Mental Experiment of Strong AI and Consciousness Transfer

[JimBowie1958]

OK, saw the movie Transcendence tonight with my wife and she thought the tech was bad and the events simply ludicrous, and she may be right. The idea of a person transferring their consciousness to a machine does seem a bit of a stretch at first blush.

But let me demonstrate how this might work, if our consciousness is entirely dependent on where we happen to have our thinking/computational element residing. I'll do an increasingly radical series of cases of greater 'envelope pushing' in each case to unfold the idea gradually.

Case 1: Suppose we have a person who is exposed to radiation at levels such that after recovering from a month of radiation sickness only half of his brain cells are still alive, in random locations through the brain. Now, suppose some advanced medical technique plants stem cells throughout the brain so that a new half of the brain is formed, but entirely mixed in with the old brain cells.

Is it too far fetched to say that the human consciousness resides in the new brain cells as much as the old ones? That the soul still interfaces with the brain through the mind, if that is your belief, using the new cells as well as the old cells? IF you prefer, leave out the idea of a soul and just think of the aggregate function of the brain supporting one's consciousness; is there any reason to believe that the new cells would not integrate into the new mind as did the old cells? I have read that in the course of a life time the brains cells are entirely replaced several times, so it would seem that this type of consciousness transfer might already be happening.

Case 2: Similar to Case 1, let us simply expand the frontal lobe with new creases and gray matter through any of a dozen possible ways should the technology mature. Say it is enough to double or quadruple the total gray matter in the frontal lobe; would there be any reason to believe that the mind/consciousness would not expand into the new matter?

Case 3: Suppose that cybernetics were advanced enough that a 'thinking helmet' was developed that contained actual biological brain material that interfaced with your brain through electrodes/receptors in your brain and the helmets brain material, and communicated through millions of said receptors and signal sending diodes on each side of the divide, half in ones own brain and half in matching signal diodes in the helmet so that there was a faster than thought seamless connection. Is there reason to believe that the consciousness might not expand into the helmet brain material as it did in the previous two examples of more closely integrated brain material?

Case 4: Now, let's replace the biological brain matter in the helmet with a set of super fast quantum computers that were entirely within the helmet and still connected the same way. Suppose these quantum computers were many times faster than the normal brain and were capable of mimicking the brains chemical behavior exactly. Is there any reason that the consciousness might not exist on the helmet quantum computers as well as in the original hosts brain?

I seriously balk at Case 4. But for some reason I can buy Case 1-3 as feasible, though there is absolutely no reason to believe it is any more believable than Case 4 or less believable than Case 1 or 2.

But for the sake of the illustration, suppose we one day make a computer so fast and mimicking the brains behavior so closely that when you wear the computerized helmet it really feels like it is part of you and your mind.

If that were the case, and one day your body died, would your consciousness survive in the computer based conscious mind? Why or why not?

Where do you find the gulf between the ability of the mind-consciousness to expand and adapt too wide to accept and you 'just cant go there'?

 

[BlackFlag]

Whoa far out man

 

[JimBowie1958]

Whoa far out man

So let me guess, you are a nanotech engineer?

roflmao

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK, saw the movie Transcendence tonight with my wife and she thought the tech was bad and the events simply ludicrous, and she may be right. The idea of a person transferring their consciousness to a machine does seem a bit of a stretch at first blush.

But let me demonstrate how this might work, if our consciousness is entirely dependent on where we happen to have our thinking/computational element residing. I'll do an increasingly radical series of cases of greater 'envelope pushing' in each case to unfold the idea gradually.

Case 1: Suppose we have a person who is exposed to radiation at levels such that after recovering from a month of radiation sickness only half of his brain cells are still alive, in random locations through the brain. Now, suppose some advanced medical technique plants stem cells throughout the brain so that a new half of the brain is formed, but entirely mixed in with the old brain cells.

Is it too far fetched to say that the human consciousness resides in the new brain cells as much as the old ones? That the soul still interfaces with the brain through the mind, if that is your belief, using the new cells as well as the old cells? IF you prefer, leave out the idea of a soul and just think of the aggregate function of the brain supporting one's consciousness; is there any reason to believe that the new cells would not integrate into the new mind as did the old cells? I have read that in the course of a life time the brains cells are entirely replaced several times, so it would seem that this type of consciousness transfer might already be happening.

