Re: >H Live Forever: Uploading the Human Brain

[Alan Grimes <alangrimes@starpower.net>]

Transhuman Mailing List

om (tm)

SET SKEPTICISM = 10
SET SARCASM    = 10

Okay guys, I'm going to respond to this point by point. I will be flirting
with the line between critical and abusive though I will try to stay behind
it. I offer my appologies in advance if I fail to restrain myself. I feel most
strongly about these things. I will however, take care in selecting my points
and ensure that I won't be eating any of them tomorrow. 

... After about 3/4ths of the response I will make the bold claim that I make
some fairly astute observations, please read! =)

> Live Forever: Uploading the Human Brain
> By Raymond Kurzweil, Ph.D.
> 
> Thought to Implant 4: OnNet, please.

>Hundreds of shimmering thumbnail images mist into view, spread fairly evenly
>across the entire field of pseudovision.

>Thought: Zoom upper left, higher, into Winston's image.

>Transmit: It's Nellie. Let's connect and chat over croissants. Rue des
>Enfants, Paris in the spring, our favorite table, yes?

I classify this as a perifferal interface. By my standards it is crude and
grotesquely inefficient. It may boost your test scores some but it won't make
you any smarter. =\

> The thumbnail field mists away, and a café scene swirls into place. Scent of
> honeysuckle. Paté. Wine. Light breeze. Nellie is seated at a quaint table
> with a plain white tablecloth. An image of Winston looking 20 and buff mists
> in across from her. Message thumbnails occasionally blink against the sky.
> [snip]
 
> Winston: (laughing) My real body? How droll! No one but my neurotechnician
> has seen it for years! Believe me, that's not what you want. I can do much
> better! He fans rapidly through a thousand images, and Nellie grimaces.
> 
> Nellie: Damn it! You're just one of Winston's MI's! Where is the real
> Winston? I know I used the right connection!
> 
> Winston: Nellie, I'm sorry to have to tell you this. There was a transporter
> accident a few weeks ago in Evanston, and… well, I'm lucky they got to me in
> time for the full upload. I'm all of Winston that's left. The body's gone.

What was he doing on a transport, from two paragraphs above it sounded like he
didn't get out much. =P
 
> When Nellie contacts her friend Winston through the Internet connection in
> her brain,

ooh fun. Cable... =P  Really Do you think I would accept something as
primative as internet protocols inside my skull? yeah... That doesn't really
make much sense either as there would have to be several layers to decompress
and interprit the data stream before it can be presented. People have really
gotten way to cought up in the *ooooh iinnnteeeerrrnnnnneeeet" to see that it
is really only a single small and segregated sub-field in computing that
really hasn't even shown any capabilities that weren't fesable in the 70s but
only more affordable. From a computatinoal aspect the so-called "world Wide
Web" and to a lesser extent the internet in general doesn't hold my interest
in terms of the theory behind it. I like to keep things seperate and pure. You
have your neural interface in your brain and your network interface in your
access port (possibly portable). Only the abominable design of today's
software confuses the two. I am working on my own software, the plans are on
my other desk. =P damn software is hard to develop! =\

> The history of technology has shown over and over that as one mode of
> technology exhausts its potential, a new more sophisticated paradigm emerges
> to keep us moving at an exponential pace. Between 1910 and 1950, computer
> technology doubled in power every three years; between 1950 and 1966, it
> doubled every two years; and it has recently been doubling every year.

Hmm... I run a pentium 100, It came out in 1994(ish)....

1994  100  32 bits
1995  200  32 bits...
1996  400 .....
1997  800
1998 1600 
1999 3200
2000 6400  32 bits... 

We don't have any 6.4 ghz processors. 
Our fastes processor is equivalent to a 1600 on the above scale. (64 bit dec
alpha at 700 mhz) It was already in the 400s back in '95

> Most people don't realize the revolutionary impact of that. The development
> of computers that match and vastly exceed the capabilities of the human
> brain will be no less important than the evolution of human intelligence
> itself some thousands of generations ago. Current predictions overlook the
> imminence of a world in which machines become more like humans-programmed
> with replicated brain synapses that re-create the ability to respond
> appropriately to human emotion,

yeah, like. But will it be considered a lifeform? Will it be vital? What we
have in this paragraph sounds like "The Computer that dreamed that it was
alive". ;) Hmm, good book title, maybe I'll use it oneday. =)

> and humans become more like machines-our
> biological bodies and brains enhanced with billions of "nanobots," swarms of
> microscopic robots transporting us in and out of virtual reality. We have
> already started down this road: Human and machine have already begun to
> meld.

