To implant technology into the brain solves the bandwidth botleneck. It can circumvent the senses. Makes the computation of feelings possible. It shortens the distance. There is no physical barrier between millions of neurons and millions of nanocomputers. On the other hand, the problems are not bigger than that of a pacemaker.
The human brain can't be replaced because a computer simulation wouldn't inherit one's identity. It can only be enhanced in a genetic or electronic augmentation.
How does it feel to be a computer simulation? Do simulations have a subjective experience? To me, the existence of the hard problem of consciousness is indicative that I am not a simulation, and that my senses perceive an objective reality.
So uploading your brain to me, is a risk, until we solve the hard problem of consciousness.
@FreddyFuFu We can't easily tell if we are in a simulation or not. Consciousness is not really evidence on this issue. There is no "hard problem of consciousness" - see Dennett, Hofstadter, etc.
Everyone who denies the hard problem of consciousness suffers from a severe lack of introspection. If you would build an identical copy of me and expose it to the very same experiences I had in an advanced simulation what you would get is a twin who reacts in the same way, but not a second person that is me. I would still be in my body, not in the body of that clone. Identity is not subjected to matter. That is also the reason why "mind-uploading" is a smokescreen.
How do you say when brains are likely to be uploaded & run in a simulation? How can you say that it will even be possible to run a brain in real-time on a computer?
It seems less useful and much, much harder than just wiring a programmable computer to some neurons. That might not even involve brain surgery. It could just involve an injection.
So are you against brain-computer interfacing (as opposed to virtualization) if that's the best that technology will offer?
My brain is interfaced to a computer right now - via a screen and keyboard. The main problem is the human-output bandwidth. Speech recognition will help with that - as will gestures, lip reading, etc.
Highly direct interfaces will make little practical sense for a long while - except for the handicapped.
Of course? I expect that you've looked into the issue, but can you honestly say that brain activity doesn't depend on zillions of intricate chemical and/or quantum physical interactions that are ridiculously difficult to simulate? Remember that there are fundamental limitations to computation--It always increases entropy which cannot be reversed. Even if it is possible for one brain, I have a hard time believing that it could be practical for thousands or billions.
I believe there may be paradigms for human-machine interaction that we have not yet discovered. Who's to say that every book on record can't prove useful in the middle of a conversation, or that computers can't be instructed neurally somehow, or that literal telepathy isn't within our grasp, so to speak.
I don't see how human-output bandwidth is a problem when input/output ports can be circumvented.
The repulsion people have with the idea of uploading and their embrace of drugs and computers means that consumers will drive augmentation technology and, even if uploading becomes possible before complete tandem brain-computer processing, most people will much rather wear an earpiece that connects their brain to their computer than leave their body entirely. Uploaded humans will spend their time developing better augmentation.
Hey Tyler, you make some good points. However ultimately humanity will always be superior over machine. The ultimate purpose of a robot, cyborg or andriod is designed around making our lives more convenient, as such they will be engineered in such a way as not to stray outside its given purpose of manufacture. Frankly, I agree that there is little point in plugging ourselves in to technology, other then to marvel at our own greatness. Sounds a bit arrogant, but we are afterall, human.
To be able to think a question and immediately get the answer from the world wide net in a form as if it was your own mind contents.
Your argument seems to be hung up on whether the tech is in your brain or outside. This is an arbitrary distinction. Also ultimately only by upgrading the brain itself can we transcend our own limitations.
Cyborgs are among us today. It is rather inevitable that we will have HUD contact lenses, tiny ear buds, thoat mikes and so on as the technology become ever finer. We are merging with technology today to a large degree. A computer that looks like jewelry and is perhaps powered by your own body is not unlikely. Constant connection to others and to the network of information and computation is increasingly here now. Inside versus outside is a matter of seamlessness of integration.
To implant technology into the brain solves the bandwidth botleneck. It can circumvent the senses. Makes the computation of feelings possible. It shortens the distance. There is no physical barrier between millions of neurons and millions of nanocomputers. On the other hand, the problems are not bigger than that of a pacemaker.
The human brain can't be replaced because a computer simulation wouldn't inherit one's identity. It can only be enhanced in a genetic or electronic augmentation.
trakkaton 1 year ago
How does it feel to be a computer simulation? Do simulations have a subjective experience? To me, the existence of the hard problem of consciousness is indicative that I am not a simulation, and that my senses perceive an objective reality.
