Virtual Reality

[Beacon]

Maybe we should get onto it!

I'm sure it wouldnt be hard to find test dummy's!

Advertisement in Newspaper.

Do you want to Orgasm?

Patients needed to trial new VR software.
Conatct ____ if you want to Come and join us!

[crptcblade]

Originally posted by Beacon
Maybe we should get onto it!

I'm sure it wouldnt be hard to find test dummy's!

Advertisement in Newspaper.

Do you want to Orgasm?

Patients needed to trial new VR software.
Conatct ____ if you want to Come and join us!

I'll do it!

[Beacon]

Great alls we need is too develop the software and hardware!

[hawkeyeguy]

Originally posted by Beacon
Maybe we should get onto it!

I'm sure it wouldnt be hard to find test dummy's!

Advertisement in Newspaper.

Do you want to Orgasm?

Patients needed to trial new VR software.
Conatct ____ if you want to Come and join us!

Don't do that, then the ardent death dealing dykes will have further ammunition to use against us.

[Jotaf98]

Hey I read an article on that a while ago, in a magazine... they said they'll use a VR helmet, sensors (!) and hallucinogens (!).

Well I think we already have all that, including the "software" for the VR helmet

[Guv]

I think we will need a lot more data about how a human functions before VR can do a general purpose job of simulating reality.

We probably know enough now to do a half a**ed job. I think they can find a pleasure center in the human brain. At lest they found it in rats. I believe the organism incident described in as previous post is a true story.

BTW: Rats given a foot pedal which resulted in a few micro volts to the pleasure center of their brains kept pushing the pedal until they died of hunger or thirst. Nothing could get them to stop voluntarily.

Note that diddling the pleasure center and/or the orgasim center, as good as it might be, is pretty much a one-dimensional experience when compared with an entire evening of interesting conversation over dinner, perhaps a bit of dancing, and later some sensual seduction at his/her place.

Hell, a quick one with a cheap prostitute might be as good and cheaper than an electrode in the brain. It might also be safer. Not having tried either, I am only guessing about this one.

BTW: If Katie is reading this thread, she should know that I am damn sorry our pathes never crossed when I was younger and we were both unattached.

It would be damn tuff to simulate all the nuances of trying with or without success to pick up an interesting sensuous woman at a piano bar. Even when you do not end up in bed with her, it can be a delightful evening, especially if there is a suggestion that perhaps next time. I would rather an unsuccessful pursuit than an electrode in my head or a mediocre VR sensation. On the bad nights, at least the music and conversation was enjoyable.

VR does an excellent job of letting you play games like golf, and is fair at games requiring more complex real time interaction. I think VR for this sort of activity is not far in the future. A full sensory simulation of the real world is surely way in the future, especially if you want smells and all the tactile possibilities. Just as for AI, special situations can be coped with, but simulating the full range of human perception, thought processes, et cetera is a long way off and might never be possible.

I expect something like VR to be very useful in controlling robots in situations too dangerous for a human being. Allow a person to seem to be where the robot is, looking at what it is doing and controlling it in an interactive manner. Undersea salvage and/or repair for example. Hooking a person up and using his brain to control a remote robot seems doable right now if somebody wants to spend the money to implement it. If the robot is far away (say on Mars), it could take some tricky training for the human to get used to the time lag in communication and robot response. Mars is either minutes or hours away. A sunken ship or a mine shaft might only require microseconds in communication time, but might involve a seconds or more of delay due to the mechanical response time of the robot.

I expect the remote controlled robots to be the first really useful application of VR.

[kedaman]

In near future, Virtual reality is going to replace this reality, mostly because it's dangerous living out here and secondly because if you die, then you probably die permanently. Our biological substance will limit us from this so we'll probably be transfered over into "digital matter" and then continue our life/lives in VR. In case this hasn't already happened, it's going to happen, and in case it's already happened, it's going to happen again, and again and again?

Who am i to define death btw, i'm not suppose to judge what life is.

[Jotaf98]

Guv, you probably don't know but katie has lots of body guards that can flame you 10 times in less than an hour!

Yes I think some things in life will never be replaced by VR. And I think that reality, even though it has some risks, is much better than VR.

