Brain downloads 'possible by 2050'

[Ron 10]

Could be cool...or very bad.

Quote

London, England -- By the middle of the 21st century it will be possible to download your brain to a supercomputer, according to a leading thinker on the future.

Ian Pearson, head of British Telecom's futurology unit, told the UK's Observer newspaper that the rapid advances in computing power would make cyber-immortality a reality within 50 years.

Pearson said the launch last week of Sony's PlayStation 3, a machine 35 times more powerful than the model it replaced, was a sign of things to come.

"The new PlayStation is one percent as powerful as the human brain," Pearson told the Observer. "It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain."

Pearson said that brain-downloading technology would initially be the preserve of the rich, but would become more available over subsequent decades.

"If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine," he said.

"We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT."

Pearson also predicted that it would be possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence as early as 2020.

IBM's BlueGene computer can already perform 70.72 trillion calculations a second and Pearson said the next computing goal was to replicate consciousness.

"We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could become conscious. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and that's what we're trying to design in computer."

Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of crashing.

By 2020 Pearson also predicted the creation of a "virtual world" of immersive computer-generated environments in which we will spend increasing amounts of time, socializing and doing business.

He said: "When technology gives you a life-size 3D image and the links to your nervous system allow you to shake hands, it's like being in the other person's office. It's impossible to believe that won't be the normal way of communicating."

But Pearson admitted that the consequences of advancing technologies needed to be considered carefully.

"You need a complete global debate," he said. "Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html

I don't see this as a way to live forever, but a limited "living computer" could do some interesting things....And they could be quite bad.

Thoughts?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I don't see this as a way to live forever, but a limited "living computer" could do some interesting things....And they could be quite bad.

Thoughts?

Ron, folks have made very similar predictions about the future since Jules Verne first since pen to paper, even more so in recent times. Basically I don't hold my breath on these multipul decade predictions.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mr2mk1g 10]

two thoughts:

1) I'd love to work in a "futurology unit".

2) Asimov needs more laws... loads more laws... and you can't break em... ever... dunno how we're gonna achive that one though

[Darius11 12]

according to a leading thinker on the future***



how do you get that Job? I want to be a leading thinker on the future

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[quade 4]

I will not go so far as to say it's impossible, but . . .

Q: Exactly where is the I/O port on the human brain?

A: There isn't ONE. The entire brain is a connected network, but tapping into one area doesn't mean you're even vaguely connected to another.

So, while it may be possible to build a computer with a similar structure and even imbue it with a consciousness, I doubt we'll be seeing a transfer of consciousness between humans and computers any time soon. At least not as far as the FutureCam™ can see.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

Quote

Q: Exactly where is the I/O port on the human brain?

Some would have never thought 50 years ago that you would have bluetooth. I don't have an answer on how they would do it, but I have learned not to make "never gonna happen" predictions either.

Quote

A: There isn't ONE. The entire brain is a connected network, but tapping into one area doesn't mean you're even vaguely connected to another.

Not yet.

Quote

So, while it may be possible to build a computer with a similar structure and even imbue it with a consciousness, I doubt we'll be seeing a transfer of consciousness between humans and computers any time soon. At least not as far as the FutureCam™ can see.

Don't know. Can we even locate the area or areas that create consciousness and how they do it?

But to the bigger question....Lets say we can give a computer a consciousness.....should we?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Newbie 0]

Personally i don't want a computer that can outsmart me be in anymore a position of power other than driving for me when i get tired, massaging me after a hard day at work and doing annoying things like vacuuming/dish washing/taking out the garbage and so forth.

Anyone who has seen The Terminator knows that putting smart computers into positions of power is not a good idea.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, Space Shuttle flights were supposed to be often and routine by the mid eighties...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Some would have never thought 50 years ago that you would have bluetooth.

Bluetooth is -trivial- compared to what we're talking about in this thread.

And I didn't say "never gonna happen" just that I dont' see it in the foreseeable future. I -certainly- don't see it in 45 years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

But to the bigger question....Lets say we can give a computer a consciousness.....should we?

Funny question coming from a "right to life" guy.

Ok, question 2;

If computers ever do gain consciousness, would you be opposed to recycling minor components to further computer research?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mr2mk1g 10]

I just wouldn't want to predict what computers we're using in 45 years time. Remember - this was the cutting edge of computer technology 45 years ago: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/brochure/new_images/b205.gif (note this is only one componant of the computer which actually took up a whole room.

My watch has more computing power.

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, technology for downloading blonde brains may already be available...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Bluetooth is -trivial- compared to what we're talking about in this thread.

OK, but from punchcards to bluetooth in 45 years...Who knows whats possible?

Whats the theory called when computer processor speed is doubling every 18 months ?

Quote

There were only 4 computers on the ARPANET in 1969, and only 200 on the Internet in 1983....The number of host computers increased from 200 to 5,000,000 in the 12 years between 1983 and 1995 -- a factor of 25,000! [It has doubled again -- to between 10 and 15 million -- between 1995 and mid-1996!]