So uploading your brain to me, is a risk, until we solve the hard problem of consciousness.
FreddyFuFu 1 year ago
@FreddyFuFu We can't easily tell if we are in a simulation or not. Consciousness is not really evidence on this issue. There is no "hard problem of consciousness" - see Dennett, Hofstadter, etc.
tmtyler 1 year ago
@tmtyler
Everyone who denies the hard problem of consciousness suffers from a severe lack of introspection. If you would build an identical copy of me and expose it to the very same experiences I had in an advanced simulation what you would get is a twin who reacts in the same way, but not a second person that is me. I would still be in my body, not in the body of that clone. Identity is not subjected to matter. That is also the reason why "mind-uploading" is a smokescreen.
trakkaton 1 year ago
Hay. Enjoyable vid.
How do you say when brains are likely to be uploaded & run in a simulation? How can you say that it will even be possible to run a brain in real-time on a computer?
It seems less useful and much, much harder than just wiring a programmable computer to some neurons. That might not even involve brain surgery. It could just involve an injection.
So are you against brain-computer interfacing (as opposed to virtualization) if that's the best that technology will offer?
zachpmorgan 1 year ago
Re: Will brain emulation in real-time be possible?
Sure - of course.
tmtyler 1 year ago
Re: are you against brain-computer interfacing
My brain is interfaced to a computer right now - via a screen and keyboard. The main problem is the human-output bandwidth. Speech recognition will help with that - as will gestures, lip reading, etc.
Highly direct interfaces will make little practical sense for a long while - except for the handicapped.
tmtyler 1 year ago
Of course? I expect that you've looked into the issue, but can you honestly say that brain activity doesn't depend on zillions of intricate chemical and/or quantum physical interactions that are ridiculously difficult to simulate? Remember that there are fundamental limitations to computation--It always increases entropy which cannot be reversed. Even if it is possible for one brain, I have a hard time believing that it could be practical for thousands or billions.
zachpmorgan 1 year ago
I believe there may be paradigms for human-machine interaction that we have not yet discovered. Who's to say that every book on record can't prove useful in the middle of a conversation, or that computers can't be instructed neurally somehow, or that literal telepathy isn't within our grasp, so to speak.
I don't see how human-output bandwidth is a problem when input/output ports can be circumvented.
zachpmorgan 1 year ago
The repulsion people have with the idea of uploading and their embrace of drugs and computers means that consumers will drive augmentation technology and, even if uploading becomes possible before complete tandem brain-computer processing, most people will much rather wear an earpiece that connects their brain to their computer than leave their body entirely. Uploaded humans will spend their time developing better augmentation.
djadvance22 2 years ago
Hey Tyler, you make some good points. However ultimately humanity will always be superior over machine. The ultimate purpose of a robot, cyborg or andriod is designed around making our lives more convenient, as such they will be engineered in such a way as not to stray outside its given purpose of manufacture. Frankly, I agree that there is little point in plugging ourselves in to technology, other then to marvel at our own greatness. Sounds a bit arrogant, but we are afterall, human.
W0lfStudios 3 years ago
To be able to think a question and immediately get the answer from the world wide net in a form as if it was your own mind contents.
Your argument seems to be hung up on whether the tech is in your brain or outside. This is an arbitrary distinction. Also ultimately only by upgrading the brain itself can we transcend our own limitations.
sjatkins 3 years ago
I do discuss "fyborgs". I see no problem there - e.g. see my video on intelligence augmentation.
Whether the technology is inside your body is the main issue I was trying to address.
"Brain upgrades" are not the only possible way forwards - civilisation could switch to using machine intelligence instead.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Cyborgs are among us today. It is rather inevitable that we will have HUD contact lenses, tiny ear buds, thoat mikes and so on as the technology become ever finer. We are merging with technology today to a large degree. A computer that looks like jewelry and is perhaps powered by your own body is not unlikely. Constant connection to others and to the network of information and computation is increasingly here now. Inside versus outside is a matter of seamlessness of integration.
sjatkins 3 years ago
There's quite a few of them at the moment - and if Japan is anything to go by, their popularity seems destined to grow.
tmtyler 3 years ago
What about Androids?
rbarooah 3 years ago