Btw as to living in the internet or something: you're basically making a copy of your brain in a computer that interpretes it, and then killing yourself. Just think about that

[Beacon]

I was waiting for your words keda!

Jotaf: There also will be very many things in VR that wont be replaceable in Life.

In fact there is assume there will be many VR worlds like countries i would imagine with airports/portals to get to another VR world.

Imagine games in VR Worlds!
The VR underground.

Crime shouldnt be a problem coz if ya break the rules it'd be programmed to boot you out!

POerhaps even ppl would be born directly into the VR world and never see the real world...
Or perhaps i watch too match tv.

[Kzin]

Originally posted by kedaman
In near future, Virtual reality is going to replace this reality, mostly because it's dangerous living out here and secondly because if you die, then you probably die permanently. Our biological substance will limit us from this so we'll probably be transfered over into "digital matter" and then continue our life/lives in VR. In case this hasn't already happened, it's going to happen, and in case it's already happened, it's going to happen again, and again and again?

Who am i to define death btw, i'm not suppose to judge what life is.

Hi Kedaman!

I think that the standard interpretation of the phrase VR relates to interfacing human sensory inputs with synthetic or computer generated stimuli. If the resolution and dynamic range of the stimuli are greater than the resolution and dynamic range f the sense organs (actually twice as good by Nyquist's law*) they will be indistinguishable from physical reality. If these inputs are integrated to form something that models self-consistantly** in the recipient's head then they will seem like a "reality"

The rather neat stuff that you are thinking about relating to downloading your whole self into your Linux box is a little further off and not what is normally described as VR. The problems are

i) no-one has even the slightest clue about how you would access the "data" to be downloaded all in one go. Presumably you would have to grab it all in one go with all the interconnections, chemical signals, synaptic transmitters, correctly mapped out with corrent weighting, time dependancies etc. pretty much instantly

ii) If you could get it no-one knows what you would do with it to make a mind. Given that there are 10^11 neurones each with 10^4 synapses - each synapse is a complex analogue device (NOT BINARY) and the connections are probably all pretty critical (or at least its difficult to know which ones we can do without) -

iii) The computing power is *very* parallel and not necessarily 'digital' for the reasons above. Although you might be able to simulate a neurone on a digital computer you are not just going to need a G4 to do this for a whole brain (which may (or may not) be a Turing Machine)

iv) no-one has even the slightest clue about how you would put the data back into your head again given the way it is stored there.

Best
Kzin!

* there are some complications so we can discuss this further if there are any pedants out there

** we are talking about straight forward physic based stuff mainly e.g. reconstruction of stereo from both ears, depth perception from about 5 distinct cues like vergence, focus etc, similar stuff for touch smell etc.

[kedaman]

i) no-one has even the slightest clue about how you would access the "data" to be downloaded all in one go. Presumably you would have to grab it all in one go with all the interconnections, chemical signals, synaptic transmitters, correctly mapped out with corrent weighting, time dependancies etc. pretty much instantly

ii) If you could get it no-one knows what you would do with it to make a mind. Given that there are 10^11 neurones each with 10^4 synapses - each synapse is a complex analogue device (NOT BINARY) and the connections are probably all pretty critical (or at least its difficult to know which ones we can do without) -

iii) The computing power is *very* parallel and not necessarily 'digital' for the reasons above. Although you might be able to simulate a neurone on a digital computer you are not just going to need a G4 to do this for a whole brain (which may (or may not) be a Turing Machine)

iv) no-one has even the slightest clue about how you would put the data back into your head again given the way it is stored there.

Best
Kzin!

* there are some complications so we can discuss this further if there are any pedants out there

** we are talking about straight forward physic based stuff mainly e.g. reconstruction of stereo from both ears, depth perception from about 5 distinct cues like vergence, focus etc, similar stuff for touch smell etc.

1) No one had the slightest clue what a computer was 500 years ago.

2) Biological functionality is probably very inefficient, I think you can simplify, restructure, enhance it's functionality until you have your software/hardware brain, hardware would limit some kind of evolutionary process but is it going to be needless?

3) A simple turing machine? Maybe that's exactly what we are...