Case 2: Similar to Case 1, let us simply expand the frontal lobe with new creases and gray matter through any of a dozen possible ways should the technology mature. Say it is enough to double or quadruple the total gray matter in the frontal lobe; would there be any reason to believe that the mind/consciousness would not expand into the new matter?

Case 3: Suppose that cybernetics were advanced enough that a 'thinking helmet' was developed that contained actual biological brain material that interfaced with your brain through electrodes/receptors in your brain and the helmets brain material, and communicated through millions of said receptors and signal sending diodes on each side of the divide, half in ones own brain and half in matching signal diodes in the helmet so that there was a faster than thought seamless connection. Is there reason to believe that the consciousness might not expand into the helmet brain material as it did in the previous two examples of more closely integrated brain material?

Case 4: Now, let's replace the biological brain matter in the helmet with a set of super fast quantum computers that were entirely within the helmet and still connected the same way. Suppose these quantum computers were many times faster than the normal brain and were capable of mimicking the brains chemical behavior exactly. Is there any reason that the consciousness might not exist on the helmet quantum computers as well as in the original hosts brain?

I seriously balk at Case 4. But for some reason I can buy Case 1-3 as feasible, though there is absolutely no reason to believe it is any more believable than Case 4 or less believable than Case 1 or 2.

But for the sake of the illustration, suppose we one day make a computer so fast and mimicking the brains behavior so closely that when you wear the computerized helmet it really feels like it is part of you and your mind.

If that were the case, and one day your body died, would your consciousness survive in the computer based conscious mind? Why or why not?

Where do you find the gulf between the ability of the mind-consciousness to expand and adapt too wide to accept and you 'just cant go there'?

Case 1 and 2: Whether the aggregate be parsed with or without a soul, I think it's very likely that just such an integration would occur. In fact, I've thought about this very thing in the past. To my understanding that's essentially what occurs as the cells replace themselves, and I can't imagine why "the mind/consciousness would not expand into the new matter" as well.

Case 3 and 4: These are tougher problems, though 3 seems feasible. But if 3 is possible, why not 4? The question seems to be: in 3 or perhaps more likely in 4, would the consciousness necessarily have to expand into the artificial configuration? As you suggest: "suppose we one day make a computer so fast and mimicking the brains behavior so closely that when you wear the computerized helmet it really feels like it is part of you and your mind."

Actually, I think that 3 and 4 could be just as likely as 1 and 2. Why not? We have two platforms comprised of different material, albeit, serving/functioning in accordance with the same principle. And if 3 and 4 are possible, I don't see why the artificial consciousness wouldn't survive the original . . . or at the very least, I don't see why the part of the aggregate allocated to the artificial wouldn't survive, which raises another issue. . . .

Upload? Download? Transfer?

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, saw the movie Transcendence tonight with my wife and she thought the tech was bad and the events simply ludicrous, and she may be right. The idea of a person transferring their consciousness to a machine does seem a bit of a stretch at first blush.

But let me demonstrate how this might work, if our consciousness is entirely dependent on where we happen to have our thinking/computational element residing. I'll do an increasingly radical series of cases of greater 'envelope pushing' in each case to unfold the idea gradually.

Case 1: Suppose we have a person who is exposed to radiation at levels such that after recovering from a month of radiation sickness only half of his brain cells are still alive, in random locations through the brain. Now, suppose some advanced medical technique plants stem cells throughout the brain so that a new half of the brain is formed, but entirely mixed in with the old brain cells.

Is it too far fetched to say that the human consciousness resides in the new brain cells as much as the old ones? That the soul still interfaces with the brain through the mind, if that is your belief, using the new cells as well as the old cells? IF you prefer, leave out the idea of a soul and just think of the aggregate function of the brain supporting one's consciousness; is there any reason to believe that the new cells would not integrate into the new mind as did the old cells? I have read that in the course of a life time the brains cells are entirely replaced several times, so it would seem that this type of consciousness transfer might already be happening.

Case 2: Similar to Case 1, let us simply expand the frontal lobe with new creases and gray matter through any of a dozen possible ways should the technology mature. Say it is enough to double or quadruple the total gray matter in the frontal lobe; would there be any reason to believe that the mind/consciousness would not expand into the new matter?

