Substrate-independent minds

[Konrad Hartmann]

Where do you see the development of artificial organs going? And if we are able to make synthetic replacement organs, could we not make improved versions of them? For example, maybe there could be a better system than a fragile human eyeball that can be damaged by so many different things, and human spines that seem poorly suited for our bipedal locomotion. And need I mention the drawbacks of testicles?

The one organ that seems to be the big challenge is the brain. We can replace a liver without losing our personality and memories. And the brain at some point decays. But what if we could produce replacement brain tissue, introducing it a bit at a time, allowing it to be "cultured" by the pre-existing memories and personality? Maybe that doesn't make sense if our brain comes pre-loaded with certain modules as discussed by Pinker.

One thing that I find interesting is the idea of humans being able to change the shape and form of their bodies, beyond just the current superficial surgeries. What options might we have in 50 or 100 years? And if we are able to at one point place our intelligence in non-human forms, we would open up new possibilities for exploration. Perhaps what holds back public support for developing new technologies is sometimes the attitude, "yeah, but I'll be dead before that research goes anywhere."

 

[mike]

It makes sense to me that if you are going to build a synthetic bioform to "carry" your mind around, you'd optimise it, ive explored some of the possibilitys previously in this thread.

 

[Wade]

An interesting post, Spooky, but I do stand by my post above. Of course, I don't agree. I think there is a clear and ingrained antipathy on the part of some to be presented with contrary evidence, and that such presentation invokes a lot of condemnation, as is evidenced by your recent post of an article about forum etiquette, and if you reread that you will see what invective that elicited from somebody and I hadn't even entered that thread. I finally responded, quite appropriately.

I have wondered just why you posted that.

This thread is about the topic it was started on, and I have contributed my opinions to it, very appropriately. I see you agree with the reaction of some to my posts, but I will continue to post politely and offer contrary evidence when I think it contributes to a more balanced view. If you back up and read the posts since the thread's inception, and since yesterday specifically, you will see I have remained on topic. But you say you did that. I think you should post on its topic, too, but that's my opinion. I don't see where I have deviated from its topic in its whole history.

But I'm confused. You say that a certain member "rose to the challenge on this one." What challenge? I simply have presented clear, and yes, contrary evidence to some of the very wild predictions made on the thread. That is a "challenge" that should be met with the invective my posts have received? If you believe that, well, that's your opinion.

Your definition of "wordsmith" is very different from mine, and I hope your "aspiration" to such vertiginous heights of wordplay is a dream that you realize. Kim

@Kim, an apology
Let me explain what I was attempting to say (obviously poorly) on that post. I noticed by the number of replies on this thread it had a lot of activity, and I had absolutely no idea what it was about even with the title. I did notice that it was constantly on or near the top on latest threads, so it was a hot topic and I clicked on it which takes you to the latest posting, I could see whatever it was about it generated shall we say, a bit of passion. I suppose I could have gone to the very first page and started there but as I’m sure you’ve noticed many of the threads take a turn in a different direction than what was intended at the beginning so I focused on the last page of posts to find out what was going on.
The reason why I pre-empted my posting about being shallow was this…I have and had absolutely NO insight or opinion whatsoever of this subject, at best I have a passing knowledge of ray k. and transhumanism and couldn’t possibly weigh in on it, and I continued reading until I got to mike’s post. And I can only say that the imagery he invoked in his reply to you was to me, visionary, a little disgusting, yes, but very imaginative. That is what I was commenting on, nothing more and nothing less. Did my post lend anything to the debate, well I think we both know the answer to that, but those type posts abound in this forum, perhaps not by you but they are there and so in that spirit, I did my post.
The fact that it was aimed at your posting is irrelevant to me, that’s what I meant by not commenting on the subject, I had no authority to weigh in on the subject, or the logic behind your opinion, but I sure can appreciate it when somebody tosses in a colorful sentence like he did. Anybody could come up with a f.u. or stick it, or up yours and fortunately we see very little of that he BUT there is absolutely denying that his terminology was fanciful. I think I’m on steady ground when I say some of us here, have a certain fetish…and I don’t mean that in a mean spirited way…about some things that would leave others scratching their heads as in “what does he see in that?” mine is wordplay, warts and all. I have whenever possible, tried to use non-standard titles in any threads that I start including one I am working on now. Perhaps some find them annoying, or even pretentious, that’s fine, but it’s what I like and until such time the mods say enough, I will continue doing so. It’s what I like, it’s my thing, you and I may have a different point of view on what constitutes wordplay, but mike’s is probably closer to what I go for. Wordplay, be it puns, double-entendres’, idioms, intentional malaprops, spoonerism’s, and non-sequiturs, the whole thing, I eat it up and whenever anybody throws in what I consider a good one, it spurs me to outdo it