4)

Today we're looking into VR as source of entertainment, education, communication and so on. Today we think the ethical layout 500 years ago was absurd. What does that conclude?
It certainly is pointing toward Safe and Permanent Virtual Reality (which means each one of you will have a independent reality running, which means you can't hurt anybody else, and by keeping you locked inside there, you're going to born and die there or possibly never die either but live there until a meteor crashes into the planet or the sun swallows it. Both of those could be prevented too, the humanity ported over to a database on a spaceship and sent out from the galaxy ensuring safety...

[Beacon]

"1) No one had the slightest clue what a computer was 500 years ago. "
Exactly my point Keda. "But IBM said " there's only a small market for computers" look at it now! "

The future not the present.

Hmmm i'm not sure on this but do we really need to copy the effect of touch etc.
Why cannot it be a dream like state. Just using the same chemical reactions etc. in the brain as what a dream does!
Or was that what you were saying?

Suppose that the hardware/software thought for itself it would evolve wouldnt it? Limited though.

[Guv]

The belief systems of many intelligent people constantly amaze me. Some of the views presented in this thread are incredible. Just as intelligence is not a defense against outright insanity, it apparently does little to stamp out harmless belief systems which are merely weirdly out of step with reality.

A lot of you folks seem to take movies as serious representations of reality in addition to making up weird realities of your own.

It is true that 500 years ago the best and the brightest had some incredibly naive views about science and the way the universe worked. They also had naive views about what might be possible in the future. Their ignorance does not constitute a proof that there are no limitations on human knowledge. Their ignorance does not guarantee that there are no intractable problems, and that anything imaginable is possible.

As time goes by, the views of mainstream science become closer approximations to the basic laws of nature. The more we learn, the less room there is for deviations from the views of mainstream science. Note that Newtonian gravitational equations are still being used for all but the most extreme situations. For almost all practical purposes, you cannot measure the difference between Newtonian and relativistic equations. The current mainstream views are even closer to reality than the views of classical physics, and they strongly suggest some limitations on future developments.

Some of the views expressed in this and other threads have as much believability as ancient beliefs in magic & witchcraft and modern beliefs in ESP, the Bermuda Triangle, and other nonsense. Isaac Asimov had it right when he speculated that belief in nonsense is a conserved quantity like momentum. When people cease believing in one type of nonsense, they start believing in another. When some people come to their senses others start losing their minds.

I still occasionally mumble to myself about the people who believe that the Star Trek Transporter is a future possibility.

[Beacon]

Guv what r u saying? In relation to what?

[kedaman]

First off I don't believe in anything, everyone should know that, which positions me in the place where i can say that anything is possible. You can't be more openminded than I am.

I understand how important it is to be realistic Guv, and I know how much it is needed for the current civilisation to advance from it's present position, but that's not what we prioritized when we were discussing future possibilities.

I just think that humans are very limited as thinking beings, 1000-2000 years ago people were too concerned about keeping them selves alive, the medival age discouraged thinking but now in the modern age it is also encouraged. I still see how the human brain is wasted on totally unimportant matters and how inefficient and restricted we are from processing information and inventing technology. If this and i'm sure this is what is going to change in near future, we're going to look at our earlier selves and think of us as monkeys living at the 21'th century.

The issue was still not to bend and cheat physical laws using Startrek transporter beams but to use virtual reality effectively.

If there's fear for a future like this it's the same fear the church had some centuries ago, and somehow I think Asimov missed a point. I've read all the books in the foundation series and it only shows ourselves in a different scale, if we look back trough the past 1000 years we can distinguish the evolution, and it's advancing faster now than ever.

[Guv]

Jotaf98: You seem to be pretty uptight about Katie.

Guv, you probably don't know but Katie has lots of body guards that can flame you 10 times in less than an hour!

Was the following so terrible that it requires leaping to defend her? From what?

BTW: If Katie is reading this thread, she should know that I am damn sorry our paths never crossed when I was younger and we were both unattached.

My computer might have reason to fear some you folks at this forum. You might be able to wreak havoc on him. However, even at my age I feel confident that you could do little if any harm to me. Therefore, I deny the allegation and defy the allegator.

Others: At some point being open minded enough to believe that anything is possible or open minded enough to not believe anything, becomes wishy washy or ridiculously indecisive.

