the internet? I mean I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw those threads. I really do mean this man. There is help out there. Step away from the kool aid and woo and realize you are gonna die and your brain will die with you. Try to see that a grown man acting like you do is sick. As for the fellow so called skeptics who are encouraging you here. They are not being honest with you. You really are an idiot.

On no, I just saw one of the aliens messed with my dogs messages. Man, mental health is out there dude.

 

[dannytorrance]

Kurzweil debunked in Tumblr « Forums

Hey look you guy's. Anybody can post little links and call them genius. You really need to be honest with little mikey. He is to old and will never make it to see the fallacy of his arguments. Anyway, before the little fellow gets back on here this evening and starts his post after post I just wanted to say how silly he is. Athiest? Humanist? Secular? No, by no means. Religious zealot more like it. See ya in the boneyard Mikey.

Danny out!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Kurzweil debunked in Tumblr « Forums

Hey look you guy's. Anybody can post little links and call them genius. You really need to be honest with little mikey. He is to old and will never make it to see the fallacy of his arguments. Anyway, before the little fellow gets back on here this evening and starts his post after post I just wanted to say how silly he is. Athiest? Humanist? Secular? No, by no means. Religious zealot more like it. See ya in the boneyard Mikey.

Danny out!

And then a troll appeared!