His came in the form of an knock on your posting habits, As far as I care, he could have been critiquing the latest restaurant in Geelong, Broome or Fortitude Valley (o.k. I’m showing off here) or wherever he lives and I would have been no less vocal in my appraisal had it been applied in that way. Perhaps, eventually, I will be on the opposite end of a barb like that, maybe here, maybe elsewhere, perhaps by mike himself. Whoever it is, in whatever form it is they better have a full quiver, because for me it will be game on, however anything I reply with will be less to do with vindictiveness , than with bringing up an aspect of me where I actually feel competitive and more so, outdo the person on the other end…like I said, it’s a fetish
I was going to pm this to you, but in as much as it constitutes an apology I feel, all should see it, I wasn’t ganging up on or choosing sides or anything like that merely tipping my hat to mike, looking back now, I am sorry I did it in a public manner, there was little need for it I could have just pm’ed him, but I still have to ask mike “where the hell did he come up with that?”

 

[tyder001]

If, and I don't believe you could do it but if you could download some of the information of a person what would that really be? Would it be a conscious being in it's own right? Would it be like a "projection" of images and thoughts and output like a computer? If so then how is that really "me?" If I were a really good programmer and I could program a system to "remember" what I did last week it still wouldn't be me. I think there have been experiments where a person found it hard and was even fooled by a machine over the internet. But, it still wasn't a self conscious being. I was going to put in some snippy little remarks here and then I thought about it. I decided to just try a straight forward discussion on the subject. These are some of the thoughts that I ponder when I think about the transhumanist movement.

 

[stonehart]

If, and I don't believe you could do it but if you could download some of the information of a person what would that really be? Would it be a conscious being in it's own right? Would it be like a "projection" of images and thoughts and output like a computer? If so then how is that really "me?" If I were a really good programmer and I could program a system to "remember" what I did last week it still wouldn't be me. I think there have been experiments where a person found it hard and was even fooled by a machine over the internet. But, it still wasn't a self conscious being. I was going to put in some snippy little remarks here and then I thought about it. I decided to just try a straight forward discussion on the subject. These are some of the thoughts that I ponder when I think about the transhumanist movement.

And that my friend is the million dollar question "What is you" or from a philosophical point of view "what is mind".
The problem you have, is that you have no point of reference on which to go on for you can not subjectively experience yourself from outside yourself.
If you could upload some ones personality, experience, thoughts etc then what makes that mind any different to the one still in biological form?

This is the really question I guess, and to be honest I do not have an answer for you for In my opinion I do not think there would be any difference at all between them for how could you tell if there was if it was an exact copy of the original.

Now what say that the technology (hypothetically) was constructed in such a way that once the first upload of mind was made it could update just like saving a copy of an ongoing word document. would you then exist in two places or for that matter if you are connected to the system all the time what makes the uploaded part of your mind any different from the organic part? are they not now one in the same? The digital part would then be just an extension of the biological mind as would the biological mind be just a part of the digital one. I think of it like a network server with either the biological or the digital component at the hub.

How could you tell the difference if say the biological part died and the digital one was re loaded to a new bio form?
I don't think you could, because for all intents and purposes it is still the same mind that through the system I hypothetically created had in fact experienced its own death so it knows it died.

That kind of warps things a bit when you start to think hard about it.

 

[boomerang]

Great thread. I don't follow current publications about the search for AI. Frankly, I'm not that smart!

But I recall reading over the years about ever more sophisticated computer algorithms attempting to create self-awareness "in a box" by constructing a kind of virtual world of simplistic playthings in a computer, with code that responds to requests to manipulate them and is apparently aware it is doing so, as per Turing.

I'm not qualified to make an informed judgement call on this approach. But my intuitive feeling is that this world-in-a-box approach is inherently flawed. I would lay bets on the path to true AI being found in circuits and algorithms than constantly sense and react to reality on a
real time basis in a kind of self-modifying feedback loop. Is this what Douglas Hofstadter means by "recursive?" in his book "Godel Escher Bach" ?

Not sure. It's all way over my head. But it will be interesting to see if man made autonomous robots such as UAV's and industrial robots, slowly come to react to their surroundings in a way that is indistinguishable from self awareness.

 

[Wade]

Not sure. It's all way over my head. But it will be interesting to see if man made autonomous robots such as UAV's and industrial robots, slowly come to react to their surroundings in a way that is indistinguishable from self awareness.

Generally I am out of the loop on this subject as well, I am a little more informed on applying a.i. to robotics currently being tried in battlefield use...which more and more seems to be the testing grounds for things that make their way into society

Between this application, gene sequencing ( it's likely our dna makes up our "core" personality traits) and the current field of nueroscience where they are using mri to map out our brain to see a physilogical response to various stimuli (even words and colors) we are well on the way to robotic self awareness. How soon before c3po will be asking us " would you like fries with that?" In my case, 3po better know the meaning of hold the mayo please or there will be blood...make that hydraulic fluid...and eventually, a mixture of both

Robot ethics: Morals and the machine | The Economist

Robots go to war: March of the robots | The Economist

 

[nameless]

Howard Bloom: The global brain. s'good book. Lucifer principle, s'good book too.