This paragraph is reminicient of Religeous Dogma. (arf arf) Cult of the CRAY
anyone? =P

> It starts with uploading, or scanning the brain into a computer. One
> scenario is invasive: One very thin slice at a time, scientists input a
> brain of choice-having been frozen just slightly before it was going to
> die-at an extremely high speed. This way, they can easily see every neuron,
> every connection and every neurotransmitter concentration represented in
> each synapse-thin layer.

Salami? ooh what a wonderful way to dispose of a corpse! =P 

> Seven years ago, a condemned killer allowed his brain and body to be scanned
> in this way, and you can access all 10 billion bytes of him on the Internet.
> You can see for yourself every bone, muscle and section of gray matter in
> his body. But the scan is not yet at a high enough resolution to re-create
> the interneuronal connections, synapses and neurotransmitter concentrations
> that are the key to capturing the individuality within a human brain.

The first tenant of the brotherhood of the CRAY is that the neuron,
individually, can tell the entire story of conciousness. By creating a map of
each of its synapses we can duplicate it in our master and cause it to think.
Question not into the nature of the neuron for that is only for the CRAY to
contemplate. The CRAY knows all. 

> Our scanning machines today can clearly capture neural features as long as
> the scanner is very close to the source. Within 30 years, however, we will
> be able to send billions of nanobots-blood cell-size scanning
> machines-through every capillary of the brain to create a complete
> noninvasive scan of every neural feature. A shot full of nanobots will
> someday allow the most subtle details of our knowledge, skills and
> personalities to be copied into a file and stored in a computer.

Father Cray that is. 
arf arf.
Belief without evidence is dogma.

> We can touch and feel this technology today.

Feel the Lord for you are blessed to be within HIS presance.

> But miniaturization is another one of those accelerating technology trends.

Have faith! 

> We're currently shrinking the size of
> technology by a factor of 5.6 per linear dimension per decade, so it is
> conservative to say that this scenario will be feasible in a few decades.
> The nanobots will capture the locations, interconnections and contents of
> all the nerve cell bodies, axons, dendrites, presynaptic vesicles,
> neurotransmitter concentrations and other relevant neural components.

We don't know what they do precicely but we know they're relevant! =)

> Using  high-speed wireless communication, the nanobots will then communicate 
> with each other and with other computers that are compiling the brain-scan
> database.

Oh, is that how they'll do it? Are you so sure? Please, spare us the technical
details untill they are resolved. 
 
> Brain scanning is a prerequisite to Winston and Nellie's virtual life-and
> apparent immortality.

no, actually the author's pre-mature notions about one possible future
required little more than a few technical papers and a 6-pak. =)

> In 2029, we will swallow or inject billions of nanobots into our veins to
> enter a three dimensional cyberspace-a virtual reality environment. Already,
> neural implants are used to counteract tremors from Parkinson's disease as
> well as multiple sclerosis. I have a deaf friend who can now hear what I'm
> saying because of his cochlear implant. Under development is a retinal
> implant that will perform a similar function for blind people, basically
> replacing certain visual processing circuits of the brain. Recently,
> scientists from Emory University placed a chip in the brain of a paralyzed
> stroke victim who can now begin to communicate and control his environment
> directly from his brain.

He compares writing with DTV. 
Please keep that in mind. 

The difference between these is a whole pile of inventions and a ton of math.
I would like to see this math. I am even working to develop it. This author
doesn't respect the centuries of human thought that may be neccessary to come
up with this math. =\

> But while a surgically introduced neural implant can be placed in only one
> or at most a few locations, nanobots can take up billions or trillions of
> positions throughout the brain.

Yes, and we WILL have the emperical proof to back that up, Real Soon Now.
Do not refer to numbers untill they are prooven, it makes for bad memes. This
entire article is a BAD MEME, more on that later... 


