Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Scientific religion of brain uploading

#1
C C Offline
http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/mind-...-computer/

RELEASE: People have always dreamed about going beyond the limitations of their bodies: the pain, illness and, above all, death. Now a new movement is dressing up this ancient drive in new technological clothes. Referred to as transhumanism, it is the belief that science will provide a futuristic way for humans to evolve beyond their current physical forms and realise these dreams of transcendence.

Perhaps the most dramatic way transhumanists believe that technology will transform the human condition is the idea that someone’s mind could be converted into digital data and “uploaded” into an immensely powerful computer. This would allow you to live in a world of unbounded virtual experiences and effectively achieve immortality (as long as someone remembers to do the backups and doesn’t switch you off).

Yet transhumanists seem to ignore the fact that this kind of mind-uploading has some insurmountable obstacles. The practical difficulties mean it couldn’t happen in the foreseeable future, but there are also some more fundamental problems with the whole concept.

The idea of brain uploading is a staple of science fiction. The author and director of engineering at Google, Ray Kurzweil, has perhaps done the most to popularise the idea that it might become reality – perhaps as soon as 2045. Recently, the economist Robin Hanson has explored in detail the consequences of such a scenario for society and the economy. He imagines a world in which all work is carried out by disembodied emulations of human minds, running in simulations of virtual reality using city-size cloud computing facilities.

It’s a short step from the idea that our minds could be uploaded, to the notion that they already have been and that we are already living in a Matrix-style computer simulation. Technology entrepreneur Elon Musk recently revived this discussion by arguing the chance that we are not living in a computer simulation was only “one in billions”. Of course, this is just a technological revival of the idea that reality is an illusion, which has been discussed by philosophers and mystics for hundreds of years.

But there are some serious problems with the idea that we could upload our minds to a computer. To start with, the practical issue: our brains each have trillions of connections between 86 billion or so neurons. To replicate the mind digitally we would have to map each of these connections, something that is far beyond our current capabilities. With the current speed of development of computers and imaging technologies, we might be able to do this in a few decades but only for a dead and sectioned brain.
More than molecules

Yet even if we could create such a “wiring diagram” for a living brain, that wouldn’t be enough to understand how it operates. For that we’d need to quantify exactly how the neurons interact at each of the junctions, and that’s a matter of molecular-level detail. We don’t even know how many molecules are in the brain, let alone how many are vital for its functions, but whatever the answer it’s too many to replicate with a computer.

This points us towards a deeper conceptual difficulty. Just because we can simulate some aspects of the way the brain works, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are completely emulating a real brain, or indeed a mind. No conceivable increase in computer power will allow us to simulate the brain at the level of individual molecules. So brain emulation would only be possible if we could abstract its digital, logical operations from the messy molecular level detail.
Who turned out the lights? Shutterstock

To understand the operations of a man-made computer, we don’t need to keep track of the currents and voltages in every component, much less understand what every electron is doing. We’ve designed the switching operations of the transistors so there’s an unambiguous mapping from the state of the circuits to the simple digital logic of ones and zeros. But no-one designed a brain – it evolved – so there is no reason to expect any simple mapping of its operations to digital logic.
Dangerous idea

Even if mind uploading is an impossible dream, some might argue that it does no harm to imagine such possibilities. Everyone at some point must fear their own mortality, and who am I to argue with the many different ways people have of dealing with those fears?

But transhumanism’s mixing of essentially religious ideas with scientific language matters because it distorts the way we think about technology. Transhumanism tends to see technology as a way to grant all our wishes. And this is often justified by the argument that technology will inevitably drive human development in a positive direction.

Yet this distorts our scientific priorities and gets in the way of us making sensible choices about developing the technologies we need to solve our very real current problems. Brain uploading is a great premise for speculative fiction, but it’s not a good basis for talking about the future.
Reply
#2
Secular Sanity Offline
Would the above be a good example of scientism, C C?  Yazata mentioned it in earlier your "The Know the Strange and the New" thread.

It’s defined as an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Further definitions:  Scientism
 
And then we have Dennett…

It's an all-purpose, wild-card smear...It's the last refuge of the sceptic. When someone puts forward a scientific theory that they really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'.—Daniel Dennett

And Jeff Schweitzer…Science is Not Religion

Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality.—Jeff Schweitzer

Some say that science is incapable of making value judgments, but Sam Harris has argued that science can, and should, be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

What do you think?  Does the scientific method have its limitations?  If so, what are they?
Reply
#3
elte Offline
There seems to be the problem of lack of continuity-of-being in uploading a brain.  I don't see how success could be any better than achieving a perfect mental twin at the moment of  uploading.
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(Jul 8, 2016 09:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Would the above be a good example of scientism, C C?  Yazata mentioned it in earlier your "The Know the Strange and the New" thread. It’s defined as an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Further definitions:  Scientism


Maybe bordering on overconfidence in technology to overcome any barriers which current knowledge prescribes / foretells in advance (though sometimes it could be unclear which side is actually being the more overconfident). I probably should have referred to it as "techno-religious" in the title, as a better choice for trying to capture the spirit of the opiner's POV. Even though there was the mention of "transhumanism’s mixing of essentially religious ideas with scientific language".
 