Case 3: Suppose that cybernetics were advanced enough that a 'thinking helmet' was developed that contained actual biological brain material that interfaced with your brain through electrodes/receptors in your brain and the helmets brain material, and communicated through millions of said receptors and signal sending diodes on each side of the divide, half in ones own brain and half in matching signal diodes in the helmet so that there was a faster than thought seamless connection. Is there reason to believe that the consciousness might not expand into the helmet brain material as it did in the previous two examples of more closely integrated brain material?

Case 4: Now, let's replace the biological brain matter in the helmet with a set of super fast quantum computers that were entirely within the helmet and still connected the same way. Suppose these quantum computers were many times faster than the normal brain and were capable of mimicking the brains chemical behavior exactly. Is there any reason that the consciousness might not exist on the helmet quantum computers as well as in the original hosts brain?

I seriously balk at Case 4. But for some reason I can buy Case 1-3 as feasible, though there is absolutely no reason to believe it is any more believable than Case 4 or less believable than Case 1 or 2.

But for the sake of the illustration, suppose we one day make a computer so fast and mimicking the brains behavior so closely that when you wear the computerized helmet it really feels like it is part of you and your mind.

If that were the case, and one day your body died, would your consciousness survive in the computer based conscious mind? Why or why not?

Where do you find the gulf between the ability of the mind-consciousness to expand and adapt too wide to accept and you 'just cant go there'?

Case 1 and 2: Whether the aggregate be parsed with or without a soul, I think it's very likely that just such an integration would occur. In fact, I've thought about this very thing in the past. To my understanding that's essentially what occurs as the cells replace themselves, and I can't imagine why "the mind/consciousness would not expand into the new matter" as well.

Case 3 and 4: These are tougher problems, though 3 seems feasible. But if 3 is possible, why not 4? The question seems to be: in 3 or perhaps more likely in 4, would the consciousness necessarily have to expand into the artificial configuration? As you suggest: "suppose we one day make a computer so fast and mimicking the brains behavior so closely that when you wear the computerized helmet it really feels like it is part of you and your mind."

Actually, I think that 3 and 4 could be just as likely as 1 and 2. Why not? We have two platforms comprised of different material, albeit, serving/functioning in accordance with the same principle. And if 3 and 4 are possible, I don't see why the artificial consciousness wouldn't survive the original . . . or at the very least, I don't see why the part of the aggregate allocated to the artificial wouldn't survive, which raises another issue. . . .

Upload? Download? Transfer?

Yeah, Case 1 and 2 seem like 'no brainers', lol, but I doubt there is much actual science done to support the assertions yet.

Case 3 seems like it would be doable, but who really knows since it is so speculative?

Case 4 has a lot of hypothetical conjecture, but it is still more believable than to just say 'we can upload our minds to a computer' as I have heard so many times.

This is kind of a raw and unproven set of concepts that really we cant assert anything about any of it but only ask questions about our starting presumptions.

 

[Politico]

If you die you are dead. You can't transfer yourself into a computer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I honestly don't hold a lot of knowledge within this area of science. But I believe that anything is possible This is why we should put more resources into science!

Honestly, the brain works by memberizing information throughout your life and growing connections. So I don't see any reason something couldn't act as the connectors of such.

 

[ScienceRocks]

BBC - Future - Building computer brains that can reason like humans

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you die you are dead. You can't transfer yourself into a computer.

Obviosly if you are dead then you cant transfer anything. The question is about what is 'dead' in terms of your own consciousness.

 

[Politico]

Dead is wen you stop breathing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dead is wen you stop breathing.

Lol, no, it is not.

People who have stopped breathing get resuscitated all the time.

What, you think they have been resurrected?

 

[Politico]

Oh lord fine. Go ahead deflect. Upload your brain and let us know how it works out then.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh lord fine. Go ahead deflect. Upload your brain and let us know how it works out then,

You missed the point entirely.

What is considered plausible is merely a matter of degree and that degree is dependent on what technical possibilities you have been exposed to and find plausible.

Which of the four cases do you find implausible?

No one is claiming that they can upload their minds to a computer...at least not yet.