 

[trainedobserver]

 

[pixelsmith]

The benefit of others might well be improved if you truly did not debate Kim...either directly or indirectly.

Kim does not debate anyway.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

Given the missing parts, this bloke has every right to be self-pitying and frustrated.

 

[trainedobserver]

Given the missing parts, this bloke has every right to be self-pitying and frustrated.

You have a good point. In Grant Morrison's run on Doom Patrol he explored several of Cliff's problems coping with being a brain in mechanical body.

 

[dannytorrance]

You people can't be serious? Bye the way to the dimbulb that posted the link to the experts ROFLMAO, Especially the Kurtzweil nut. Get over it dude. Unless, you are really, really young you gonna DIE! Matter of fact even if you are 20 years old you gonna die. Some of you here know better than this junk. You are just humoring the local idiot because he's useful in some ways. Check out Sam Harris and also Rational Pedia. We are no where near figuring or mapping out the brain. Even if we do it's still a frickin MACHINE! You can't download a person. Anyway, when little mikey and the rest come on here and post more links to more junk you at least can say ole Danny T. told ya so.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think the real question is whether sometime in the future someone will manufacture machines programmed to act as though they are human beings who have died and will the living war with each other and these machines over the very idea?

 

[dannytorrance]

So you agree that it isn't the same person and that the starter of this thread is wrong. Well, at least we got that out of the way. Stop playing and just say what you think. Sheesh, that's the problem with a small gathering. People are afraid of offending somebody. This whole subject is whack.

 

[trainedobserver]

So you agree that it isn't the same person and that the starter of this thread is wrong. Well, at least we got that out of the way. Stop playing and just say what you think. Sheesh, that's the problem with a small gathering. People are afraid of offending somebody. This whole subject is whack.

I realize this thread is quite long but I have talked about it here and in other threads. Mike and I agree to disagree about the subject.

I think one of the fundamental flaws with trans-humanism is highlighted by the following question: Does the organism serve the consciousness or does consciousness serve the organism? Logically consciousness serves the organism. It exists to meet the needs of the organism not the other way around. Artificially preserving consciousness in some fashion might be akin to creating an entire system to create and maintain a replication of some other organ in the body, like a kidney for example.

 

[dannytorrance]

Almost there.

 

[trainedobserver]

Almost there.

I just realized I didn't answer your question. I agree, it would not be the same person or for that matter a person at all. It would be at best a simulation.

 

[dannytorrance]

. I agree, it would not be the same person or for that matter a person at all. It would be at best a simulation.

Bravo.

Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain – Pharyngula

 

[mike]

Again the same was said about heavier than air flight, high speed rail and heart transplants to name just a few ideas that eventually became reality despite the naysayers.
Thats how it works, thats the process, the idea comes first then the technology/mechanism to make it reality.
No one can say for sure if it will or wont work until we get there.
But we can say that the idea is being researched

Scientists say they've made a breakthrough in their pursuit of computers that "think" like a living thing's brain — an effort that tests the limits of technology.

A Florida scientist has developed a "brain" in a glass dish that is capable of flying a virtual fighter plane and could enhance medical understanding of neural disorders such as epilepsy.

The "living computer" was grown from 25,000 neurons extracted from a rat's brain and arranged over a grid of 60 electrodes in a Petri dish.
The brain cells then started to reconnect themselves, forming microscopic interconnections, said Thomas DeMarse, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/

Digital Rat Brain Spontaneously Develops Organized Neuron Patterns
Researchers hope the breakthrough could lead to a fully virtual human brain within ten years
by Stuart Fox
7/16/2009/2:10
Blue Brain This image is a 3-D model of what the connections in Blue Brain would look like if they were flesh and blood neurons, not computer code. Blue Brain Project, via The Wall Street Journal
Four years ago, a team of researchers at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland switched on Blue Brain, a computer designed to mimic a functioning slice of a rat’s brain. At first, the virtual neurons fired only when prodded by a simulated electrical current. But recently, that has changed.
Apparently, the simulated neurons have begun spontaneously coordinating, and organizing themselves into a more complex pattern that resembles a wave. According to the scientists, this is the beginning of the self-organizing neurological patterns that eventually, in more complex mammal brains, become personality.
The computer simulation utilizes an IBM supercomputer capable of performing 22.8 trillion operations in a second. And that’s just barely enough to simulate one part of a rat’s brain. Each individual neuron requires the computing power of a high-end desktop computer, and the small area of the brain that Blue Brain simulates contains 10,000 neurons.

I always find it hilarious to see so many top end researchers with impressive credentials, be told by those with no credentials whatsoever, their research is invalid.