[Jotaf98]

Huh sorry but that was a joke about a recent thread that I *thought* you had read

You think that not everything is possible. Well a very intelligent person said a while ago: "Everything's possible except digging inside a hole".

If you think he's right, you're WRONG! A hole is the absence of matter, so you can't take matter from it.

But what we think is "void" is actually matter + anti-matter which neutralized each other.
So just seperate them and voila, here you have, you're taking matter from a place where there's no matter

What do you think? Should I publish tell the TV about this or something?

[zmerlinz]

if i my brain was put on a computer i wouldn't want it to be a windows machine, all i would need is one BSOD and it would be bye bye merlin

but seriously what capcity drive would you need to store the brain on, and how would you view the data, the brain is a very complex thing, and sometimes little things can trigger a memory off that you experienced years ago. and things like favourite smells, colours, how would these be implemented. Sometimes i can hear parts of songs in my head you know what i mean, a tune that you keep huming to yourself how would this be managed and would people get annoyed for the artists losing money :P

Also would we need all of the information that is in our brain in VR things like the knowledge to walk breath even ?? but if we did what would happen to the automatic reactions that are part of our body like when a Dr taps to top of you knee to check your reflexes is this just the muscle or just the brain that controls this, or even both ??.

What ever happens with the development with VR it will be a very interesting bt slow process.

[kedaman]

By the time decide to put you in that box, they'll know what parts of you are relevant, and I think not much of you would be left if they picked you up from where you stand now.

[zmerlinz]

alright fair enough, but if you were going to be put into a vr scenario indefintley, what sort of things would you want ??

[chenko]

Originally posted by zmerlinz
alright fair enough, but if you were going to be put into a vr scenario indefintley, what sort of things would you want ??

Well if I did I wouldnt want it to be *any* different from our living breating world, and I dont see that happening really

[Beacon]

Merlin see kedas thread on "what happens when you die"

Look at my last posts!

Or alternatively search for what is known as Mind Uploading or Extropia!

This will should answer your questions!

One of the proposed ways of transfering the mind to a chip is that they will slice it up into very tiny pieces. Then scan it using a very powerful microscope! etc.

[Guv]

Beacon: Who ever made up the following must have been under the infuence of something he smoked, drank, or injected.

One of the proposed ways of transfering the mind to a chip is that they will slice it up into very tiny pieces. Then scan it using a very powerful microscope! etc.

No person in their right mind would consider such a process to be remotely feasible. Such a process will ever be feasible.

You should not make up or pass on such nonsense.

If future developments provide a way to transfer a human mind to a computer, it will be based on some other technique. You could not possibly slice the brain up without losing critical information. It is the connectivity and inteactions within the brain which are critical to its function. Slice it up and you just made the problem of deciphering what is there more difficult.

While I believe that there may be some incredible AI developments in the future, I really do not think they will ever be able to duplicate the mind of an intelligent adult human. It seems quite possible to grow or clone any part or all of a human being. AI might develop a computer as smart as a human, at least in limited areas of knowledge, but forget about duplicating a particular adult human mind.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Guv
While I believe that there may be some incredible AI developments in the future, I really do not think they will ever be able to duplicate the mind of an intelligent adult human. It seems quite possible to grow or clone any part or all of a human being. AI might develop a computer as smart as a human, at least in limited areas of knowledge, but forget about duplicating a particular adult human mind.

I don't think that would be nessesary, even if it would be the easier way. They're going to redifine "intelligent adult human" and make us look like apes of their days. My point is that the biological brain is so restricted and inefficient you won't realize it until when it's replaced with it's digital big brother.

[barrk]

BTW: If Katie is reading this thread, she should know that I am damn sorry our pathes never crossed when I was younger and we were both unattached.

Thanks, Guv, I'm flattered.

[Beacon]

guv "You should not make up or pass on such nonsense. "

Yeah i made it up!!!
Did you bother to read the other thread.

Have a search on google for mind uploading sunshine b4 you critcise me!
Then also write to Australian Broadcasting Commission and critcise them for showing a TV show about this subject on mind uploading and the processes submitted for doing this!

