As a retired Neuroscientist myself, I found this to be the most intelligent, I could even say the only intelligent, article about the brain I've ever read in the popular press. A much needed antidote to the philosophical/psychological nonsense that is so popular these days. Thanks.
105
While serious discussions of this topic are at best fatuous, there is an engaging treatment of the prospect by the late Ian Banks in his Culture Series stories that include the Sleeper Service ships. Thanks to Paul Krugman for pointing us to this author in one of his columns.
4
Probably the BEST explanation of brain connectivity I've ever read. Having survived a traumatic brain injury ('90), reportedly comatose 22-days (Glascow Coma b/t 3/4), and subsequent head trauma in '05 which resulted in progressing uncontrolled seizure disorder, I can longer work F/T.
During my recovery I had the privilege of co-teaching the brain injury course curriculum to both medical and physician assistant students for 17-years ('94-'10) at one of the medical schools in Houston's Texas Medical Center, at state, national and several international conferences.
As brain injury rehab has become my passion, over time, I have amassed private email "news" article lists for both brain injury (which exceeds 75) and neuroscience (about 20, mostly from the other list). This very same article showed up in one of my 5 or 6 brain injury (term variations) late yesterday; my supervisor called me this morning to tell me to about this article...
During my recovery I had the privilege of co-teaching the brain injury course curriculum to both medical and physician assistant students for 17-years ('94-'10) at one of the medical schools in Houston's Texas Medical Center, at state, national and several international conferences.
As brain injury rehab has become my passion, over time, I have amassed private email "news" article lists for both brain injury (which exceeds 75) and neuroscience (about 20, mostly from the other list). This very same article showed up in one of my 5 or 6 brain injury (term variations) late yesterday; my supervisor called me this morning to tell me to about this article...
10
The author's assertion that "it would take thousands or millions of years to preserve a brain in sufficient details" is akin to someone looking at an early mechanical computing device and predicting it would take millions of tons of material to do what a human can do. It took less than a couple of hundred years to put billions of transistors in computers we carry in our pockets we strangely call a phone. It overlooks the exponential progress of science and technology.
Most of the article describes the complexity of understanding all the details in a brain, but a much faster advance would come when the filed progresses to find what's important to know. When we (humans) know someone else sufficiently well, we can predict with good accuracy what he or she will do in a certain situation. That's not because we know all the chemical and biological details, that's because we have developed a sufficiently good model of that person's mind. So maybe having only a few million (or less) bits of information would be enough to make a model of someone.
Another related piece for thought is what would happen beyond uploading one's brain when the scanning and modeling of human brain progresses well beyond what we can do today, perhaps in a few decades from now. It might become possible to predict what every person would do, maybe alter the brain program, implant or remove memories, make hybrid human/machine creatures or create a software version of someone running in 'could'!
Most of the article describes the complexity of understanding all the details in a brain, but a much faster advance would come when the filed progresses to find what's important to know. When we (humans) know someone else sufficiently well, we can predict with good accuracy what he or she will do in a certain situation. That's not because we know all the chemical and biological details, that's because we have developed a sufficiently good model of that person's mind. So maybe having only a few million (or less) bits of information would be enough to make a model of someone.
Another related piece for thought is what would happen beyond uploading one's brain when the scanning and modeling of human brain progresses well beyond what we can do today, perhaps in a few decades from now. It might become possible to predict what every person would do, maybe alter the brain program, implant or remove memories, make hybrid human/machine creatures or create a software version of someone running in 'could'!
10
To the extent that neuroscience promotes this kind of discussion and gives perspective to the archaic notion of life after death, it is sorely needed and welcome. Consciousness is not like the religious concept of a soul. It is the emergent sum total of what it feels like to be a particular organism, and when that organism ceases to exist, so does the unique consciousness it embodied. Downloading a brain would be data recovery, not reincarnation.
42
What is identity? Identical twins are not identical. And even the same person is not the same. No one remembers much about previous brain states and even when we do recall, much/most of it is not true. As life is prolonged, less of it can/will be remembered. Even brain life extended to infinity will not preserve identity as we will be able to remember less and less. Somewhere along the endless stretch of time we will simply disappear into an abyss of lost memories. Like the last star we will simply fade away.
17
There seems to be an easy confusion embodied in this article. Suppose my brain can be uploaded, what does it matter? You can duplicate my brain as you might a PC, which is the same as many others, but that is not me. Much of me is my connections that lie outside my brain altogether, and have nothing much to do with the brain itself but a lot to do with these interconnections and to my time and place. So you ll have to upload a lot more that the neural structure of my brain and its interconnections to accomplish what seems to be the objective here, that is, to upload my identity.
27
Your soul, in its infinitely greater complexity, lives on.
8
Well, this article raises so many questions.
Is there an afterlife which requires knowledge? We all have a soul, can that soul be educated for the afterlife? Can the soul take, whatever level of education one has learned with it, into the afterlife. Will knowledge even be required in the afterlife, or will enlightenment be on a scale so large that only our awareness will be required? What about losing ones mind to dementia, where does that leave your soul with understanding in the afterlife?
View the universe, our world, all life and the constant universal struggle for survival, while contemplating a purpose for it all? I can not imagine that our creator does not have an eternal plan which will be revealed for our conscious minds, at the instant of our death.
I think I must keep living, loving and learning and let God's revelation come when he is ready for me.
