Comments on: The Undesigned Brain is Hard to Copy

By: LarryP

LarryP — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:10:04 +0000

This discussion leaves out the concept of objective vs subjective. Even if my mind could be replicated/simulated in detail, everyone else might think it was me but “I” would know it was not really me. The same is true for the replicants when THEY are duplicated. They would know when they wink out, it is over for them. This is why teleportation will not catch on when people find out that is just the information to reconstruct a simile that is sent, they won’t buy in. The actual YOU is destroyed in the process.

By: Rachel Elizabeth

Rachel Elizabeth — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:29:30 +0000

Art.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:35:54 +0000

@Kyle, Quite apart from the link to my blog, I’ve made no reference in my contribution to this blog to God. I’m coming at this purely from the perspective of reason. The scientific evidence I have seen so far, and let’s take ‘junk DNA’ as an example suggests that there is no such thing as junk DNA, and that indeed it is responsible for making us who we are (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18680-junk-dna-gets-credit-for-making-us-who-we-are.html)

Besides as for ‘burden of proof’ – you’re the one stating the original argument without references, I’m merely pointing out that science is based upon the sum of our experience. To state categorically that “evolution is a messy and lazy inventor” assumes you have experienced everything there is to experience. I doubt that very much.

And you also assume that ‘creation of life is one of my favourite topics’ – you’re wrong.

By: Kyle Munkittrick

Kyle Munkittrick — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:13:19 +0000

@Ian: The burden of proof is on you, who believe in God, not we agnostics. As the ontological argument and the anthropic principle are the best you’ve got, I suggest you move along. As for evidence of messiness, I suggest you look into how often the creation of life, surely one of your favorite topics, involves mistakes, mutation, damage, and outright failure.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:38:59 +0000

Lee says … “natural systems don’t have designers.” How does he know?

Kyle says … “Finally, even if I grant Hanson’s point that the mind was “designed,” evolution is a messy and lazy inventor” What evidence is there for this messiness and laziness? Who is in a rush? Where is the mess?

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:12:17 +0000

I responded to that argument here.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:16:03 +0000

My favorite novel on this topic is “Permutation City” by Greg Egan. The approach there is to emulate the hardware; detailed brain scans yield the cell structure and interconnections, then the behavior of the individual cells is simulated by the computer. These “Copies” are self-aware (although some humans refuse to accept this), and Egan explores the consequences of this. For example, a Copy’s own consciousness as it perceives it continues normally even if the software is run on thousands of widely-separated and non-synchronized machines.

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:32:44 +0000

Unless quantum states are involved in brain function, what makes brain function completely impossible to model accurately with a sufficiently advanced map of a brain and a sufficiently advanced computer to run the model? You would, of course, have to model each individual separately. Obviously, neither medical nor computer technology are there yet with regards to the specific difficult of scanning this, but what actually makes it impossible? If we can model, then it isn’t a case of moving a mind, but rather simulating a mind at which point, the distinctions between a simulation and a mind become so much semantics.

None of which is to say that this will happen in any of our lifetimes.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:51:02 +0000

I’d suggest that it may be possible to model a generic brain. It may be impossible to model any specific brain however. It seems to me that there is a significant linkage between the specific neuronal configurations and axon connections, and a specific consciousness.

Just because we can say that, say, human brains are constructed by X set of biologically determined rule sets, that does not mean that each brain is identical. We can see gross scale similarities but when you look closely, the details can be staggeringly different at the cellular level.

I’d wager that’s important.

By: kirk

kirk — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:04:47 +0000

Just imagine my world of non-genome computing in 15 years. I have retina implants for heads up display, cyborg joints so I can still run a marathon at 72 etc. At no time do I require the cognitive machinery to piss and shit. My “unextended” phenotype does that now and could continue to operate as a distributed, non-heterogeneous system with Singularity-ness. I want to simulate my own orgasms after all. Meat Puppet Uber Alles.

Then, in 2050 when this version of my impermanent self wears out – my 8 year old clone puts on the environment I build over time. I run triathlons at 97 while an 8 year old Kirk prepares under careful tutelage to do the same. Is it really “Kirk 1.0″ that replaces “Kirk 2.0″. No, actually it is “Kirk 1.97.365″ that is replaced by “Kirk 2.8.320″. Epic impermanent self win. I am a different person every morning when my feet hit the floor. Dream on.