Here's some starting points for you!

http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/microtome.html

This method is described in many books, articles and web sites. Perhaps instead of making crude and arrogant remarks you should go research the background information.
Yes does seem ridiculous i agree but if i told you that you'd be talking to me via a computer 50 years ago you would of said the same as you have now!

[Guv]

Beacon: Thanx for the citation. I give you credit for not making up the nonsense, but consider you naive for believing it. Joe Strout either made it up or found it some where. It is still nonsense. BTW: Do you have any idea who Joe Strout is?

Do you believe everything posted on the internet or broadcast via TV? Note that the History channel has the nerve to air all sorts of fiction and occult subject matter, implying that it is for real. I pay attention to publications like Scientific American and authors whose credentials I have reason to respect.

Even some reputable scientists publish nonsense to make a buck. Did you ever hear of a book titled The Jupiter Effect or something similar? It was published 3-5 years prior to 1984 by two reputable astronomers. It claimed that various catastrophes were going to occur because all the major planets were going to be lined up on one side of the sun in 1984. They made a lot of money, but lost their academic credibility. To me a politician or lawyer has far more ethics than they did. At any rate, what I am trying to explain is that you must use some of your intelligence and critical judgment ability when reading about far out ideas.

I do not believe that the human mind is something mystical or magical. I do believe that it is an incredibly complex (but still material) object. In principle, I see no reason why an artificially created device could not do pretty much everything a human brain does. After all, consider Deep Blue which beat the best chess player in the world.

I think it will be a long time, centuries or more, before some electronic-like device approximates the full range of intellectual capabilities of a human mind. We might develop a method of making something far more primitive which can then learn just as a human child does. We might learn how to make a biochemical device similar to a human brain and allow it to learn. It certainly seems possible to use cloning techniques to create a brain. These techniques are not close to the equivalent of duplicating an adult human mind.

What I consider nonsense is an attempt create a copy of a human mind using data collected from a sliced up brain. You deep freeze a brain, permeate it with paraffin, do what ever you must do as a prelude to slicing it up, and you have lost critical data. The brain is a dynamic device unlike a simple clock. Stop the brain completely for more than a few seconds and you have irretrievably lost something critical. It is like believing that you can stop a clock for ten minutes and when you restart it, it will provide the correct time. At least a clock can be set to the correct time when you restart it, but lots of luck trying to restart a human brain.

Even if you could collect all the data required to duplicate a human mind (which I doubt you can do), it seems that there might be a serious problem if you cannot create the entire mind almost instantaneously. How do you keep the first parts from changing while you are making the latter parts? As I said earlier, the brain is a very dynamic object. Do a good job of making 20% of it and that 20% will start functioning. The activity of 20% in isolation is going to cause rewiring of itself, resulting in something analogous to insanity due to the lack of the other 80%.

I wonder if you are aware of some very fundamental differences between the brain and computers. The brain constantly “rewires” itself. There is nothing like fixed hardware. There is nothing organized like an indexed database. Memories seem to be implemented like an incredible number of hyperlinks which are subject to change at any time.

Also: I have no respect for anybody who uses an argument like the following.

50 or 500 years ago some scientist (or most people) had some erroneous belief or were ignorant of some future development, therefore the nonsense I am trying to sell has credence.

The above is fallacious logic and should not be used as a justification for any belief.

[Beacon]

Yes he may of copied it or whatever but explain to me why it's on most websites, books anything i have seen about the process of mind uploading!

What your arguing against is something we cannot do with the current technology. This process at the moment seems to be the most feasible but it has it's downsides and possibly wouldnt work.

So it's all speculation of what would happen or how it could be done!
But this is what this thread is about the "future" on what may happen or could happen based on what we know today. I never said it was and this was the way.
I did state all the other methods in the other thread and i couldnt be bothered re-typing them so i said view the other thread!

Good example with the clock though!

[Guv]

Perhaps humans will develop ESP or other psychic powers and just will the creation of a duplicate mind.

Gee, perhaps they might duplicate a mind by saying incantations over a boiling cauldron of toad eyes, mud from mount Etna, and unicorn hooves.

They might even slice up a brain and scan it with an electron microscope.

Who knows? Anything imaginable is supposed to be possible in the Chit Chat forum.

[Beacon]

Hey theres no need to be sarcastic!