Is there an afterlife which requires knowledge? We all have a soul, can that soul be educated for the afterlife? Can the soul take, whatever level of education one has learned with it, into the afterlife. Will knowledge even be required in the afterlife, or will enlightenment be on a scale so large that only our awareness will be required? What about losing ones mind to dementia, where does that leave your soul with understanding in the afterlife?
View the universe, our world, all life and the constant universal struggle for survival, while contemplating a purpose for it all? I can not imagine that our creator does not have an eternal plan which will be revealed for our conscious minds, at the instant of our death.
I think I must keep living, loving and learning and let God's revelation come when he is ready for me.
4
While "uploading a mind" sounds great, it is not a scientific concept. Among other things scientists don't know what a "mind" is yet. They know about brains to some extent, but not how a "mind" exists alongside that "brain".
Ideas about "uploading the mind" will turn instead into more practical interests in cloning combined with augmented intelligence. It is not that big a leap to the idea of a very wealthy peson, say an Elon Musk, cloning himself and providing his clone with a vast set of computing resources to go on being "like him in every way". Think augmented programs to help Clone #1 know what Musk would do, how he would think, based on records of his past actions and opinions and various means of connecting these to current choices and situations. I'm sure that with a few hundred billion dollars of influence the Supreme Court would somehow come to the conclusion that clones have the same rights as persons (as long as clones remain controlled by the very rich of course).
Welcome to the Brave New World, where a very rich person can continue for hundreds of years to be regarded as "alive" . .until of course they have finally figured out how to do uploading.
Ideas about "uploading the mind" will turn instead into more practical interests in cloning combined with augmented intelligence. It is not that big a leap to the idea of a very wealthy peson, say an Elon Musk, cloning himself and providing his clone with a vast set of computing resources to go on being "like him in every way". Think augmented programs to help Clone #1 know what Musk would do, how he would think, based on records of his past actions and opinions and various means of connecting these to current choices and situations. I'm sure that with a few hundred billion dollars of influence the Supreme Court would somehow come to the conclusion that clones have the same rights as persons (as long as clones remain controlled by the very rich of course).
Welcome to the Brave New World, where a very rich person can continue for hundreds of years to be regarded as "alive" . .until of course they have finally figured out how to do uploading.
3
I chose cryonic preservation in the hopes that it will someday work. As the author points out, it is quite likely an insufficient mechanism for preservation down to the necessary finest detail. With today's technology, it's the best choice available to extend one's life. If it doesn't work, I'll have paid for a bizarre high tech funeral rite. For me, it comes down to this analogy: "You're on an ocean liner that has hit an iceberg and sinking rapidly. There's only one lifeboat available, but it leaks. Do you get in?"
3
I believe we undergo the dying process every time we enter delta wave (deep) sleep. The reason we don't panic at bedtime is because we have confidence we will wake up; Most of the time, our awareness of self and the world takes up pretty near where it left off.
Death cannot be experienced because death is the absence of experience. it is impossible for an individual to be aware it has died. Ergo, epistemologically death does not exist.
Death cannot be experienced because death is the absence of experience. it is impossible for an individual to be aware it has died. Ergo, epistemologically death does not exist.
25
"The universe is not about me or any other individual; we come and we go as part of a much larger process."
There are two ways of thinking about the universe, if we are quite honest: something that pertains to nothing and no one (the "much larger process") and something that pertains to the (quite mysterious) subject (your universe). Meaning can only attach to the latter. If meaning is a fundamental quality of existence it may suggest that the "process" is less real, in some deep sense, than you are.
Speculation of course, but we know so very much less than we think we do, in the opinion of some, infinitely less.
There are two ways of thinking about the universe, if we are quite honest: something that pertains to nothing and no one (the "much larger process") and something that pertains to the (quite mysterious) subject (your universe). Meaning can only attach to the latter. If meaning is a fundamental quality of existence it may suggest that the "process" is less real, in some deep sense, than you are.
Speculation of course, but we know so very much less than we think we do, in the opinion of some, infinitely less.
12
While the connectionist model dominates current research in neuroscience, there is strong evidence that a frequency model may ultimately prove the more viable. Recording brainwaves that can later be played on a sophisticated, but generic, "tape deck" would be a lot less complicated than tracking down many billions of individual connections.
3
So, it's true. When you die, that's it. Period. I think it will feel like it did before I was conceived. No worries.
52
The idea that my mind could be separated from my body, from my brain, from my environment & history, is not a scientific idea. It is a religious idea.
39
I think the religious question is, are we more than our brain.
4
The documented evidence of awareness during clinical brain death tells us that something beyond purely physical constraints defines human consciousness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint...
7
We are all unique because our souls are literally structured into the synaptic interconnections and RNA of nerve cells by the experience of living, which is never identical even for identical twins.
The more learned one becomes, the more acutely aware one becomes that death is the fate of all sentience, and it is a mercy.
The more learned one becomes, the more acutely aware one becomes that death is the fate of all sentience, and it is a mercy.
12
I will be just fine shuffling off this mortal coil or going gentle in that good night without uploading myself onto the cloud. I will be one of the few data collections that will not live on forever on the internet.
22
Are you listening, Ray Kurzweil?
The author does a very good job of reviewing the multiple layers of complexity that exist within the brain's structure. We exist within those layers, and possibly every layer is necessary in producing a conscious self. In addition to the levels described in this article, there is the possibility that consciousness exists, not in patterns of neuronal activity, but in the pattern of states of individual tubulin molecules in the microtubules of the neurons; or even in the network of glial cells that make up the rest of the brain.
