Upload your mind into a computer by 2050?

[Qfwfq]

Actually, a tree is just a special case of a graph, with a unique path between any pair of nodes, and I doubt the graph of neurons in the brain could be described as a tree. Also, I wouldn't describe it as either 2-D or 3-D, there is not at least any relevant meaning in saying that it's 3-D except in the sense that axons aren't cofined to a surface, so there are no crossing problems as when you trace a graph on paper.

 

:confused:

[Kriminal99]

There is a huge difference between storing all of our memories in a computer or robot and recreating a consiousness.

 

A consiousness has a motivational system, which perhaps could be simulated by electron flow and careful programming.

 

But there would be no way to know whether we have simply created an automaton that acts like a human or a consiousness or what even the difference is since we do not understand what causes the raw feels of our consiousness. My guess is that the way everything feels to us is specific to the physical medium we exist in. For this reason I think borg is the way to go to whatever degree we can benefit from technology supplements to the human body.

[TheFaithfulStone]

But there would be no way to know whether we have simply created an automaton that acts like a human or a consiousness or what even the difference is since we do not understand what causes the raw feels of our consiousness.

 

 

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck...

 

In other words - if it can fool us into thinking it's conscious, even if it's not "really" conscious, isn't it conscious? The only person you know for SURE is conscious is yourself....

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

2-D logic versus 3-D or n-D has to do with the geometric layout of the logic tree(or network, a n tree could recurse easily on it'self if given the proper capabilities, in which case it maybe concidered a Network).

 

Now as for trees and all that, if I am not mistaken it is possible to have a ?pointer? shifting tree. So that the structure can shift it's connections around. So the fundamentals of trees is for the creation, destruction, arrangement, containment and relational management of nodes.

 

in the case of a space-time like tree, three of the dimensions would hold elements of the arguement, and then the last dimension, that of time, would contain relative elements of the arguement. (The central arguement is the program or the main thread of the program.)

 

This all together would seem to me to start to emulate the way the brain seems to work, excepting that we have talked about the processing element, without talking about the periphial concearns. That is the IO of the system to generate arguements by the structure of the system. Human's have five senses, these senses give our processing element something to do. Without input, output is useless.

 

Following the old axiom "Information without context has no intrisic meaning.", and the newer "Garbage in is Garbage out."

 

But there would be no way to know whether we have simply created an automaton that acts like a human or a consiousness or what even the difference is since we do not understand what causes the raw feels of our consiousness.

 

This is a very important meta level question. It relates to the very question of existence. I quite enjoyed I-Robot's bit on this question.

 

When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote... of a soul?

[Kriminal99]

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck...

 

In other words - if it can fool us into thinking it's conscious, even if it's not "really" conscious, isn't it conscious? The only person you know for SURE is conscious is yourself....

 

TFS

 

Would you volunteer to have your mind uploaded to a computer even if you saw it done many times and the consiousness seemed to be intact after?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yes. ARM vermin must be exterminated.

 

ALL HAIL KROGOTH.

 

TFS

[obscurity, obscurity]

[IDMclean]

No, you Core tyrants will be wiped from the face of the universe and we will be finally free!

 

Long live the Arm Commander!

 

But seriously? I might backup an abstract of my mind pattern. It could come in handy.

[Qfwfq]

2-D logic versus 3-D or n-D has to do with the geometric layout of the logic tree(or network, a n tree could recurse easily on it'self if given the proper capabilities, in which case it maybe concidered a Network).

The geometry isn't really functionally important. Anyway, neurons and axons of our brain form a directed graph, which isn't necessarily a tree and I doubt would be in the specific case. Also, in drawing, or physically realizing, a graph you don't really need more than 3-D to avoid the trouble of branches crossing each other and in the case of a tree even 2-D is enough. You can draw any tree on a big enough sheet of paper, while a graph might run into crossing trouble unless you do it in 3-D.

 

Now as for trees and all that, if I am not mistaken it is possible to have a ?pointer? shifting tree. So that the structure can shift it's connections around. So the fundamentals of trees is for the creation, destruction, arrangement, containment and relational management of nodes.

This is one way of implementing a graph tree in programming languages, although not the only way. In the work I'm currently doing I have a databse representation of graphs (usually, and always almost, trees) but the representation is by use of indices. This isn't too bad but it isn't so handy for some things.