Quote:And then we have Dennett… It's an all-purpose, wild-card smear...It's the last refuge of the sceptic. When someone puts forward a scientific theory that they really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'.—Daniel Dennett


Compared with the brevity of how it was often defined even a decade ago, "scientism" is a term that continues to grow in complexity. I have to check in now and then with some in-depth place to be sure it still espouses or includes what it meant of old, or what I might mean by it.

Quote:Some say that science is incapable of making value judgments, but Sam Harris has argued that science can, and should, be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life. What do you think? Does the scientific method have its limitations? If so, what are they?


Back to his later when there's more time. My attempt at something short still sprouts too many paths.
Reply
#5
Ben the Donkey Offline
(Jul 8, 2016 10:12 PM)elte Wrote: There seems to be the problem of lack of continuity-of-being in uploading a brain.  I don't see how success could be any better than achieving a perfect mental twin at the moment of  uploading.

Why is that a downfall?

I'd love to be able to replace my current mind with the one I had when I was 35. 
I suppose the next question is; "What would I have done differently"?

It's like a saved game. Made a mistake, do this instead. As long as one had the advice of the original to go on.
Reply
#6
Secular Sanity Offline
(Jul 9, 2016 11:50 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote:
(Jul 8, 2016 10:12 PM)elte Wrote: There seems to be the problem of lack of continuity-of-being in uploading a brain.  I don't see how success could be any better than achieving a perfect mental twin at the moment of  uploading.

Why is that a downfall?

I'd love to be able to replace my current mind with the one I had when I was 35. 
I suppose the next question is; "What would I have done differently"?

It's like a saved game. Made a mistake, do this instead. As long as one had the advice of the original to go on.

I agree with, elte.

You’d run into the same dilemmas that all the other sci-fi authors have proposed.  Each change creates a different outcome.  Stored memories won’t provide a crystal ball consultation.  I had a dream about this once and I was still unable to influence those around me. 

Keeping with the same "techno-religious" theme, let’s suppose this is already the case.  We’ve uploaded your memory, but instead of being 35, you’re 47.  What will you do?

"On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

Might I suggest the following?

Get in based on what you have, what you believe, what you have to bring.
Not what the others are not.

Golden. Fucking. Rule.  Big Grin
Reply
#7
elte Offline
(Jul 9, 2016 11:50 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote:
(Jul 8, 2016 10:12 PM)elte Wrote: There seems to be the problem of lack of continuity-of-being in uploading a brain.  I don't see how success could be any better than achieving a perfect mental twin at the moment of  uploading.

Why is that a downfall?

I'd love to be able to replace my current mind with the one I had when I was 35. 
I suppose the next question is; "What would I have done differently"?

It's like a saved game. Made a mistake, do this instead. As long as one had the advice of the original to go on.

The description of replacing the current mind is a scenario that I think could work if the person has time to move into the new mental home and get acclimated, possibly over a pretty long time period.  That could solve the continuity-of-being problem I see.

The new and old could coexist in connection until the old seems more of a hindrance, or maybe both could be kept with more flexibility available on upkeep of both.  It could be more like a cyborg-type mind.

I appreciate it, Secular Sanity
Reply
#8
C C Offline
(Jul 8, 2016 09:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: What do you think? Does the scientific method have its limitations? If so, what are they?

Its best stomping ground is the physical sciences, which arguably are least concerned with humans (barring compartments of biology, anatomy, etc). Biomedical, psychological and social sciences are having serious problems replicating their claims or results; economics is often accused of practically becoming a pseudoscience.

Phillip E. Johnson: Science is a wonderful thing in its place. Because science is so successful in its own territory, however, scientists and their allied philosophers sometimes get bemused by dreams of world conquest. Paul Feyerabend put it best: "Scientists are not content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as the rules of the scientific method, they want to universalize those rules, they want them to become part of society at large, and they use every means at their disposal -- argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying -- to achieve their aims." Samuel Johnson gave the best answer to this absurd imperialism. "A cow is a very good animal in the field; but we turn her out of a garden."