It is possible, then, that the number of individual components that make us is on the order of, not just 10^9, 10^12, 10^15th, but 10^40 or 10^50. Even assuming that you had the computational capacity to store this much information, how would you completely extract such information from an individual? It seems to me that you would necessarily destroy the individual's brain well before you had all of the information necessary to reproduce it exactly. Maybe this is a neuroscientific analogue to the Uncertainty Principle.
The author does a very good job of reviewing the multiple layers of complexity that exist within the brain's structure. We exist within those layers, and possibly every layer is necessary in producing a conscious self. In addition to the levels described in this article, there is the possibility that consciousness exists, not in patterns of neuronal activity, but in the pattern of states of individual tubulin molecules in the microtubules of the neurons; or even in the network of glial cells that make up the rest of the brain.
It is possible, then, that the number of individual components that make us is on the order of, not just 10^9, 10^12, 10^15th, but 10^40 or 10^50. Even assuming that you had the computational capacity to store this much information, how would you completely extract such information from an individual? It seems to me that you would necessarily destroy the individual's brain well before you had all of the information necessary to reproduce it exactly. Maybe this is a neuroscientific analogue to the Uncertainty Principle.
5
Public policy that gives credibility to belief in afterlife is nothing more than a lie that enables some of the worst scam artists on this planet.
8
Is this supposed to make us eternal? I dont think our brain is designed to perform well after more than a certain amount of years. Can we remember our experiences after 200 years? If we are eternal, will we remember how we were like 1000 yeas ago? What about my body and its physical functions (cold, urge to go to the bathroom, pains, strenghs and flaws) which 24/7 are shaping my brain and personality? I really cant imagine that dowloaded me will be me anymore.
10
Not sure uploading my brain would do anyone any good. In my eighties, most of my memories are bad copies of the original memories. Recently, the hard drive of my computer went out and on it were the contents of my last three computers (I, like many folks had not bothered to back-up my data). Now with a pristine new hard drive and the old hard drive waiting for someone to do a little data recovery—probably never happen—I feel relieved to be rid of all that old trivia, photographs and stuff I thought I could not do without. One of the blessings of the population dying-off is they take their memories and attitudes and images of a world not-recoverable with them.
69
Human "consciousness" is far more limited than we dare to admit. The vast majority of our mental/emotional processes occur at an unconscious level. It is like the difference between the flickerings on our myriad electronic monitors and the hardware, software and data that generate these phantasmal images. Our brains evolved over millions and millions of years and contain elements extant from the ages of reptiles, early mammals and lower primates. We are compelled to think, feel and act by a complex of drives and conflicts and anxieties that replicate our evolutionary past and as well as our struggles to separate from our mothers and individuate as independent beings in the context of our early familial relationships. At present, we know far more about the physical nature of our brains than we do about the internal functioning of our minds. Freud peeked inside and we have been defensively avoiding taking another look ever since.
4
A billion years of evolution resulted in the human brain. We will need a very long time to really understand ourselves.
11
Tolstoy agonized over and wrote extensively about this in his novels. As Prince Andrei (War and Peace) wondered, "I won't exist and life will go on without me?"
It is fine Andrei
But I would be happy if there is an afterlife and get to reunite with my mom and some other people, and two of my cats.
It is fine Andrei
But I would be happy if there is an afterlife and get to reunite with my mom and some other people, and two of my cats.
13
Possibility of uploading the human brain to computer?
I think a more viable route to prolonging a human brain, prolonging a person's identity, can be made along the lines of fire being prolonged by adding more fuel or the dynamics of a spreading fungus system or the like. In other words, we must somehow get the brain, or perhaps even rather the neuron, synaptic connection aspect of the brain instead of the brain itself (all the wiring, branching tree aspect) to continue growing and branching out...Not so much the brain continuing (that could just be analogous to the structure of a building which is not as important to identity and especially communication as the "electrical circuitry" of the building) but the fire of the brain, the essential aspect spreading out into new environment for growth, which might result in some truly bizarre but essential medical experiments along the lines of opening the skull and having neurons/synaptic connections spreading into a "better growth environment",--again like fire spreading to new and possibly even better fuel or neurons/synaptic connections spreading like a fungus system. Too much of the brain to computer transfer imagery today seems to move along the lines of human identity not closely associated with the matter of brain--not even the neuron, circuitry aspect--and that we can just transfer identity to computer. Identity however seems closely associated to matter and particular brain--therefore grow and spread particular brain.
I think a more viable route to prolonging a human brain, prolonging a person's identity, can be made along the lines of fire being prolonged by adding more fuel or the dynamics of a spreading fungus system or the like. In other words, we must somehow get the brain, or perhaps even rather the neuron, synaptic connection aspect of the brain instead of the brain itself (all the wiring, branching tree aspect) to continue growing and branching out...Not so much the brain continuing (that could just be analogous to the structure of a building which is not as important to identity and especially communication as the "electrical circuitry" of the building) but the fire of the brain, the essential aspect spreading out into new environment for growth, which might result in some truly bizarre but essential medical experiments along the lines of opening the skull and having neurons/synaptic connections spreading into a "better growth environment",--again like fire spreading to new and possibly even better fuel or neurons/synaptic connections spreading like a fungus system. Too much of the brain to computer transfer imagery today seems to move along the lines of human identity not closely associated with the matter of brain--not even the neuron, circuitry aspect--and that we can just transfer identity to computer. Identity however seems closely associated to matter and particular brain--therefore grow and spread particular brain.