 

When the graph isn't a tree, using recursive functions is prone to disaster if you're not extremely careful. I doubt however it would be the best way to emulate neural activity, a time increment approach would be far more appropriate, for each [math]\norm t_i[/math] you should iterate over nodes and, for each one, follow each branch only to the immediate next node with no recursion. Each node needs to have a current and next copy of state.

[alexander]

Sorry for my preachy, condescending tone – as my career has scarcely gone a day without an intimate involvement in a particular tree implementation, I occasionally have an inappropriate, proprietary felling about the term. Also, a lot of non-specialists read hypography, and I was concerned they might get some unhelpful ideas about common terminology.

I have to appologise as well craig, i did post in an offensive manner as well, but i dint know how to take your post.... i dunno if you remember telemad, but his post would start like that too, and then go into full attack mode... i really didnt want to discourage your constructive criticism, because it really is a good thing :eek2:

Oh and trees are nothing special... if you had to write one, it's a piece of cake, usually right untill you have to write traversing and sorting :shrug: then they start becoming more and more painful. And i am no expert on trees either, mostly I've written them for school projects so they were nothing really crazy (although i am known to overcomplicate and submit a compiler for a hello world project... not literaly, but i have acquired some crazy hello world scripts I'll post one when i get back home)

 

Don’t we both wish?!

Yeah... that would be like a lifetime acheivement right there.

 

I don’t see how tree managing algorithms are much good for modeling the brain.

the tree would only simulate the physical structure of the brain, the most important parts are information flow in which case double pointed tree nodes would be used as well as pointer direction (aka whitch node points where such as a subtree's top node pointing only up to the main tree and stuff like that), the main part is that this tree would actually contain objects that act on information that they receive in much the same way the brain neurons would do it. And trees are perhaps not the best to use, but they would most certainly provide an advantage over linear datastructures such as queues where the most pointers a node contains is 2...

[IDMclean]

Geometry of the logical construct is important, not to the independent memes, that is functions, but to meta level functions. We can perform opperations on the construct itself, so knowing the geometry of it is important. In addition to that, the brain is metamorphic in structure.

 

When I think of a cube, a discearnable cube is formed in the very structure itself. Wheather as a reflection of internal processes and functions or defining the internal processes and functions.

 

If we are emulating a neural network, then for internally defined structure manipulations, it is important to know the shape of the logic structure. It is my conviction that we can not write a program that will pass the turning tests, without giving it the ability to change it's capabilities. Part of that is making sure that it can recognized when some part of it is not working properly, and giving it the ability to change the connections to bring itself out of logical loops. This would indicate multi-threading, which require syncronization. Then again in the design that I am interested in, syncronization and interdependence would be nessessary.

[CraigD]

I have only the slightest confidence that I understand what KAC’s last post is saying. I'll therefore ask many questions, raise a few objections, indicate agreement, present a few suggestions

Geometry of the logical construct is important, …

What is meant here by “logical construct”?

 

The conventional meaning of the term is a mathematical object – that is, something immaterial. I get the impression that it’s referring to a physical brain structure in the preceeding.

… not to the independent memes, that is functions,

”Meme” usually means “idea, persisting over time in a idea-communication society in a manner similar to how a gene persists in time via reproduction.” Functions are precisely defined mathematical objects. Although “function” is an instance of a meme, memes are not functions

but to meta level functions.

I take “meta level function” to mean “a function that’s argument and value is a function - in other words, a function-generating function (see note [1] below)

… We can perform opperations on the construct itself, so knowing the geometry of it is important. In addition to that, the brain is metamorphic in structure.

Could you give a simple example of a graph with a “metaphoric structure”?

When I think of a cube, a discearnable cube is formed in the very structure itself.

Though speculation that physical representations of external reality were present in miniature go back to at least the 14th century AD, I’m unaware of any modern neurological theory or brain imaging data that supports this claim.

 

Although the image of a cube is optically projected onto one’s retina, this physical representation is almost immediately abstracted by neural structures present in the retina itself. The neural activity in the brains visual cortex that follows retinal stimulation shows no evidence of retaining the shape of the physical object being perceived.

 

Thinking about objects appears to utilize multiple regions of the cerebral cortex, which are distant from and dissimilar in structure to the visual cortex. Again, neural activity in the cerebral cortex show no evidence of forming geometric shapes corresponding to what one is thinking about.

... It is my conviction that we can not write a program that will pass the turning tests, without giving it the ability to change it's capabilities.