No-one said anything was possible!
Stated that the facts that surround us and the knowledge we have about mind uploading these are the best methods too date found.

Hey maybe England might actually win a test match!!!

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Guv
[B]
I wonder if you are aware of some very fundamental differences between the brain and computers. The brain constantly “rewires” itself. There is nothing like fixed hardware. There is nothing organized like an indexed database. Memories seem to be implemented like an incredible number of hyperlinks which are subject to change at any time.

And that last isn't good for you? If they want a brain that "rewires" itself, then the software way would be most efficient wouldn't it?

I don't care what kind of nonsense they're posting out there, because if it would be this close to imagine how it could be done, it would eventually be done already. I'm sure though that the evolutionary process of humanity will reach this barrier sooner or later, when we are ready for it. Why didn't the monkey invent the computer? Because it was "nonsense" to him?

No-one said anything was possible!

I did, and no-one can deny it.

[Beacon]

When did you say that keda?

Tis good point!

[Guv]

I give up. Anybody who claims that it will someday be possible to duplicate an adult mind by slicing a brain and analyzing the results with some microscope like device has got to be a hopeless case.

You probably believe that the Star Trek Transporter device will be a future reality.

Do you also believe in PK, magic, and leprechauns? If not, why not?

[Kzin]

Originally posted by Guv
Even if you could collect all the data required to duplicate a human mind (which I doubt you can do), it seems that there might be a serious problem if you cannot create the entire mind almost instantaneously. How do you keep the first parts from changing while you are making the latter parts? As I said earlier, the brain is a very dynamic object. Do a good job of making 20% of it and that 20% will start functioning. . .


The brain constantly “rewires” itself. There is nothing like fixed hardware. There is nothing organized like an indexed database. Memories seem to be implemented like an incredible number of hyperlinks which are subject to change at any time.

Hi Guv - I guess that is what I was saying here . . . .

. . . you would have to grab it all in one go with all the interconnections, chemical signals, synaptic transmitters, correctly mapped out with corrent weighting, time dependancies etc. pretty much instantly

The first question is is it possible in principle given the known laws of physics etc. I guess you don't have an objection there.

The second is "have we missed something fundamental" - is there something major (other than the hugh scope and technical challenge of the task) - something like - for example the effect of Chaos on weather prediction - to which I would reply "I don't think so - but who knows"

The third relates to the specific engineering problems which I think we have about as much idea about as - well say Chaucer had about nanotechnology - and so I guess anything we say now will be about as sensible

[Beacon]

Guv:" I give up. Anybody who claims that it will someday be possible to duplicate an adult mind by slicing a brain and analyzing the results with some microscope like device has got to be a hopeless case.

You probably believe that the Star Trek Transporter device will be a future reality.

Do you also believe in PK, magic, and leprechauns? If not, why not? "

Yes PK is a great chewing gum!

No you miss the point completely the point is not the procedure in how it will be done but that mind up-loading will be done!

Once again this about what will happen in the future. Obviously your future revolves around what can be done today and that there will be no advancement in technologies!
Someone has just said mind-uploading would be cool and this is how within the reach of todays technology we could do it.
It's a theory!

Ever hear of the wheel?
Or is that just ridiculous as well?

[Guv]

A few of the more recent posts sucked me into this again.

First: Joe Strout is an individual who wrote some comments about methods of duplicating a mind. An early post to this thread by Beacon gave a URL leading to his articles.

Second: I think that future technology will have some surprisers for all of us. I do not believe that current technologies define future possibilities.

Third: I believe that diminishing returns might have started setting limits on the possibilities of future developments in theoretical physics. Not that there is no more to learn, but that there might not be anything as revolutionary as Quantum Theory, Relativity theory, and 20th century views in cosmology. Bear in mind that those developments took place at a time when science was already pretty sophisticated. Previous developments that might seem as revolutionary took place as science was replacing superstition and various naive views of physics.

Beacon: The following is a total misrepresentation of my views as expressed in this an other threads.

. . . . Obviously your future revolves around what can be done today and that there will be no advancement in technologies!

If you can say the above, you indicate that you read what others post in a cursory fashion, applying little of the intelligence I assume you possess.