1
This full semantic imaging of the brain figures prominently in science fiction. The common tropes there are archiving of the personality, and transfer of the personality to a new host, perhaps robotic, perhaps organic. But even though this is "science" fiction, what motivates these ideas is not science but the romantic notion that the "soul" is an essence, like smoke, that permeates the vessel of the body and with the right tools can be transferred to other vessels. The reason we like these stories is they not only make for cool narrative possibilities, but they preserve the uniqueness in each personality. I think the real question is not so much can we image an actual brain, but if I were to program an artificial intelligence to act like you, would it *be* you? Most people would say no, but if a program says the same things you would say, manifests the same attitudes you manifest, well what is the difference?
The reason this fascinates us is not due to the technical achievability, but because of how it relates to the eternal question, What makes us, us?
The reason this fascinates us is not due to the technical achievability, but because of how it relates to the eternal question, What makes us, us?
16
If consciousness is a product of the biological brain than one's consciousness will cease as the biological brain dies. It seems to me that it avails little that one may have uploaded the brain to a separate computer. That computer may or may not have consciousness but even if it did--if it was a perfect analogue of the biological brain--then another entity (or two or five hundred) would be brain clones. You don't live on.
8
Ted Williams believed that he could get his mind back, and he could hit curve balls, so I'm going with him.
4
Not surprisingly, this concept has been plumbed by S-F writers over the decades, the latest and perhaps most sophisticated offered by Alistair Reynolds, who posited in a series of novels a future in which the personality, the intellect, the knowledge and experiences of an individual were rendered into computer simulations. This seems far more likely than the re-animation of the electrochemical-biological elements of brain structure to recreate self-awareness, memory and personality.
Unfortunately for most of us who follow this, Alistair Reynolds has either taken an extended sabbatical with little material issuing forth from the black hole, or has disappeared into the future he once sought to describe. Pity.
But much of Dr. Miller’s interesting piece seems to assume that the big barriers to doing what he describes include understanding the transport mechanisms of thought and the creation and maintenance mechanisms of information. I find that odd. The idea of freezing heads is rather dated. The real challenge is in identifying the information itself and how it’s interrelated, isn’t it? We can INVENT (indeed, we have) means of maintaining the information once identified and transporting it as needed. The goal would seem to be to create an artificial simulation up-loaded and refreshed regularly during life, not to re-animate dead flesh. Igor would not have approved.
Unfortunately for most of us who follow this, Alistair Reynolds has either taken an extended sabbatical with little material issuing forth from the black hole, or has disappeared into the future he once sought to describe. Pity.
But much of Dr. Miller’s interesting piece seems to assume that the big barriers to doing what he describes include understanding the transport mechanisms of thought and the creation and maintenance mechanisms of information. I find that odd. The idea of freezing heads is rather dated. The real challenge is in identifying the information itself and how it’s interrelated, isn’t it? We can INVENT (indeed, we have) means of maintaining the information once identified and transporting it as needed. The goal would seem to be to create an artificial simulation up-loaded and refreshed regularly during life, not to re-animate dead flesh. Igor would not have approved.
The real gap is between our understanding of digital computing which follows understood relations, and the brain, which we know is different from digital computers. This sounds trivial, but we use digital computers to model the brain. So we need a whole new set of models. After that, the next step is understanding self-consciousness. I agree with the author this will require a long time.
3
Absolutely correct in your last paragraph. I have been saying much the same for a long time. Many people spend so much of their lives focused on various death cults that promise eternity that they miss much of the real life they have been given. Eternity, whatever that is, has already passed, and it did so without me. I expect it will continue just fine going forward after I am gone.
5
Wow! The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
Thank you.
Thank you.
1
So I die and show my brain is properly frozen for 8,000 years. I am resurrected in the USA so language is not a problem. I still wouldn't understand a thing that was going on and it would take years to even grasp the basics. The technology would be beyond my comprehension. People would know all about me but i would know absolutely noting about them. Would i even recognize them as human? But wait, where are my loved ones? Yes,my loved ones! Without love we are as nothing. Our brains seemed to be as complicated as the universe, but without love we are not much more than jelly fish swimming through life. Shoot me. Non existence is preferable to this terrifying, lonely existence where i understand nothing and have no love, no family, no reason to strive or even be alive.
7
Think of all the thousands of years of human existence during which there existed radio waves, part of electromagnetic radiation, and humankind had no idea these were around, or that we could create a device that could send our voices not only across the country, but across the world and even across space.
And not only voices but images. I just watched a live stream of traffic and pedestrians somewhere in Tokyo on Sunday at 1pm (it's Saturday midnight here).
The Mars Rover is sending detailed pictures back from that frozen planet and another space probe sent back a photo from Pluto!
One day, some bright individual (maybe Dr. Miller) will discover a way to connect our brains to a computer and we will be to see on the screen what only we can now see in our imaginations.
My hope would be to discover a way to travel back in time. I want to visit the house my father was born in and sit in the audience as Beethoven leads the 9th Symphony for the first time.
And not only voices but images. I just watched a live stream of traffic and pedestrians somewhere in Tokyo on Sunday at 1pm (it's Saturday midnight here).
The Mars Rover is sending detailed pictures back from that frozen planet and another space probe sent back a photo from Pluto!
One day, some bright individual (maybe Dr. Miller) will discover a way to connect our brains to a computer and we will be to see on the screen what only we can now see in our imaginations.
My hope would be to discover a way to travel back in time. I want to visit the house my father was born in and sit in the audience as Beethoven leads the 9th Symphony for the first time.