 

[Politico]

Not claiming? Actually they are claiming it is just a few years away. And half your scenarios involve human consciousness moving around so.....

Putting the fantasy aside the bottom line is this. Will there be day where tech could help someone with a brain injury function better? Of course. We can already control aircraft with a helmet interface. But when you're dead you're dead. When your brain is damaged it is damaged. You can't grow a new one. If there is enough of it left the brain can rewire itself. That is a known fact.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not claiming? Actually they are claiming it is just a few years away. And half your scenarios involve human consciousness moving around so.....

So why don't you answer the questions I asked you? Which Cases 1 through 4 are fantasy and why?

Putting the fantasy aside the bottom line is this. Will there be day where tech could help someone with a brain injury function better? Of course. We can already control aircraft with a helmet interface. But when you're dead you're dead.

You really do have a command of self defined truisms.

When your brain is damaged it is damaged.

Awesome.

You can't grow a new one.

Not yet, but they are making huge progress on that.

If there is enough of it left the brain can rewire itself. That is a known fact.

Yes it is.

 

[Politico]

I answered all your questions.

 

[orogenicman]

Oh lord fine. Go ahead deflect. Upload your brain and let us know how it works out then,

You missed the point entirely.

What is considered plausible is merely a matter of degree and that degree is dependent on what technical possibilities you have been exposed to and find plausible.

Which of the four cases do you find implausible?

No one is claiming that they can upload their minds to a computer...at least not yet.

If you lose half of your brain cells, even randomly, to radiation exposure, I can almost guarantee you aren't going to recover from it. The swelling all by itself is going to kill you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh lord fine. Go ahead deflect. Upload your brain and let us know how it works out then,

You missed the point entirely.

What is considered plausible is merely a matter of degree and that degree is dependent on what technical possibilities you have been exposed to and find plausible.

Which of the four cases do you find implausible?

No one is claiming that they can upload their minds to a computer...at least not yet.

If you lose half of your brain cells, even randomly, to radiation exposure, I can almost guarantee you aren't going to recover from it. The swelling all by itself is going to kill you.

Phineas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman remembered for his improbable[C] survival of a rock-blasting accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior over the remaining twelve years of his life—effects so profound that (for a time at least) friends saw him as "no longer Gage."

Long known as "the American Crowbar Case"—once termed "the case which more than all others is calculated to excite our wonder, impair the value of prognosis, and even to subvert our physiological doctrines"[2]—Phineas Gage influenced nineteenth-century discussion about the mind and brain, particularly debate on cerebral localization, and was perhaps the first case to suggest that damage to specific parts of the brain might affect personality.[1]:ch7-9[3]

Gage is a fixture in the curricula of neurology, psychology and related disciplines, and is frequently mentioned in books and academic papers; he even has a minor place in popular culture.[4] Despite this celebrity,[5] the body of established fact about Gage and his personality before or after his injury is small. This has allowed the psychology field to attribute "the fitting of almost any theory [desired] to the small number of facts we have"[1]:290. Through the intervening century, Gage has been cited in support of various contradictory theories of the brain. A survey of published accounts, including scientific ones, has found that they almost always severely distort Gage's behavioral changes, exaggerating the known facts when not directly contradicting them....

ABC's Bob Woodruff, who survived massive brain injury, encouraged by Gabrielle Giffords' progress - NY Daily News

While you may be right about the radiation damage likely killing the person, 1) it is a hypothetical scenario constructed for the example, not meant to be taken literally, and 2) people have survived such sever brain damage and our tech is improving daily, so it could be common for people to survive such things in the not too distant future.

Anyway, thank you for the civil and rational response.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I answered all your questions.

Then which case is fantasy? I don't see where you answered that.

 

[editec]

The possibility for a kind of near immortality though transfer of your mind functions into digital machines is one that appears to be becoming a goal of mankind.


We're going to need to understand how the human mind works far better than we do now.

Then of course there's the whole question of whether we are what we do and think or are we something greater than the sum of our actions and thoughts comes to the fore, too.

Some scientitst predict that we will be able to do this within the next 50 years.

I shudder to think what happens to mankind if that ever happens.

The science is of course cool but is mankind ready for such power?