I agree. A common failing of present day Turing test contender programs is their ability to “learn” in a realistic manner, one of the most basic sort of “capability self-changing”.

Part of that is making sure that it can recognized when some part of it is not working properly, and giving it the ability to change the connections to bring itself out of logical loops.

I agree. This is very much the theme of “theories of mind” such as the ones Marvin Minsky presents in his 1986 book ”The Society of Mind”. I highly recommend this book.

… This would indicate multi-threading, which require syncronization. …

While not every calculation performed by a serial (single-threaded) program can be performed by a parallel (multi-thread) program, every calculation that can be performed by a parallel program can be performed by a serial program.

 

Note [1] 1”meta”, as a prefix or a stand-alone noun or adjective, has undergone several interesting and useful transformation from it’s original Greek meaning, “after”, “beside”, or “as a consequence of” (Thus, the original meaning of “metaphysical” is roughly “that which is a consequence of the physical”). The common meaning drifted from this to “that which cannot be explained by the physical”, a meaning that endured from the 4th century BC to the present day.

 

“Meta” appears to have gained the meaning “about” or “in reference to” that it commonly has in Math and Computer Science in the 1920s and 30s, but didn’t enter widespread use until the 1970s.

[acblflitwpatwt]

Would you volunteer to have your mind uploaded to a computer even if you saw it done many times and the consiousness seemed to be intact after?

 

Yes I would.

[acblflitwpatwt]

There is a huge difference between storing all of our memories in a computer or robot and recreating a consiousness.

 

A consiousness has a motivational system, which perhaps could be simulated by electron flow and careful programming.

 

But there would be no way to know whether we have simply created an automaton that acts like a human or a consiousness or what even the difference is since we do not understand what causes the raw feels of our consiousness. My guess is that the way everything feels to us is specific to the physical medium we exist in. For this reason I think borg is the way to go to whatever degree we can benefit from technology supplements to the human body.

 

What is your definition of consciousness? I think consciousness or sentience is nothing more than chemical reactions. Perhaps there is something going on at a quantum level in the human brain, but I don’t think there is any real difference between an inanimate object and a carbon based life form. If you took a human body apart atom by atom we would be no different than the lifeless objects in our environment. (Carbon, iron, Ect.) It is the sum of our parts working together that gives us the illusion of consciousness.

 

Most of us don’t think about the fact that amino acids and binary codes have similar functions. Animals are biological machines that are control by A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s. Computers are controlled by 0’s and 1’s. Our behavior and autonomic functions are preprogrammed. We might be able to substitute amino acids for binary code one day but it would just be a simulation of the real thing. I would want to transfer my memories to a genetically enhanced body with cybernetic functions. (Nanobots, memory chips, evolutionary algorithms to assist me when I am making decisions)

[IDMclean]

Sorry for my tardiness in reply, I have recently decided it would be a good idea to major in three different areas of engineering all at the same time. I'm a little short on time.

 

CraigD, you got the meaning, in majority of my previous post.

 

When I refer to "meta level", I am refering to systems of systems, or the layer which makes up the rules of a lower level. In the case of the mind, I am refering to the rules that make up the rules for making neuralogical rules... if that makes any sense.

 

By logical construct, I mean in the abstract, as much as abstract can arrise from physical limitations. The brain is physical, and the workings of the mind is metaphysical, or abstract. Now, as far as the geometry of the mind goes, I am refering to fMRI studies I had heard about and briefly skimmed in 1998 about observed structural change to the brain during thought processes.

 

The example I read about was the occurance of the cube while visualizing such a object. (visualizing is either actually recieving optical input via the eyes or picturing a cube in one's mind. which does not matter, the brain makes no meaningful distiction between what happens inside and out.) I am not really refering to neuralogical activity so much as the physical structure. Neuralogical activity looks more like lightning storms playing across the surface.

 

What I mean to indicate is that the geometry of the brain influences the abstract "shape" of the mind. The two mirror one another, and a shape in thought is a shape in brain.

 

To put this in to physical terms, the structure of the brain are inter-related. The brain tells the mind how to think and thought tells the brain how to shape. In analogy with Space-Time and Mass-Energy.

 

I tend to think of memes in your particular definition, excepting that I allow for the mind to be sectioned off, in sort of parallel processes. So the mind itself is a society of ideas that change overtime.

 

The society can grow and shrink and require resources (like mental exercise to maintain a healthy population). They can also reproduce and mutate, and over time will evolve into new memes with diverse capabilites and characteristics.