Quote:Some say that science is incapable of making value judgments,


Science surely already contributes efficiency toward achieving a particular "ought" or ideological landscape that the mainstream of _X_ human culture has already decided that it desires. But the latter prescriptions / goals themselves won't be discovered under a rock or fall out of an experiment or an analysis of data, with an objective voice booming overhead without challenge: "Behold, these are your proper values!".

During an old interview, the physicist Steven Weinberg once declared that the "Abuse of children is wrong because I say so". To illustrate how empty the gun of science is when it comes persuading people that a moral value is globally "correct" without the ammunition of emotions / feelings, disgust, the momentum of cultural traditions, argument, rhetoric, beating of drums, etc.

The "way of nature" allows injuries and death to young animals as much it allows instinctive urges to protect them. Nature doesn't recognize "all human life is sacred" anymore than "ANY life is sacred". It doesn't recognize "all humans have certain fundamental rights" anymore than "animals have rights". Science studies an amoral realm (Nature). Steven Crane: A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!". "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not aroused in me a sense of obligation."

If a scientist were to assert that "all human life is sacred" or "all humans have basic rights" based on _y_ facts, that would be like interpreting _y_ through a rose-colored filter much as a eugenics movement interpreting _y_ through a racial discrimination filter and excluding rights for some communities. (Jacob Bronowski: "No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.")

But the first of those filters would ironically be good, for the sake of keeping the monster ideologies at bay. We wouldn't want whatever an "objective truth of nature" is supposed to be when it comes morality. We would want the intruder to be a compromised, bias-corrupted, fuzzy-wuzzy version of science sticking its nose in rather than the (actually mythical) idealized, passionless, apolitical kind that just looks on in detached study and documentation as overall processes take the meaningless millions of biological machines over the cliff. Sacrificing people to the facilitation of emerging higher purposes which outrun individual significance (or insignificance), while an enlightened elite guide, patrol and safeguard the ascension.

Quote:but Sam Harris has argued that science can, and should, be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.


This is just another philosophical and argument production stance stepping into a territory which it already occupies while wearing science as a Halloween mask. To give itself an edge in the competition, a facade of authority. There's no empirical test for determining or settling that morality reduces down to well-being or seeking the "good life". Or that it's also pre-conditionally and strictly confined to the well-being of particular conscious creatures rather than the planet, ecosystems, etc. Aggressive shaping of ethical policies would not be a neutral scientific examination, and inadvertently suggests that there's no universal, innnate, coherent system based in either genetics or a neural substrate to be found. Or to put another way, deferring to the view that "morality" is an invented social contract, which thereby makes it appear an oxymoron for science to be dabbling in such useful fiction. If there was an inherent standard, it evolved for a hunter-gatherer era or far earlier primate context rather than the complexity of today's world.

If a scientist steps from her territory of "investigating, describing, understanding and explaining" into the philosophical / argument territory of "prescriptions concerning what humans should do"... Then any claim, inference, interpretation that she makes about, say, _Z_ "facts" meaning that stealing is against human nature -- would be subjected to doubt about its validity via those who continue to do just that (steal). If such supposed biological principles can be so easily modified by environmental factors and are sensitive to the consequences of and the arbitrary feelings about a contingent situation -- are not globally applicable, IOW -- then one might ask how they can be indicators of any kind of reliable moral standard being innate in either a genetic or neural-based sense, or even qualify as legitimate, unambiguous rules / parameters for behavior.

Nature may support there being broadly defined characteristics that are necessary for something to qualify as life. Nature may support there being broadly defined characteristics that are necessary for something to qualify as human. Science in turn may discern these. But after those basic universals, there are multiple choices for what can be specifically plugged into those abstract placeholders. If there's a "right" or "wrong" to a selection it boils down to whether the individual or its group was successful / unsuccessful at whatever they narrowly took up (like variously evolving forms suitable for crawling, swimming, leaping, flying, etc). In terms of interacting with other organisms, stealing is perfectly fine behavior-wise if the thief "gets away with it" without negative consequences, or its act helps the local members of its species survive. This goes back again to an amoral realm -- that brutally permits just about anything -- being a contradictory source of inspiration to choose for a moral system.
Reply
#9
Secular Sanity Offline
Wow, C C, that was perfect.  I’m going to save it.  Thanks for taking the time to write it.  I really appreciate it!  Damn, you’re good!  There’s some benefits here, that’s for sure, and you’re one of them.
Reply
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Guns and Zombies: Gimme that end-time religion, Gimme that end-time religion C C 2 849 Oct 28, 2015 09:04 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)