2
A perfect one-to-one map of the brain with all the details correct is the brain itself. To accomplish this goal maybe we just have to learn to keep the brain alive forever without deteriorating...
1
Excellent reminder of the point so frequently ignored by the proponents of "immortality through singularity" (i.e. technology exponentially accelerating to the point of making life extension/brain upload, etc. feasible, usually within a time window coinciding with the author's life expectancy - see Kurzweil): our exponentially increasing powers of analysis uncover exponentially increasing layers of complexity. Mathematically, the rate of progress towards "complete" understanding is a ratio of two exponentially growing numbers, which can lead to spurts of seemingly exponential progress, but is very sensitive to small increases in the complexity of the problem (the denominator) and should not be assumed to be constant (or accelerating).
5
This article is similar in concept to the article here: http://blog.brainfacts.org/2015/09/heads-in-the-cloud/#.Vhn2j4_BzGf
But some of the conclusions are different and the problem of continuity of consciousness is not addressed here. The whole "upload" from anatomy seems very unlikely to succeed.
My guess is that there are aspects of the brain's complexity that are not required for full implementation of consciousness, and once we work through those (perhaps with the assist of advanced AI) these problems will be seen as solvable. In any case, the road of progress is littered with protestations of those who said "it can't be done".
But some of the conclusions are different and the problem of continuity of consciousness is not addressed here. The whole "upload" from anatomy seems very unlikely to succeed.
My guess is that there are aspects of the brain's complexity that are not required for full implementation of consciousness, and once we work through those (perhaps with the assist of advanced AI) these problems will be seen as solvable. In any case, the road of progress is littered with protestations of those who said "it can't be done".
2
There is of course a collective "upload"; we call it civilization. Individuals suffer and die (mortality, alas), but, as Kant said, "the species prospers."
7
I wonder what would be the point of replicating a particular brain rather than gleaning specific information from it. Would the personality and feelings of this disembodied brain enjoy existing apart from a physical presence in the world, and interaction with phisical humans?
2
This article inspired some questions in my connectome.....Charting a connectome is different than building one which is different than keeping one going. Are the neurons in a brain tumor thought to participate in a connectome or are they different and in what way? Building Da Vinci's connecotme is a different enterprise than building a squid's. Building a connectome that has the human modulations of kindness and mercy is a lot different than building a circuit for grasping or swimming. On the other hand, I am reminded of a paper from three years ago that showed the real time activation of visual circuits in a zebra fish as it tracked the movements of prey across a visual field-- and the intensity of the activated neurons suggested modulation and varying intensity of the strength of the signal--so you might not be correct in saying it will take "centuries" to understand enough.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00002-X
It may be a century or more until a full human connectome is built but I don't think that will be the goal- the goal will be to make a crucial part of a connectome, or keep a part from failing as in dementia or deafness, or rerouting a part around an area dead from stroke.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00002-X
It may be a century or more until a full human connectome is built but I don't think that will be the goal- the goal will be to make a crucial part of a connectome, or keep a part from failing as in dementia or deafness, or rerouting a part around an area dead from stroke.
5
Homer’s “Olympian Poetry” mind, Hegel’s “Spirit Thesis” mind, Einstein’s “Bounded Relativity” mind, Stieglitz’s “Universal Progress” mind… all will live ions beyond Singularity.
1
I appreciate the detailed info. on how difficult this task would be. This article is a welcome change from science fiction films, when the most far-fetched things can be achieved just by pressing a few buttons. Or to religious doctrines that convince the gullible that they will have "eternal life" just by believing in this or that divine entity. Science is hard. But it's thanks to science that we have all our modern comforts, a longer and healthier life than previous generations. People still think of Dr. Frankenstein when they imagine a scientist. Science deserves more respect. Too bad it cannot seem to promote itself in an attractive, yet truthful way, in popular culture.
2
Thank you for this fascinating article. The more we learn about the extreme complexity of our brain, the better we grasp the infinity of our ignorance. It is refreshingly humbling. Paradoxically, it should keep our minds open to metaphysical hypotheses that might become one day a scientific reality, although they would appear supernatural today.
7
Engineering follows a tradition going back to William of Ockam and his famous dictum favoring simplicity. Biology as 3.5 billion years of favoring complexity. When we re-invent our attitude towards engineering technology, we might just be able to begin this project. Until then Ray Kurzweil and his ilk will be driving up dead ends...which is not say these paths will be unfruitful. Immortality though, will for the foreseeable future (and way beyond) prove illusory.
Also a note: a number of animals (include crows and elephants here) have an awareness of death. If we move human subjectivity and human conciousness from the 'center of the philosophical universe' (let's say take philosophy, the 'humanities', and social sciences from Ptolemy to Copernicus) we may take a large step forward to understanding the world, and ourselves, better.
Also a note: a number of animals (include crows and elephants here) have an awareness of death. If we move human subjectivity and human conciousness from the 'center of the philosophical universe' (let's say take philosophy, the 'humanities', and social sciences from Ptolemy to Copernicus) we may take a large step forward to understanding the world, and ourselves, better.
5
It's a good point about crows and elephants. They certainly understand when one of their fellows die. But do they know that they themselves are going to die? And even further, ponder the meaning of life given death? I thought about their awareness of their fellows' deaths when I wrote the first sentence, but on balance decided to plunge ahead anyways.