 

So I tend to think of individual memes as creatures of the mind. the mind itself is then the group of those memes, and (human) society is then something like a grid computing network, that improves it's resource allocation, connectivity, and processing power over time.

 

Like with human society, if you change the individuals on a large scale, the goverment changes with the individuals making up the goverment, and vice versa.

 

So when I am talking about the structure of the mind, or the logical structure, what I am talking about is the abstraction of the abstraction which shapes the way further abstraction occures. But like all things that I talk about, abstraction does not exist independent of concrete. Without the physical structure in place, abstraction does not happen. Period.

 

As for multi-thread, though the capabilities of a serial thread is not in-question, the capabilities of a single processor or single thread for performing quick, complex calculations is. Think of it as relativity for computers. We have a bunch of information moving around at different speeds and in different ammounts.

 

Now if the information all moves about at the same speed, and in the same ammounts, we have a non-relative system. Functional for low level demands, but not sufficent for extensive Tensor Vector and Scalar mathematics. Serial threads not only limit the ammount of information that can be processed, but the order in which that information is processed.

 

This wouldn't seem critical, but concider this. if you have a libary of 1,000,000 books and a single libarian, how many books can the libarian look for at a single time? Now concider if you had a libarian for each book.

 

You can take this further by imagining a system by which each libarian communicates, asyncronously to one another, and on a whole they will accurately pull up the book and perhaps others that you might be looking for, or even better, we grow a system of employees with individual capabilies that are synergistic with others, but none the less specialized in their own way.

 

In addition to that, we can setup n-persons for specific meta level concearns, to perform opperations on the meta constructor. Changing libarians into writers to produce more books, or into administrators to oversee the work of the others in it's group.

 

I'm not bagging on the capabilities of the single libarian, I am just saying one person does not a company make, and as I have already expressed, my view of the mind is one of a bustling society, in cities that never sleep. Working side by side, but not nessessarily in the know that the next guy over is working on something also. It is only in the totality of the system, when the seperate work is found compatible that it is joined together and the two function as one.

 

The idea is that the structure of the brain, and of the mind is highly dynamic, and attempts at modelling them has been servely problematic. I believe this is due to the generally static model of computer programming, and Hardware engineering. I think it requires concideration of both software and hardware, plus a decidedly dynamic system with the ability to define, on the spot, new Symbols(Language) Capabilities (Functions), and Characteristics(Variables).

 

Both interms of Hardware and software. Imagine that for a moment. Multipul processors which can change instruction sets on the spot. That can physically rearrange themselves internally and externally for specific tasks.

 

I hope that helps in someway or another. Either to diversify ideas, expand on existing concepts or clarify previous discussion points.

 

Food for Thought:

Cell Processor, Wikipedia

Cell Processor, Blanchford.info

Quantum Computing, Wikipedia

Grid Computing, Wikipedia

Grid Computing.com

 

Complex Systems, Wikipedia

Complex Systems

Neural Network, Wikipedia

Neural Network

Neuroglial, Wikipedia

THE NEUROGLIAL CELL-NEUROPEPTIDE HIGHWAY

[Solve]

Uploading your mind into a computer by 2050?

 

Is this the same as uploading your consciousness into a computer by 2050,

or is your consciousness different from your mind?

 

Solve :eek_big:

[dannieyankee]

I have a similar question. If you upload your memories on a computer and continue to live, and your body dies, will you cease to have thought, like in death? Or will you continue to think and be 'concious' as in life?

[sman]

I have a similar question. If you upload your memories on a computer and continue to live, and your body dies, will you cease to have thought, like in death? Or will you continue to think and be 'concious' as in life?

 

If you transferred your memories to code (not unthinkable, I mean, they are coded, in the brain) it would be just that, a string of code. You could put it on a CD. But the CD would not be conscious. A CD is just plastic. Plastic cares nothing about what is scribed onto it. It is as happy being a frizbee as a data cache.

 

'Consciousness' is kindof like a running program, like windows. Instead of being designed to accomodate the whims and pleasues of human computer users, your consciousness was designed to maximize the number of grandchilderen you will have. I know, the number of grandchilderen you will have is the furthest thing from your mind, but that really is what it's for. The pleasures we eke out of life are just a wierd side-effect.

 

Like the wierd way that carbon, under certain circumstances, chrystallizes into diamond, it is these wierd side-effects that make the whole thing so precious.