> When we want to enter a specific virtual environment,
> the nanobots will suppress the signals coming from our real senses and
> replace them with new, virtual ones. We can then cause our virtual body to
> move, speak and otherwise interact in the virtual environment. The nanobots
> would prevent our real bodies from moving; instead, we would have a virtual
> body in a virtual environment, which need not be the same as our real body.

Mommy, mommy, Are we in hell yet?

> Like the experiences Winston and Nellie enjoyed, this technology will enable
> us to have virtual interactions with other people-or simulated
> people-without requiring any equipment not already in our heads. And virtual
> reality will not be as crude as what you experience in today's arcade games.
> It will be as detailed and subtle as real life.

BULLSHIT. Ignoring the staggering computational expense of that, no
programming technique yet developed will let us write anything like that, and
any  virtual world is doomed to be flawed in many very fundamental ways. Any
simulated world would be (nearly) inaccessable to the computer that it runs on
for a set of different reasons. You can't have a realtime simulation and
perfect accuracy at the same time. My website suggests a way to develop such a
simulation that gives you your choice of compromises...  

> The trip to virtual reality will be readily reversible since, with your
> thoughts alone, you will be able to shut the nanobots off, or even direct
> them to leave your body.

I would hope so. otherwise they would be like herpies. =\

> Nanobots are programmable, in that they can provide
> virtual reality one minute and a variety of brain extensions the next. They
> can change their configuration, and even alter their software.

or yours. 

> While the combination of human-level intelligence in a machine and a
> computer's inherent superiority in the speed, accuracy and sharing ability
> of its memory will be formidable-this is not an alien invasion.

My god, I should make this person a high-priest in my cult. =P 

> It is emerging from within our human- machine civilization.

erm, you think it will. Be accurate. 

> But will virtual life and its promise of immortality obviate the fear of
> death?

For some. 
Others just say "pass the cool-aid". =\ *shrug* It depends on how crazy you
are.

> Once we upload our knowledge, memories and insights into a computer,
> will we have acquired eternal life?

well a very detailed, long lasting, and even functional record of our
existance... 

> First we must determine what human life is.

Shouldn't you have done that long before setting out to write this article?

> What is consciousness anyway?

The sum of our preceptions, also a hack. 

> If my thoughts, knowledge, experience, skills and memories achieve eternal life >without me, what does that mean for me?

That your thughts, knowlege, experience, skills, and memories have achived a
vastly prolonged life. Nothing more than that.

> The issue of consciousness will become even more contentious in the 21st
> century because nonbiological entities-read: machines-will be able to
> convince most of us that they are conscious. They will master all the subtle
> cues that we now use to determine that humans are conscious. And they will
> get mad if we refute their claims.

Sure they will. But I am confident that I will be able to discern life from a
lame immitation any day. This issue won't confront us for hundreds of years.
(unless I/other humans are a lot smarter than they have shown themselves to
be.) 

> Consider this: If we scan me, for example, and record the exact state, level
> and position of my every neurotransmitter, synapse, neural connection and
> other relevant details, and then reinstantiate this massive database into a
> neural computer, then who is the real me?

Identity is a myth.
(I'm nihilistic.)

> If you ask the machine, it will
> vehemently claim to be the original Ray. Since it will have all of my
> memories, it will say, "I grew up in Queens, New York, went to college at
> MIT, stayed in the Boston area, sold a few artificial intelligence
> companies,

By the way, How are those companies doing, eh?  Would your insight into the
viability of their designs make yourself more or less credible to someone
reading this text?

> But there are strong arguments that this is really a different person. For
> one thing, old biological Ray (that's me) still exists. I'll still be here
> in my carbon, cell-based brain. Alas, I (the old biological Ray) will have
> to sit back and watch the new Ray succeed in endeavors that I could only
> dream of.

You and your copy will be exactly equal. Until the bio you starts to degrade
your coppy will have a tough time staying even with you, remember that! You
are more delusional than me if you think an exact coppy will be any different
from its orrigional, that's a contradiction. 

> Wherever you wind up on this debate, it is worth noting that data do not
> necessarily last forever. The longevity of information depends on its
> relevance, utility and accessibility. If you've ever tried to retrieve
> information from an obsolete form of data storage in an old obscure format
> (e.g., a reel of magnetic tape from a 1970s minicomputer), you understand
> the challenge of keeping software viable. But if we are diligent in
> maintaining our mind file, keeping current backups and porting to the latest
> formats and mediums, then at least a crucial aspect of who we are will
> attain a longevity independent of our bodies.