The insanity on display in gun violence, social discord and the heated rhetoric of politics makes me wonder about the adaptive frailty of human nature. All species ultimately undergo transformation including extinction. Is it probable that humanity will survive long enough to evolve sufficiently to develop replicants? We live in a virtual reality now artificially imposed by multiple sources including the media. As we become divorced from the world we now know and that those before us could never imagine do we really believe that the world to come will include humans?
4
Wlthough essential, we need more than the "connectomics,"in which we study what components are connected to what others and the different effects one synapse can produce in a dendrite. We also need to understand the programming language that is used. One could know the precise connections of every transistor within a contemporary computer chip as well as the specific function of each transistor (AND gate, OR gate, etc) but still have no idea how that chip ends up producing a map showing directions on how to get from Times Square to La Guardia. THAT requires knowledge of how different programming languages turn a series of yes-no signals into arithmetical calculations and those calculations yet again into advanced logic. This can all be modeled theoretically based on know and assumed properties of neurons, yet I've seen little to no reports on seeking the real key to how the brain works. Hope I live long enough.
1
As a neuroscientist, I see that what is missing here is the understanding that the brain is only one component of the central nervous system. Without the entire system extending through a body, cognition cannot exist.
43
I wouldn't bet that we know everything about the continuum of existence. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the laboratory...
11
>
With any luck I'll be dirt napping by the time this brave new world ushers itself in. Timing is everything in life and history. People are already over-taken by their stupid cell phones; how they handle this and other upcoming and unnecessary gadgets and technology will be even more dehumanizing and ridiculous. We all owe the Gods a death and they always collect it.
People would be well advised to carefully read and understand the message/warning of 18th & 19th Century Romantics, especially Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.
With any luck I'll be dirt napping by the time this brave new world ushers itself in. Timing is everything in life and history. People are already over-taken by their stupid cell phones; how they handle this and other upcoming and unnecessary gadgets and technology will be even more dehumanizing and ridiculous. We all owe the Gods a death and they always collect it.
People would be well advised to carefully read and understand the message/warning of 18th & 19th Century Romantics, especially Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.
20
To construct and reconstruct a mind, you also need culture and social interaction. The brain's electrical activity by itself does not amount to seeing, hearing, acting, and all the rest. What we refer to as mind involves activities that develop through individual, social, cultural, neurological, and environmental processes. The brain also develops. No single process amounts to complex action, and complex action cannot be reduced to any single process.
5
That people want to preserve their personality really does illustrate, at least to me, that the fear of death is all about our egos.
30
Even if we could resurrect a fairly accurate Map of the complex (but simplistic compared to a brain) NYC subway system, it might be without riders.
3
Despite ourselves, we do leave various forms of legacy. Many of us send part of our DNA forward although some don't. We write things from books to articles to journals and letters. We teach others who then teach others the same lessons improved with time.
As Miller noted: "The universe is not about me or any other individual" so, what we leave is a collective legacy in which each of has some small contribution to the whole. We are the beneficiaries of that passing along reaching back to the beginnings of life on this planet with each successive generation, mutation and evolutionary step that led to today and all of us.
That has to be sufficient because that is all there is.
As Miller noted: "The universe is not about me or any other individual" so, what we leave is a collective legacy in which each of has some small contribution to the whole. We are the beneficiaries of that passing along reaching back to the beginnings of life on this planet with each successive generation, mutation and evolutionary step that led to today and all of us.
That has to be sufficient because that is all there is.
4
Awesome article! I completed my BA in Behavioral Science in my undergraduate studies, and one of the most fascinating subject matters is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You explore the problem quite nicely in this article and provide a clearly explained possible solution, which is rare. Thank you for writing so well about such a complex issue!
2
I'm glad to find this rational, reality-based analysis of the mind preservation problem. I couldn't make myself finish reading the cryopreservation article some weeks back. I agree. There is no way our chaotically evolved brains will permit extraction of the needed information. However, a brain designed by humans to be able to copy its internal state is a different matter. Something like that certainly could happen.
1
There's a nearly identical post here with a different conclusion: http://blog.brainfacts.org/2015/09/heads-in-the-cloud/#.Vhmbx4b3anM
The reality is that we just don't know.
The reality is that we just don't know.
2
"Your mind would wake up, much as it wakes up after a night’s sleep, with your own memories, feelings and patterns of thought, and continue on into the world." It seems to me what would wake up would not be "you" but a clone of "you." Same memories, same personality, different "you." I'd also wonder if the neurological experience of a different body would not, in and of itself, create a different "you."
4
There is always something which bewilders me in this kind of expositions. Do we really know, in principle, what knowing, understanding, feeling etc we are supposed to be capable of are? Are they just illusions? So does a future computer which can simulate neuron connections in brain including all those mechanisms working at synapses automatically embrace such illusions? "Upload" in the title seems to suggest that while complexity is much more daunting than people realize. That is the point I cannot understand even after reading this.
2
Yes, computers are made of yes/no switches. Tons of them combined to create memories of different types. When big quantities of yes/no switches are put together, the sensation of analog behavior is created. But in reality, computers are digital. I guess one of the big differences between brains and computers is that the brain is analog, thanks to its structural analog components, molecules made up of over 1000 proteins according to Mr. Miller.
To put it in mundane way, the brain plays in a different league.
But technology is advancing exponentially. And we happened to be born exactly at the time the exponential curve started to go up. I mean, the difference between technology now and 50000 years ago when Neanderthals were still around is big. But can you imagine how advanced the technology will be 50000 years from now? If we survive.
After reading this kind of articles, one is left with thoughts of all kinds:
where do we came from? where we go?
how is it possible for the brain to think?
furthermore, how is it possible for it to feel and love?
