Discussion Forums > The Lounge

Human mind into a computer

(1/5) > >>

megido-rev.M:
I was going to reply in the "Ghost Love?" thread, but I thought I might as well create this thread instead.


--- Quote from: Ixarku on March 30, 2012, 08:09:13 PM ---The one thing that does deeply disturb me, though, not to go too far off-topic, is the idea of 'downloading' a human mind into a computer.  Are we really just the sum of our physical chemistry, or does the self actually have an intangible component (ie, a soul)?  And, assuming sufficient technical prowess, can our consciousnesses really be scientifically separated from our meat body and stuck into an exclusively electronic shell?  Would you still be you, or would that electronic version just be a copy?  If our science ever gets to that point, I wonder if we'll unravel the nature of mortality as a step along the way to scientific immortality, or if gaining the knowledge will be a consequence of that technology.

--- End quote ---

As it stands before me, such an idea is purely of science fiction. A mind would be physical assuming it is the result of a [functioning] brain (or, loosely speaking, whatever serves as memory and its driver), regardless of whether anything can actually physically touch it as well as verify such action. Not going into souls or anything presumed strictly intangible.

Capability of duplicating the source of one's mind into a computerized system would only be one challenge of actually replicating it. If you're aware of how a CPU operates, you would know how much the contents of the RAM are vital, but I digress. The duplication will need to be aware of how its new host is driven, or the replication fails immediately. Proper mapping of senses is also required as the dupe would not be developing from scratch (the case for an AI), and is used to operating senses of the source host. In other words, the IO system needs to be suited for the dupe, so built on-the-fly. If the source's state were preserved in the process, it is doubtful anything would actually change even if the original dies, aside the existence of a replica. Whereas if the process were destructive, it would be roughly the same case just having the source forced to die immediately.

The paragraph above does not even cover sentience, sustenance, or complications of having originally biological memory driven by a digital system. How would rebooting work? At least for a human, having the brain turned off is a euphemism for being dead. And we all know how easy it is to crash or overheat a regular computer as well.

So, my take on the consciousness separation idea, it might perhaps involve replication and some kind of synchronization such that it transmigrated the original's sentient state upon death. Easier said than anything else, really. (N.B. that I say replicate and not copy, which could mean replication of a replica.)

TL;DR: I don't find the idea disturbing whatsoever, but it's interestingly complicated enough.


Anyway, this is just what I fathom how science could even approach this sort of thing. I doubt that I would want to computerize my own mind either way. Probably you guys don't either seeing how you find living (potentially) forever is overrated, but that's my guess.

AceHigh:
Chill. We are machines ourselves, just made from a different material. As soon as we get full understanding of how our brain functions and have technology to create a computer with same or better specs, there will be no difference if our mind is in a biological machine, or a synthetic one.

Nikkoru:
Greg Egan is one of my favourite science fiction authors on the subject of post-humanism and questions of ontology. If you ever find a copy of copy of Axiomatic -- or any of his books -- I suggest you pick it up.

This is one of his better short stories on the subject.

rkruger:

--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on March 31, 2012, 02:18:45 AM ---Capability of duplicating the source of one's mind into a computerized system would only be one challenge of actually replicating it. If you're aware of how a CPU operates, you would know how much the contents of the RAM are vital, but I digress. The duplication will need to be aware of how its new host is driven, or the replication fails immediately. Proper mapping of senses is also required as the dupe would not be developing from scratch (the case for an AI), and is used to operating senses of the source host. In other words, the IO system needs to be suited for the dupe, so built on-the-fly. If the source's state were preserved in the process, it is doubtful anything would actually change even if the original dies, aside the existence of a replica. Whereas if the process were destructive, it would be roughly the same case just having the source forced to die immediately.

--- End quote ---
For this to even remotely work, we need to first move away from the Von Neumann architecture. I think, what is needed, is a kind of hardware neural net system, that replicates the brain, just using other materials.


--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on March 31, 2012, 02:18:45 AM ---So, my take on the consciousness separation idea, it might perhaps involve replication and some kind of synchronization such that it transmigrated the original's sentient state upon death. Easier said than anything else, really. (N.B. that I say replicate and not copy, which could mean replication of a replica.)

--- End quote ---
So what you are describing is a kind of DRM system on your brain, that's an interesting though. If we ever get this far, do you think we will have problems with "piracy" of people's minds?  ;D

But back to Ixarku's original fear:
If we take a step way from computers, and imagine that we hypothetically could replicate entire molecular structures. (Just copy atom for atom.)
If you then make a copy of yourself, which one is the "you"? The original or the copy?

Saras:
There is an extremely large difference between how a CPU and a brain works. So you could only "insert" and emulate a brain if it's calculation speeds are stupendously higher than the brains. Realistically a biological computer would be required for such a task.

I fully believe that one could upload ones mind into a machine in the distant future. Having said that, I doubt that we'd remain we, our memories would be stored, however the functional machine wouldn't be "us". Do not forget that a lot of the stuff that makes us human comes from the reptilian brain, the biological need to fulfil our urges. As machines, these are mostly irrelevant, there is no point in say sex for a computer. However, without sex a human isn't really human. Not to mention the internet, the interconnectedness. If such a time does come, we'd be closer to a hivemind than "a guy in a box".

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page