Kedaman: I cannot believe that even you would say the following.

I don't believe everything is possible, I know everything is possible, because it's the result of knowing that nothing can be prooven impossible. I don't believe in magic but I know it's possible, see the difference? Qwestion is, what is magic, really?

To me, the above indicates that you are the academic equivalent of a religious fanatic. Evidence, intelligence, logic, facts mean nothing. Nothing can be proven absolutely true. Nothing can be proven absolutely false. Therefore believe that nothing is impossible. The above is a disguised way of saying that I believe what I want to believe based on my whims of the moment. Today you do not believe in magic, but tomorrow you might, since you believe that it is possible. You even hedge by implying that you need a definition of magic to take this strong a stand on the issue.

Everybody: My involvement in a controversy here relates to a particular method proposed as a feasible approach to the problem of duplicating a human mind.

I stick to my opinion that an intelligent adult mind will never be duplicated by slicing it into pieces small enough to be scanned by some microscope like device. I further stated or implied that anybody considering this approach to be feasible had to be not using his intelligence due to laziness or being under the influence of something smoked, eaten, sniffed, or injected.

The information required to duplicate a mind could not survive the slicing process. It is as simple as that.

I strongly believe that merely stopping the mind for more that seconds would result in the loss of critical data. The mind is an incredibly dynamic object. Knowledge of its current state, both electrical and chemical, is critical to the task of duplicating it. The complex interconnections are critical to its functions, and those connections are constantly being changed.

To claim that future technology might some how make the proposed method possible without addressing the above is a complete and total copout. In spite of Kedaman’s views, there are limits to human capabilities.

When you use some intelligence to analyze the possibilities of AI, it becomes obvious that duplicating a mind is a far more difficult task than creating a device with equivalent capabilities. After all, Deep Blue has beaten the best human chess player, while AI is still more of a joke than a viable technology. To create a device capable of many functions of the mind, you do not even need AI. All you need is speedy number crunching ability, memory capacity, and some pertinent algorithms which are not all that complex. Making a duplicate is orders of magnitude more difficult. The creators of Deep Blue do not have a clue about how humans play chess, and could not even begin to create a duplicate of the pertinent portions of the human brain.

I consider it possible that some AI device will approximate the human mind, but I believe we are not even close to being able to make such a device. I suspect that for economic reasons, it might never happen. Creating a human the old fashioned way is pretty cheap compared to what a comparable AI device might cost. Besides, who wants a machine with all the capabilities of the human mind? It might not like to do some of the jobs you want it to do. It might day dream instead of concentrating on the task at hand.

[Beacon]

quote by me "Someone has just said mind-uploading would be cool and this is how within the reach of todays technology we could do it.
It's a theory! "

Once more I never said this is the way i mearly quoted from different journals, websites whatever i have seen on this subject that this is a "proposed" way of mind-uploading.

Please view the other suggested ways of mind uploading i mentioned all of them in another thread "Life after death". Go and bag all of them but please save your personal remarks about my intelligence for another day.

I never said this was the way just merely put up a suggestion obviously you dont agree with it and i admit it has flaws but why have shots at me sunshine.
Good onya you disagree and no-ones truly disagreeing with what your saying.

Kedas disagreeing about my comment that not everythings possible. And i was saying how it's the future and you have no clue on whats going to happen so how do you discount things that havent happened!

Comprehend it yet?

[Kzin]

Originally posted by kedaman

1) No one had the slightest clue what a computer was 500 years ago.

But you could have explained the functionallity of one to pretty much any Greek Philospher in an afternoon without difficulty - no magic needed

Originally posted by kedaman

2) Biological functionality is probably very inefficient, I think you can simplify, restructure, enhance it's functionality until you have your software/hardware brain, hardware would limit some kind of evolutionary process but is it going to be needless?

This would just be a kedaman emulator - not a duplicate if you make it the way you suggest - we used to kid each other at school that we could emulate each other in software - (and suggest bits of the code)

Originally posted by kedaman

3) A simple turing machine? Maybe that's exactly what we are...

Exactly

[kedaman]

Don't mix intelligence with knowledge, especially since knowledge is such a vague concept when it comes to interpretations. Don't mix belief with knowledge either, but that's probably too much to demand.

