Restoring an old one wipes out the newer one. But a snapshot is not a viable being, so that isn’t a problem, and newer ones are supersets of the older ones, and thus the old snapshot is not really destroyed. The exception would be if we could edit them to eliminate unwanted memories - but then restoring these memories would be going against the desires of the later entity.
I agree with you. It seems very likely that hard AI, or at least competent AI, will become available long before uploading. If we then go on to develop uploading technology, it will be with the help of competent AI. I’m not sure that competent AI would actually want or need to help us with this task.
However there is a remote possibility that hard AI that is not based on human templates is impossible, or is not useful, or something else that we can’t foresee. In this case we might have to wait until we can create AIs based on human templates before we can get truly independent, intelligent processor systems. Some people have published studies on this possibility, notably Robin Hanson.
Here’s a Youtube talk by Hanson; he seems to think that uploads will become hardworking, superfast versions of ourselves, driving the economy to ever greater heights (he is an economist)
I should point out that I think Hanson’s scenario is incredibly unlikely, but it might have some relevance to the general impact of AI in the economy.
More important than personal memories are the networks and pathways that respond to stimuli and produce your behaviour; these would also need to be reproduced in detail in any uploading scenario. Some of these pathways probably extend into your body, and might be chemical feedback systems, hormones, even muscle memory and tissue characteristics. These are all part of you and need to be replicated in some way.
It’s reasonable to assume that the feedback doesn’t need to be as good as the real thing for your brain to work ok.
It’s not about your brain working, you’re talking about consciousness, and preserving it, change that feedback system and your consciousness immediately begins to change, you’re not preserving what you had before, and that should be pretty obvious to your brain if your memories are intact. Take away the memories and even if your preserved your consciousness what you have is nothing like you were before.
He seems to think it’s already well within the realm of possibility.
No…that post doesn’t say we can revive someone, just that I think that existing techniques probably preserve most of a person’s memories and personality. To a preserved person, a century+ delay (if it takes that) is but an instant.
You think we can preserve someone’s brain or memories or thoughts or consciousness now so it can be revived some time in the future?
What’s my excuse ? I don’t believe in overpopulating the world and causing food shortage and taking all the land away from wildlife . Death is apart of the cycle of life and nothing to be afraid of ! This is a horrible idea to me ! My dad once said to me when I was a teenager that he was afraid of dying and I told him death is apart of the cycle of life , I felt this way for years . My mom lived to be 93 yo and I am worried about living that long . I can’t believe people would want to end their death this is so unnatural . I wish my dog could live longer .
Yep.
Yes. If we preserve neurons well enough that we can see all the synapses if we slice samples, and we can count the molecules binding each synapse, we can compute the weights of the neural network.
Current theory already says that is enough. Even if it isn’t, even if the brain stores additional information some other way that wouldn’t be captured, I personally think there are degrees of death.
Obviously, a person burned to ash is 100% dead. And a person in end stage Alzheimers who is staring at a wall all the time is about 99% dead. And a person that lost half their brain from surgery is around 50% dead.
Better to be 50% dead than 100%…
At what percentage is a person only mostly dead?
That’s a pile of “ifs”. Can we do that now or not?
So… all theory, no actual technology. So your thread title is a lie.
Why should I give your opinion any weight? What your qualifications in the relevant field(s)?
There are actually people who needed half their brain removed who are quite a bit more than “half dead”. See hemispherectomy. Again, since you seem ignorant on subjects actually relating to the brain why should I give your opinion any weight?
The actual technology that exists now is cryogenic freezing and plastination. The brain preservation foundation seems to think it works.
My personal qualifications are that I have taken neuroscience in grad school and am currently nearly finished with a Master’s from georgia tech, taking every course they offer in AI.
The other technology, something that has been talked about for years, linked in the thread title, is the scanning. If you actually read the linked article you’ll see the equipment and images of what the scans look like.
The reason you should give my opinions weight is the things I am talking about are undisputed facts. You should do your own research into how the brain is thought to work and the nature of matter.
Actual academia is about reputation games and not necessarily about the truth, unfortunately, so I cannot produce a Phd and a 50 Phd foundation to prove my ideas. Not that that would convince you if you are skeptical enough.