If technology allows humans to upload brains... then that would be one of the possible solutions to the Fermi paradox. I wonder if uploaded brains in the future will finally be able to contact other civilizations.
OK, time to go back to the real world. My brain is still not uploaded and I need to work so I can buy food, the kind that my family members' not yet uploaded brains (and bodies) need.
To put it in mundane way, the brain plays in a different league.
But technology is advancing exponentially. And we happened to be born exactly at the time the exponential curve started to go up. I mean, the difference between technology now and 50000 years ago when Neanderthals were still around is big. But can you imagine how advanced the technology will be 50000 years from now? If we survive.
After reading this kind of articles, one is left with thoughts of all kinds:
where do we came from? where we go?
how is it possible for the brain to think?
furthermore, how is it possible for it to feel and love?
If technology allows humans to upload brains... then that would be one of the possible solutions to the Fermi paradox. I wonder if uploaded brains in the future will finally be able to contact other civilizations.
OK, time to go back to the real world. My brain is still not uploaded and I need to work so I can buy food, the kind that my family members' not yet uploaded brains (and bodies) need.
1
Cellular automata proposed by von Neumann in 1939 as biological choice mechanisms bore fruit as Turing's 1951 mechanism for 'How the tiger got his stripes" formulation that were confirmed by Green 2013 for processes forming ridges in mouse palate; and frankly speculated at by Wolfram in his 2002 A New Kind of Science as the basis for mollusk shell patterns. The "dynamic molecular machinery in each neural structure" Dr. Miller speaks of may well respond to similar mathematic probing per Penrose "Orch OR" lines.
As I was reading this description of the extreme complexity of the human brain and the even more complex activity that takes place in that brain, I am amazed that anyone could seriously believe that all of this came about by accident or by natural evolution from the original first living group of cells. That the brain was designed is more than obvious.
On the contrary--a "designer" would avoid complexity. A classic engineering acronym is K.I.S.S.--"Keep it Simple, Stupid." It's evolution that required the complexity suggested by Aaron Adams, above.
7
UPLOAD YOUR BRAIN What for? For the purpose of reconstructing whatever it held about my entire life, beginning to end. In ancient times efforts were made to record everything said by, say, the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt. Who cares anything about them? I recall seeing a TV piece about a minister who decided to record his entire life on his portable manual typewriter. So he's go out in the morning and by the end of the day, he's sit down and type out everything he did. If that didn't fit Hannah Arendt's definition of banality, I don't know what would! Not that whatever he did or said was remotely evil--unless you consider total, complete, full self-absorption to be a problem. I think that what is more interesting that we've got already are, say, the sketchbooks of great artists, notebooks of great writers and catalogs of compositions in progress written by great composers. In fact, I was fascinated by Mozart's catalog in the house where he had lived in Vienna. It must have been written toward the end of his life, because it included musical themes from his Clarinet Concerto. So I guess what I'm saying is that I'd prefer to read, say, peoples' daily logs, or better yet, their collections of daily logs that they found to be the most meaningful. How does it increase the fund of human knowledge to preserve all information indiscriminately?
3
Why would anyone want to do that? I am absolutely fascinated by the brain. It amazes me that when i see a new painting, my mind will often within seconds pop up a familiar painting, which turns out to be by the same artist. There is so much to learn about the mind.
That said, even if 'uploading' a brain (really the essence of the mind is what we speak of) was possible, the ethical issues are enormous. I would not want someone else in some other era to have control over my mind. With the body gone, how would the mind express itself? What, if anything, contained therein would be relevant? Knowledge (facts) can be found elsewhere; experiences might not be well understood in a different time and culture; wisdom, too, is not always 'timeless,' but is often culture/era bound.
Then, too, there is the fact that nature (or God) in its wisdom made us time-limited. We die/move on to make room for new generations to rise to leadership and discovery; to make place for new young parents; to make room in the workforce and in using space and earth's resources. Although it might be fun to 'hear' (no body, so computer) a mind from the past 'speak,' what would really be gained if we could re-invigorate some mind from the 1000 BCE or even 1800 CE?
Love the pondering, but I'm in favor of living mindfully, productively, and well, passing on what I have to offer while body and mind are still operating as a unit.
That said, even if 'uploading' a brain (really the essence of the mind is what we speak of) was possible, the ethical issues are enormous. I would not want someone else in some other era to have control over my mind. With the body gone, how would the mind express itself? What, if anything, contained therein would be relevant? Knowledge (facts) can be found elsewhere; experiences might not be well understood in a different time and culture; wisdom, too, is not always 'timeless,' but is often culture/era bound.
Then, too, there is the fact that nature (or God) in its wisdom made us time-limited. We die/move on to make room for new generations to rise to leadership and discovery; to make place for new young parents; to make room in the workforce and in using space and earth's resources. Although it might be fun to 'hear' (no body, so computer) a mind from the past 'speak,' what would really be gained if we could re-invigorate some mind from the 1000 BCE or even 1800 CE?
Love the pondering, but I'm in favor of living mindfully, productively, and well, passing on what I have to offer while body and mind are still operating as a unit.
3
I too, appreciate the technical details which expand on the understanding I already had.
This fascinating article implies, but does not explicitly state, that all of these very complex synapses operate entirely asynchronously from each other. While this may, at first, seem like a trivial matter, it must be contrasted with our current digital computers where all of the circuits in the processor are synchronized to a single clock. (There are multiple clocks but massive synchronization is essential.)