Originally posted by Guv

I cannot believe that even you would say the following.To me, the above indicates that you are the academic equivalent of a religious fanatic. Evidence, intelligence, logic, facts mean nothing. Nothing can be proven absolutely true. Nothing can be proven absolutely false. Therefore believe that nothing is impossible. The above is a disguised way of saying that I believe what I want to believe based on my whims of the moment. Today you do not believe in magic, but tomorrow you might, since you believe that it is possible. You even hedge by implying that you need a definition of magic to take this strong a stand on the issue.

Don't missunderstand me Guv, I only believe in what I know, pretty much opposite to religious fanatics. Intelligence, logics evidence and facts means everything to me, except i'm not as blind as you or people in general, to think that evidence and facts really exist. They are concepts of our minds, not concepts of reality. I state once again that I don't believe in that nothing is impossible, I know it is, and that does not imply that I believe what I want to believe, because there's so much I want to believe in but never will. I will never believe in anything that I don't know. I will never believe in what I define, I will define only for my own purposes, not to describe reality.

I definitely didn't suggest any methods of copying a human mind by slicing it to pieces, I suggested that it's transfer over to digital environment would be accomplished as an evolutionary step. Our capabilities are not enough, but they might be in future. The limits you were refering to are very clear to me, they are due to our environment, our biological format, our limited lifetime, our very limited ability to use intelligence effectively and our even more limited ability to retrieve facts and evidence. They won't be nessesary in future.

[kedaman]

due to that I ran out of time last time, I'm continuing my reply to Guv now.

When you use some intelligence to analyze the possibilities of AI, it becomes obvious that duplicating a mind is a far more difficult task than creating a device with equivalent capabilities. After all, Deep Blue has beaten the best human chess player, while AI is still more of a joke than a viable technology. To create a device capable of many functions of the mind, you do not even need AI. All you need is speedy number crunching ability, memory capacity, and some pertinent algorithms which are not all that complex. Making a duplicate is orders of magnitude more difficult. The creators of Deep Blue do not have a clue about how humans play chess, and could not even begin to create a duplicate of the pertinent portions of the human brain.

I consider it possible that some AI device will approximate the human mind, but I believe we are not even close to being able to make such a device. I suspect that for economic reasons, it might never happen. Creating a human the old fashioned way is pretty cheap compared to what a comparable AI device might cost. Besides, who wants a machine with all the capabilities of the human mind? It might not like to do some of the jobs you want it to do. It might day dream instead of concentrating on the task at hand.

I've now re read everything and see why you don't seem to understand me. You are mixing up my ideas with the mind-uploading "nonsense" on the net. What I'm talking about is that the limits set by our biological nature may not be needed anymore and therefore be replaced by software, as a evolutionary step. The complexity of our brains might be a total waste of biological matter, it might be simplified and simplified again, so that it can perform much wider range of task more effectively than we ever could imagine of. It's not a qwestion of required technology, it's a qwestion of evolution; not the biological one we refer to as usual but the one that will be led by our moral and ethical instincts, what is sufficient for our existance, our purpose, our will, will preserve, what is considered unneeded and irrelevant will be removed. This is not a over night step, it might take thousand generations or maybe only 500 years, all depends on our resources. If they exhaust, we will die out as a species, or descend to the degree of the apes our ancestors was. If we succeed, we will evolve further at most efficient rate.

If you prefer to judge us as a descending or stagnating evolutionary species, look around you, nobody will agree with you(I think) I don't want to be pessimistic or optimistic for any particular reasons, but what keeps you alive is probably the same force that drives the civilisation forward now, so I think i'm optimistic by nature, that is i'm limited to be optimistic if that's a limit at all.

Kzin

But you could have explained the functionallity of one to pretty much any Greek Philospher in an afternoon without difficulty - no magic needed

They would understand the concept yes, if a guy from the future came to me and explained to me that universe actually didn't exist, I would understand him yes. I would, perfectly. A greek philosopher might have suggested the computer back then already.

This would just be a kedaman emulator - not a duplicate if you make it the way you suggest - we used to kid each other at school that we could emulate each other in software - (and suggest bits of the code)

would it? Are we emulating apes?