Nevertheless, you will not be able to disprove what I am saying. The brain is a physical machine. It uses pulses separated by time. It calculates when to send these pulses by synaptic weights. This is very much something that can be copied. There are additional low resolution channels involving hormones, but to sum things up, these are simple concentration gradients, the electrical neural signaling is what moves nearly all of the information.
That preserves a hunk of meat. It does not preserve a working mind.
The only undisputed fact I see here is that you have a lot of theory but no actual practice.
The article linked by the o.p. describes the effort by Harvard neuroscientists to create a connectome of the rodent brain, which is essentially a map of connections. It does not, as cmyk and others note, represent the actual biochemistry going on at the level of neurons and synapses; not only the neurotransmitters and hormones that drive neural function, but also protein synthesis and conformal operations that build or enhance connections which is how memories and patterns are developed. Building a ‘brain’, either physically from organic molecules or as a digital simularcum, from such a connectome would not result in a function reproduction of the person any more than building a diorama actually reproduces the world it represents. Creating a system that reproduces a functioning psyche (the qualia of experience, structure of memories, and essential personal traits) of a human brain from some artificial or constructed substrate is vastly beyond the state of the art and given the complexity of the detail functioning of the brain will likely pose an insurmountable challenge for the foreseeable future.
The benefit to ending death, aside from amelorating personal fear of mortality, would be the retention of skills and experiences developed over decades of life, and the application of such wisdom to making better decisions. For instance, we see the same errors and mistakes performed again and again by political and military leaders precisely because of the lack of context to understand the failings of prior generations despite the clear lessons of history. Similiarly, the loss by death or dementia of leading figures in science, medicine, and the arts loses the benefit of decades of hard won knowledge and experience by leaders in their fields. How much could have James Clerk Maxwell contributed to the understanding of electodynamics and thermodynamics if he’d just lived a few decades longer into the era of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics?
However, the most recent scientific understanding of brain development (Seth Grant of University of Edinburgh Center for Clinical Brain Sciences) suggests that the common assumption that brain development essentially stops in the early twenties is incorrect and the mammalian brain actually has a ‘clock’ which dictates its development throughout life, and that loss of cognitive function and dementia is likely inevitable even if we can preserve or extend the functioning lifespan of the other organs and systems in hte body. (The repeatability of observations permits determination of organism age from brain development to about 5% of maximum lifespan.). A precise duplication of the brain including this natural ‘clock’, even if feasible, may not support extending the functioning duration of the brain far beyond the observed lifespan without abnormal pathology (dementia, psychosis, or other problems). We are evolved to live to a certain maximum duration and extending beyond that probably requires some dramatic changes to how the brain develops and functions.
Stranger
You’d need a higher resolution scan to get the neural weightings, and also you’d need to figure out the update rules, whatever they may be. Do you agree or disagree that if you had preserved a brain well enough to eventually recover the neural weights, neurotransmitter types for each synapse, and connectome, you could build an emulator with that information? Even if you had to wait 50 years before you could do it.
Stranger, you talk about how it would be a good thing to stop death, and you point out that simply making the rest of the body not fail wouldn’t be good enough. Obviously, at least at a small scale, experiments have been done to grow cultures for every tissue in the body - you could in theory reduce a patient to a head attached to a laboratory full of tubes and cell cultures, and in theory one day get the system tuned just right that their head (and brain) remains alive indefinitely. But their brain would continue to degrade, at some age in years (140? 150?), 100% of the patients would be basically brain-dead from some form of neural degeneration or another.
So I think we’re in agreement. If we wanted to prevent death, the method has to involve replacing the brain in some way. Scanning a person’s brain when it was still in prime neurological condition and building emulator is a feasible method to do this eventually, agree or disagree?
-
People used to believe that once a person’s heart stopped, their soul left their body, and it was impossible to do anything to help them. You argument of “lifeless hunk of meat” is no different.
-
Theories model reality. Reality decides whether what I am describing can work or not, not your opinion. I could be wrong, but if I’m wrong, reality must be vastly different than current science thinks it is.