Prof. Sebastian Seung proposes that it might become possible to upload one's memory to a computer. Even granting that it might become science fact and not scifi, what are the ethical implications? If I do it, does it mean that I am alive after my death? What if I am alive and my mind is in a dozen different computers? If linked with humanoid robots will they be my clones? Rather like Rajni Robot? Fascinating. Yet frightening. http://fora.tv/2012/02/13/Sebastian...load_Your_Brain_Science_Fiction_Comes_to_Life
I am afraid if you upload "Issue's" brain, it will count even 2.5 bits @bioramani sir, that's fascinating
In information theory, information is quantified in terms of bits and bytes. If you know something about a signal, you get less information about that signal. If the signal is unpredictable, you get more information, when you eventually get to know about it. This probability based knowledge is quantified into bits.. I think the same can be done to the brain too. Not too sure of the details, though.. I dont know how that limit 2.5 petabytes is reached, but one thing that is generally said about the brain is that nobody is using his/her brain to its full potential. Now, that is said with respect to thinking and ideas, generally.. But the same should be true for memories as well.. So, the actual capacity of the brain that an average human uses might be much less. Nevertheless, if such a thing does become a reality, I'm not sure if I would want to avail that option. I'm not going to be truly immortal anyway.. Leaving just your memories behind is just an extended version of being alive through your ideas. We say Shakespeare or Pythagorus is immortal, because their work is still there for us to learn and connect with them. So, it's better if the world remembers us for something useful. Existing in a silicon chip, along with a million others, will not do it for me.
How many really remember what people even two generations back did? I have seen many questions on why sky is blue. No one of the current generation seem to know that our own Raman elucidated it. In my wife's and my case, when the time comes to go we would like to go quietly without anyone noticing it. We would even like to donate all usable organs and if possible the body to research. My wife and I do not want to burden the children with the elaborate post mortem religious rites, which we do not believe in. We believe that this ego dies here. What, if anything, lives beyond, should always have been there. So nothing is lost.
I don't think so. The real kautilya is dead for more than 2000 years. So no chance of retrieving back his brain. As far as I am concerned I am no where near to him. I am not kautilya. So my brain would hardly comprise 2.5 bits. Hence the statement. P.S: If you can have that much space on your computer, I am all yours
One important thing to realize is that human brain memory is quite different from a conventional memory in the sense that a human cannot access all his/her memories at will, while a computer can. Further if a computer is unable to access some data stored on a chip , 99% of the time the chip will have to be discarded. Whereas many times we feel a certain memory is lost from our brains but it comes back a few years later , out of the blue. A lot of the questions raised here have to do with 'consciousness' a subject of which a firm theory has eluded mankind. This is so because any study of 'consciousness' will have to be 'subjective' .And this is where the major roadblock lies, for science is all about 'objective' knowledge. Philosophically speaking , one can't ever prove that 'consciousness' exists outside one's own brains.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism That is , I can't be sure there are other entities who have got feelings/conscious experience. That we go about thinking that there are others who have feelings is a belief and not a confirmed hypothesis. So in case computers are able to function exactly as our brains do, still we can't be sure they have feelings. A person can't 'prove' there are conscious entities other than his/her own self. But if we accept a behaviorist model of consciousness (as we do daily in our lives when we assume that the guy standing next to us is a person and not a zombie) , then we will have to posit consciousness to a computer as well. In that case , one can live after the death of one's biological body. And if there are 2 copies of a person in distinct computers then over a period of time the two 'personal' computers will develop into two different persons. Up to a period of time they will had the same history but after that their lives would follow different timelines. (However if the two computers are able to communicate appreciably during this time then that would be a dicey issue. In such a case we will have to say that the 2 different computers are just one single person who is at two different places at one time) I think I have written enough which boggles my mind , hence I will stop here. here are two interesting articles on consciousness by noted neuroscientist Sam Harris :- http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii
Whats the point of living as a computer? In my opinion, you will be like a zombie, unable to feel, react to stimuli and experience emotion. So what is the point of this then? What makes life worth living? The brain controls the release of hormones, endorphins and other chemicals which make life worth living. What would be our greatest achievement i think is if we could create an artificial brain where we can download our memory and install this artificial brain in a clone. In this way you can live as a human and not a computer. But wait, if you clone your brain, will your memory also be copied? As for the ethical side, I believe no matter how much we try to be immortal, if it is not natural then nature will find a way to prevent it from happening. GOD created nature, so if nature disagrees, then so does GOD. I recall a similar explanation in the movie Jurasic Park. The dinosours were genetically enhanced so there would only be male species. This was done in order to control their population on the island. But again nature found a way and they began reproducing.
I tend to question everything. We all hear people say, 'when i see you my heart skips a beat', or 'i love you with all my heart', or 'i love you from the bottom of my heart.' Is it really your heart? Does the heart accumulate feelings? When you see that special someone, your heart races off, what is really happening? Is the heart doing this for itself? Or is it just responding to signals sent to it by the brain. Is love contained in the heart or the brain?
I too question all the time (like my little grand daughter!). The heart (and for that matter, the brain) is just a physiological organ. The heart is affected by emotions like anger, anxiety and fear based on signals from the brain, as you say. I do not think that either of these is the seat of the 'soul', whatever that is. Does it mean that we have a controlling entity (like a CPU) that makes the brain do the work? Who is the creator of a music piece or a painting? The soul? If so, where is it? Is it a physical thing or an organ at all? If a person's memory is copied to a computer, is the soul also copied? If not, then there may be no ethical isue. On the other hand, if it is just like creating a back up copy to restore in case of damage to the original, would that have some merit? Say in the case of Altzeimer's disease. Can the lost memory be recopied to a different part of the person's brain to restore normalcy?
I think if we compare our body to computer, it will be Hard Disk: our Memory RAM: Active mind status CPU: our mind DMA DPA(Direct processor access):Our nervous system which is connected to mind to our organs. before our RAM able to know what happening (before data load in RAM), CPU already send command through DPA to our heart, sensory organs etc etc... . what do you think is it close comparison with our body-brain to computer machine??