I think that almost anything is possible...Maybe not in the next 45 years, but like Is aid who would have thought we would be where we are now?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But to the bigger question....Lets say we can give a computer a consciousness.....should we?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Funny question coming from a "right to life" guy

Actually I am pro-choice:

Quote

I have no moral issues with killing for the better good of all. I am Pro-Choice and for Capital Punishment. I also think a criminal that gets killed in the act of comiting of a crime is a good thing.

I look at the possible results and effects of an action and make my choice from there. I think it is much worse for a child to be born into poverty with few chances of a good life, or a child limiting the life of it's parents.

Not popular views, but it is what I believe.

To many children are born with out a chance. Many more drasticly change the lives of others.

If the person is not ready for a child, the chances of that child having a good life is reduced...Rates of abuse are higher with unplanned children.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1204362#1204362

But that leads to this question:

Quote

"Ok, question 2;

If computers ever do gain consciousness, would you be opposed to recycling minor components to further computer research?
"

And that was a question I was gonna ask later. Even if we can transfer the contents of a persons brain to a computer, and it can think....Does then make it "alive"? If so can you ethically turn it off? Does it have rights?

Kinda like "Data" from Star Trek....When or even CAN a machine become alive? And if so can it vote for democrats and then collect welfare?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,120]

>Anyone who has seen The Terminator knows that putting smart
>computers into positions of power is not a good idea.

Anyone who has seen War Games knows that the Internet is not a good idea, but we have that now. Consider who runs our nation's power grid and ATC system.

[tumbler 0]

Hawkins gave a very similar outlook and possibility last year. Fascinating ideas and scary possibilities. One wonders what computer system we actually would end up with…some crazy HAL “I’m sorry Dave, I cannot open the pod door“ or a little nicer Star Trek Halodeck skydiving scenario!

[billvon 3,120]

>Does then make it "alive"? If so can you ethically turn it off? Does it have rights?

Not really the same questions. Rats are alive, and evolutionarily are very close to us. We have no ethical problems killing them. Computer viruses are arguably alive, and our computer's 'immune system' regularly kill them.

So you'd have to claim that the program was human, not just alive, and that's difficult. There used to be a test, called the Turing Test, that stated that if you could sit in front of a terminal and type to someone, and you couldn't tell if you were chatting with a machine or a person, then the program could be considered intelligent. Some programs have come eerily close to passing the Turing Test, although they're not truly intelligent. So you'd need a better test.

If you could prove that a program replicated to a sufficient degree of fidelity all the functions of a given brain (i.e. the simulation was accurate at a neuronal level, and PET scans showed activity was very similar, and the program responded in a similar manner to the person being copied) then you could claim that the program, and the new data/connections/code it created as time went on, was a person. The problem there is that it could be copied with impunity, and thus you could find yourself very rapidly with a lot of people.

>Kinda like "Data" from Star Trek....When or even CAN a machine become
>alive? And if so can it vote for democrats and then collect welfare?

Well, half would do that. The other half would try to outlaw connections between Macs and PC's, and would want "computers created life" taught in elementary schools.

[TheAnvil 0]

Hmmm...I'm such a JACKASS that somebody would probably delete me. If your brain were stored electronically and someone deleted you, would that be considered murder?



Quite an interesting topic, in all seriousness.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, but from punchcards to bluetooth in 45 years...Who knows whats possible?

Bluetooth is merely a smaller radio transmitter/receiver. Those have been around for a long long time.

Peering into the brain - I wonder if it might not be another application of the Uncertainty Principle - poke that closely into the object to see it, and you end up altering it.

Quote

Whats the theory called when computer processor speed is doubling every 18 months ?

Moore's law is more about transitor density. Things will continue to get smaller,faster,cheaper (though it's getting a lot harder to maintain the pace), but it's one thing to extend current technology and another altogether to make new technology.

We can't reliably pick anything about 2050 - just look at Disneyland's Futureland. And if we don't have a new energy model by then, all bets are off on progress. We might just be trying to stay even.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Does then make it "alive"? If so can you ethically turn it off? Does it have rights?

Not really the same questions. Rats are alive, and evolutionarily are very close to us. We have no ethical problems killing them.

Some have ethical problems killing rats and think all animals have rights. Most people just choose to place a higher value on human life, than a rodents life.

Quote

If you could prove that a program replicated to a sufficient degree of fidelity all the functions of a given brain (i.e. the simulation was accurate at a neuronal level, and PET scans showed activity was very similar, and the program responded in a similar manner to the person being copied) then you could claim that the program, and the new data/connections/code it created as time went on, was a person. The problem there is that it could be copied with impunity, and thus you could find yourself very rapidly with a lot of people

Agreed, now is deleting that program now murder? If this "program" is able to think for itself, can it vote? (And you thought I was just joking about the voting huh?)

Next question...Lets say we are able to program a conscious, independantly thinking computer, not a copy of a persons brains. And it can pass whatever test you have for intelegent life... Is it alive? What rights does it have?

Quote

Well, half would do that. The other half would try to outlaw connections between Macs and PC's, and would want "computers created life" taught in elementary schools.