Please keep the term data distinct from that of information, they are two
different things. BAD MEME!
 
> What does this super technological intelligence mean for the future?

what super technological intelligence? You aren't referring to yourself, I
hope! =P 

> Other salient questions are: Who is controlling the nanobots? Who else might
> the nanobots be talking to?

Now you're thinking! These points are good, I hope people take them to heart.

> But there will be a valuable and increasingly vocal role for
> a concerned movement of Luddites-those anti-technologists inspired by
> early-19th-century weavers who in protest destroyed machinery that was
> threatening their livelihood.

I am not that kind of ludite. I am for technology but I am also for moderation
and understanding. That is people, in order to use technology, understand the
zen behind technology and be just as cognizant of its limitations as they are
of its promise. That is do not be dazzled by the blinking LEDS on the front of
your new computer. Understand what it is, Know what it can do, And remember
what it can't do. Have blind faith in its ability to solve evrything and join
the Cult of the CRAY. =\
 
> Still, I regard the freeing of the human mind from its severe physical
> limitations as a necessary next step in evolution.

There are an armada of evil little tricks to "shrugging off the flesh" as
people like to say. First the mind is dependant on the body for its propper
functioning than many like to think. That is the mind is designed to
manipulate a world to feed and maintain a body. Without that task, who knows
what will go wrong! =P 
On a more philisophical level, the body is the only thing that gives the mind
meaning and purpose, Without the body the mind is reduced to a random set of
electrochemical imulses. Don't forget that.

> Evolution, in my view, is the purpose of life, meaning that the purpose of 
>life-and of our lives-is to evolve.

Evolution is bullshit; Darwin's folly.
He got it right that humans decended from apes but what he did not see was
that humans can just as well decend *to* apes as rise from them. Hence the
famous Sci-Fi genra called "Planet of the Apes". Bad, but unfortunately very
popular, meme.

> What does it mean to evolve? Evolution moves toward greater complexity,
> elegance, intelligence, beauty, creativity and love.

Sophestry.

This man would have been banished from the academy, if MIT were any good he
should have been banished from there too. 

> By the close of the next century, nonbiological intelligence will be
> ubiquitous. There will be few humans without some form of artificial
> intelligence, which is growing at a double exponential rate, 

Oh, collecting trend information now are we? 
lets see 

1970   0 AIs
1980   0 AIs
1990   0 AIs 
2000   0 AIs 

Oh yes! these numbers clearly see that AI will be ubiquitous by 2010. 
tsk tsk tsk 

>whereas biological intelligence is basically at a standstill.

No, genetic engeneering will keep bio intelligence in step with computer
intelligence for quite a while.

> Nonbiological thinking
> will be trillions of trillions of times more powerful than that of its
> biological progenitors, although it will be still of human origin.

Gloria in excelcia Crayo?

Limiting yourself to the volume of the skull and its heat dissipation I doubt
you could achieve more than a 5 fold increase with any nanotech over the
brain. I dare you to proove me wrong. ( N * 5 ) 

> Ultimately, however, the earth's technology-creating species will merge with
> its own computational technology.

Is this a vision presented to you during a moment of holy rapture or are you
just making this up. If you are, please SHUT UP. You pollute the meme pool.
Write fiction if you are going to present nothing but speculation. 

> After all, what is the difference between a human brain enhanced a 
trillion-fold by nanobot-based implants, and a computer whose design is based
on 
high-resolution scans of the human brain, and then extended a trillion-fold?
<<

one is alive, the other thinks its alive. < I can argue this.
 
om

-- 
Salt: An ionic solid

users.erols.com/alangrimes/

***************************************************************************
* If you need to unsubscribe, send email saying "unsubscribe transhuman"  *
* (or "unsubscribe transhuman-digest" as the case may be) to              *
* majordomo@logrus.org, without the quotes, from the SAME email address   *
* as the one you subscribed under! Yes, it is case-sensitive. Don't blame *
* the admin for your spelling errors.                                     *
*                  Please email all technical problems to                 *
*               owner-transhuman@logrus.org, NOT to the list.             *
***************************************************************************