The consequence of this difference is: our current understanding of computing technology yields Finite State Machines. While the brain is, if anything, isn't a Finite State Machine. For this reason, the brain demonstrably does things that a Finite State Machine is provably unable EVER to do.
Thus, we humans will need an entirely different sort of computing machine to ever emulate a human brain. We have only just barely started on this path.
As an aside, the projected time-line for all of this requires humans to be around for a rather long time and our species (and possibly all mammals) don't seem all that likely to avoid extinction long enough to succeed.
But that's no reason not to be trying. We could get lucky on both fronts.
As for me, personally, I'm in total agreement with Miller and equally at ease with contemplating my personal disappearance from the scene.
This fascinating article implies, but does not explicitly state, that all of these very complex synapses operate entirely asynchronously from each other. While this may, at first, seem like a trivial matter, it must be contrasted with our current digital computers where all of the circuits in the processor are synchronized to a single clock. (There are multiple clocks but massive synchronization is essential.)
The consequence of this difference is: our current understanding of computing technology yields Finite State Machines. While the brain is, if anything, isn't a Finite State Machine. For this reason, the brain demonstrably does things that a Finite State Machine is provably unable EVER to do.
Thus, we humans will need an entirely different sort of computing machine to ever emulate a human brain. We have only just barely started on this path.
As an aside, the projected time-line for all of this requires humans to be around for a rather long time and our species (and possibly all mammals) don't seem all that likely to avoid extinction long enough to succeed.
But that's no reason not to be trying. We could get lucky on both fronts.
As for me, personally, I'm in total agreement with Miller and equally at ease with contemplating my personal disappearance from the scene.
21
@Jim Kay--Interesting, but digital computers need not be clock-driven. I was at a conference last week in which a presenter discussed building event-driven computers modeled on the human brain: http://www.evaluationengineering.com/2015/10/07/itc-keynoter-touts-brain...
I appreciate the technical details. It is daunting.
However, there is a huge distance between "I can't do it" and "it can't be done." There is a similar gap between "we can't do it" and "it can never be done."
The description here suggests something far more complex than our current concept of a computer, made of yes/no switches. It is staggering to realize the increase in power possible with such multiple connects for each switch and multiple states for each switch, with information stored not just in the state of the switches but between them it what sound like sub-switches or something.
What that tells me is that our computer technology has very much further to go, and much more potential to explore, than any of our current work has even touched. It shows how much is in front of us, to be accomplished with computing, just to get to where evolution already got. And is there even more possible?
When we get there, then whole new worlds of possibility open up. I say "when" because progress built on progress is cumulative, and we will keep going, so one day we will get there.
We have no idea what will be possible from that.
An idea we ought to have from this study of the brain is new approaches to building the hardware of computers. Our brains are to computers as birds's wings were to aircraft design.
However, there is a huge distance between "I can't do it" and "it can't be done." There is a similar gap between "we can't do it" and "it can never be done."
The description here suggests something far more complex than our current concept of a computer, made of yes/no switches. It is staggering to realize the increase in power possible with such multiple connects for each switch and multiple states for each switch, with information stored not just in the state of the switches but between them it what sound like sub-switches or something.
What that tells me is that our computer technology has very much further to go, and much more potential to explore, than any of our current work has even touched. It shows how much is in front of us, to be accomplished with computing, just to get to where evolution already got. And is there even more possible?
When we get there, then whole new worlds of possibility open up. I say "when" because progress built on progress is cumulative, and we will keep going, so one day we will get there.
We have no idea what will be possible from that.
An idea we ought to have from this study of the brain is new approaches to building the hardware of computers. Our brains are to computers as birds's wings were to aircraft design.
18
There is also a gap between it can be done and it should be done.
28
The complexity is daunting to be sure.
Can we say quantum vanity?
Isn't what makes any individual life precious the very fact that it is unique, irretrievable and ephemeral?
Back as writ and interpreted is exquisite...though I'm not certain I would want to avail myself of his particular nose-picking technique.
Can we say quantum vanity?
Isn't what makes any individual life precious the very fact that it is unique, irretrievable and ephemeral?
Back as writ and interpreted is exquisite...though I'm not certain I would want to avail myself of his particular nose-picking technique.
Yes Michael, there is gap. But humans will continue to explore and will continue to want to live longer. In my humble opinion, and given enough time, it is more likely for humans to finally get the technology to upload brains than it is to find an answer to the question "it should be done"
3
Where is any physical evidence that the "mind" even exists?
The brain is not the mind.
Despite modern western medical and scientific conventional orthodoxy stipulating that the mind is only an epiphenomenon caused by internal cranial electro-chemical activity, there is no evidence that has proven such scientific/medical claim.
There are however studies and research showing that pre-cognition, distant viewing and other "mental anomalies" are in fact, real. These studies just aren't accepted by the conventional medical/scientific community even though critics of such studies admit that the studies and research and documentation abide by accepted standards of research.
Where is any evidential proof that physical death of the brain is also death of the mind? Or that the knowledge of being able to perceive and understand and realize emotions, such as say love, is something created exclusively by the brain and has no power nor connection to anything outside the cranium?
For example, how is the sensation of love the result of electro-chemical activity? Where are the studies proving that the sensation of love resides exclusively within one individual brain and thus has no effect outside the cranium?
There has been no evidence showing that the sensation of love is the creation of the brain.
Why does conventional scientific authority continue to make claims that the brain and the mind are nothing but the one and same thing when there is no proof for such conclusion?