Thats funny.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Bluetooth is merely a smaller radio transmitter/receiver. Those have been around for a long long time.

OK but we are talking about "interface". We had paper and punches before we know haw to use them to interface with a computer. So maybe we already have the tools, but not the computer that we can do this with?

Quote

We can't reliably pick anything about 2050 - just look at Disneyland's Futureland. And if we don't have a new energy model by then, all bets are off on progress. We might just be trying to stay even.

OK Mr, Doom and Gloom I agree about the energy situation...Now play along with the *current* game.

Could a computer become alive, and what would be the "test"?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,120]

>Agreed, now is deleting that program now murder?

Would depend on a lot of things. If you 'suspended' the computer and restarted it, that would almost certainly not be murder. The program would likely be unaware of the event, or aware only after the fact. If you turn off the computer, thus deleting the code from memory, then restore immediately upon restart - same basic idea. If you delete the program, then restore it a year later - hard to say.

The problem is that the brain (i.e. the computer) and the mind (i.e. the program) can now be considered separately. We do not have laws that can deal with the difference between someone's mind and their brain, since they are currently not divisible. We also do not have laws that deal with the legal equivalent of resurrection, which is what a restore would be. The law would likely see the mind as the entity with rights, but if it was running on someone else's machine, they might not have a right to run _on_ that machine. It would also likely consider whether there was a backup when the original program was deleted.

>If this "program" is able to think for itself, can it vote? (And you thought
>I was just joking about the voting huh?)

Many of these questions are not necessarily relevant. What form would such life take? There is a good argument for the idea that unless the program can interact with the environment (or simulated environment) the same way a human can, it's not really human, or will rapidly cease to _be_ human. If that's true then you have many options if you want to be considered human:

-Copy the code into a 'blank' brain. Not too much in the way of legal issues here; it would be the legal equivalent of a body transplant, and we currently have a good handle on the legalities of transplants.

-Create a mechanical body with the mind contained within. Again, a pretty straightforward legal interpretation.

-Create a mechanical body with the mind contained elsewhere and semi-permanently linked to the body. A bit more complex because of the separate brain/mind thing.

-Run the program in a computer that provides a simulated reality. In such a case, the 'real world' becomes the abstract world for this program, and the simulation is real. In such cases, one could reasonably expect that the people in the simulated world would care far more about the simulated world than the real world. They would no more demand a right to vote for a US president than you would demand the right to impeach the evil administrator in Half Life.

>Next question...Lets say we are able to program a conscious,
>independantly thinking computer, not a copy of a persons brains. And
>it can pass whatever test you have for intelegent life... Is it alive? What
>rights does it have?

I'll devolve that to a simpler question, one we recently almost had to answer -

We recently found out that a species of hominid, Homo Florensis, has been living in Indonesia until fairly recently (8000-13,000 years ago.) If we found some of them still living there, what rights would _they_ have? It's a much simpler question, since there is no messy brain-mind disconnect issues or issues with copies/backups. I have a feeling such a question would come close to ripping US society apart, since it would have such strong parallels to slavery but would be quite different. We'd have a species of human that really _was_ different, and could never interbreed with us. They would be likely (based on brain size) to be considerably less intelligent, as early computer-based intelligent life would be. How would we deal with an almost-human species that exhibited some, but not all, of the traits we consider human?

[Ron 10]

Quote

-Copy the code into a 'blank' brain. Not too much in the way of legal issues here; it would be the legal equivalent of a body transplant, and we currently have a good handle on the legalities of transplants.

-Create a mechanical body with the mind contained within. Again, a pretty straightforward legal interpretation.

In these cases if the "person" interacted in the real world...Maybe a job as a computer consultant...Would they have the right to vote? If they were "alive" and had opinions, then I would think that if you could PROVE they were seperate from someone else (not a copy) and they were deemed alive...They would get to vote.

Now it they were nothing but a copy, or a program that *seemed* human...then no right to vote. The hard part would be proving they were alive. One side would say they should have the right, the other would say no...Tough call. What would most likely happen is the people who say no would be compared to the people who didn't want blacks or women to vote.

Quote

How would we deal with an almost-human species that exhibited some, but not all, of the traits we consider human?

Don't know. I am not sure society would be able to handle it. It would depend on the level of intelegence. If they were what we would consider "intelligent" they would have to be integrated in some way.

I f not, then place them somewhere where they would be left alone. Away from forcing them to live like us, or with us.

This is a question that could be linked to aliens....How would any other race with different intelligence fit into society?

I will admit, I have no idea. It most likely would not go well.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Anyone who has seen The Terminator knows that putting smart
>computers into positions of power is not a good idea.

Anyone who has seen War Games knows that the Internet is not a good idea, but we have that now. Consider who runs our nation's power grid and ATC system.

LOL, exactly, well said.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Anyone who has seen The Terminator knows that putting smart
>computers into positions of power is not a good idea.

Anyone who has seen War Games knows that the Internet is not a good idea, but we have that now. Consider who runs our nation's power grid and ATC system.

Anyone who's seen CaddyShack knows that golfing in the rain is not a good way to get it on with dean Werner's wife.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants