When we can dictate memories directly into each person's mind, the world will be very different than it is today.
"Uncle Roy," tweeted my favorite seven-year-old nephew at the family dinner, "I bet with dad that you know everything, and he said there was no chance. What is the capital city of Eritrea?”
"Let me think for a moment," I dodged elegantly. I rested my chin on my hand and thought deeply as I opened the blackberry under the table and connected to Wikipedia. A quick glance was enough to discover the rest.
"That's it, I remembered now. Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa, and its capital is Asmara." I answered lightly, with a scolding look at my skeptical brother-in-law, the toddler's father. Still, know it all or not know it all? He just rolled his eyes in response. But I really know everything. I have Wikipedia.
Did I cheat my precious little nephew? Not necessarily. As we advance in technology, Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, becomes a more significant part of our lives. It is similar to a prosthesis - another organ that we use when necessary. Instead of filling the memory in the brain with all the meaningless facts of life in our day-to-day life about the world, we can connect to the global collective knowledge base and get the answers from there directly to our smartphone.
But what if we could download all this information directly into our human brains?
This question sounds less and less like science fiction, and more like a scientific and social question that we will have to deal with in the coming decades. This is mainly evidenced by the new research of two important researchers in the field of biomedical engineering, Theodore Berger from the University of Southern California and Sam Deadweiler from Wake Forest University. The two have been collaborating for several years now, trying to understand how to create a prosthesis for the brains of rats.
The aforementioned prosthesis relies on the fact that the brain is divided into different regions, where each region has its own function. There are areas that analyze the information coming from the eyes, areas that are responsible for the sense of self, and there is also the hippocampus: a cluster of nerve cells whose job it is to create long-term memories. All sensory messages and all thoughts reach the hippocampus in the form of neural information, and it processes the information and converts it into a form of memory that will be stored somewhere else in the brain. A person who has lost his hippocampus will no longer be able to produce new long-term memories, and his life will start over every thirty seconds.
In a study published in the scientific journal for neural engineering (Journal of Neural Engineering), the researchers described how they followed the changes that occurred within the hippocampus of the rats during the learning process. They were able to document the transfer of information between the internal parts of the hippocampus - the same transfer of information that leads to the formation of new long-term memories.
Now that the researchers understood the way information is transmitted within the hippocampus, they tried to imitate it using artificial electrical activation of the hippocampus, which was fed directly into the brains of the rats. In fact, they recreated the pattern of activity between the parts of the hippocampus accurately.
To test the success of the system, the researchers blocked the natural transmission of information within the hippocampus with specific chemicals that affect the brain. They tried to teach the rats a simple task - to press a certain lever to get a reward - but the rats were unable to remember the correct choice for more than ten seconds. They were unable to form long-term memories because the connection between the parts of the hippocampus was severed.
To repair the disconnection, the researchers artificially activated the cells in the rats' brains, according to the electrical activation pattern they identified in healthy rats. When the rats received the correct electrical messages, they were able to go back and develop long-term memories, and identify the correct handle. Mimicking the brain's electrical activation pattern caused the re-formation of memories.
From a balanced and cool scientific point of view, this is not an extraordinary achievement. Activation of a small part of the brain according to a certain pattern resulted in the creation of a memory. But if we try to look ahead to the distant future, we will understand that this is a marker for the future to come. As we learn more activation patterns, we can understand what buttons to push to create and shape memories within the brain. It is likely that in decades we will also be able to decipher the complex programming language through which the hippocampus encodes the memories into the human brain.
And what then?
When we can dictate memories directly into each person's mind, the world will be very different than it is today. Instead of going through an exhausting course in flying airplanes, the pilots will be able to have the full memories of an experienced fighter pilot. Instead of spending ten years studying for a first, second and third degree, young people will be able to receive the memories of a doctor who graduated with honors. And instead of going on a honeymoon in Australia, young couples will be able to acquire the memories of another young couple in love, and share them between them. And also, Wikipedia may also become a part of the human brain - either inside the brain itself, or as part of a portable drive that we can carry on our bodies and flow memories directly into the brain.
In such a future world, individualism will be a rare commodity, and creativity even more so. But it is possible that in this world there will also be more empathy, the rich will know how the poor grew up, and the priests in the Vatican will be exposed to the memories of Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams. All of these are no longer reassuring - as always, only the future will be able to reveal to us how the fruit will fall.
But in the meantime…
"Can you tell the boy again what the capital of Eritrea is?" asked my brother-in-law sweetly, while we were sitting with the family in the living room in front of the television.
I fumbled in my pocket for my smartphone. He wasn't there. I looked around, and saw a suspicious bulge in the brother-in-law's pants, but I had a disturbing feeling that no, he was actually not that happy to see me. The nephew watched me with alert anticipation, waiting for the hero to strike again. There is only one way out of this.
"I just forgot," I said and watched his face fall, "but I want to tell you why in forty years, you won't forget anything, ever."
34 תגובות
Especially about empathy. There will be no more stinking chauvinism, because men all over the world will understand that women have human needs. There will be no customers of prostitutes, because they will understand what prostitutes go through. Even if there are less unique people, it will be an amazing and perfect world.
man,
You got exactly on the problematic point. What the researchers did in the article was that they repaired memory damage caused by substances that damaged the hippocampus using an electrical response learned from healthy rats. That is, they bypassed the inhibiting substances. This is similar to the same ancient experiment by Galvani who directly activated with an electric current a frog's leg that was severed from the brain.
From this, for the purpose of the story and the matter, Roy Cezana (and there is no criticism of him here, on the contrary) made an impressive leap forward to speculations about implanting memories as described for example in the movie Matrix where they learned kung fu by implanting the knowledge into the brain. Unfortunately, however, the path from what is described in the article to the vision of direct learning is still very far. As long as no one has any idea how specific knowledge is stored in the brain, I don't see how it is possible to implant new knowledge directly.
Roy
With all due respect to the research it is still unknown how information is represented in the brain.
Even a bit of information like the digit 1 no one knows how it is represented.
What is known is that the brain presents information in many different ways in one person.
And in endless ways for different people.
It seems that it is a little big pretense to implant memories when you don't know how to represent them
Especially since the representation is infinite.
According to what I understood, the 'implantation of long-term memory' was done on mice that had already experienced the experience that leads to the memory.
I think that if the memory implantation was done in mice that did not experience the experience (handle = reward), following which these new mice would approach the handle to collect the reward, the experiment would be more convincing to me as an experiment of memory implantation.
Dimitri:
Darwin answered you well but allow me to expand a little:
Avshalom doesn't interest you, but you opened your words by saying that you have to agree with him (or did you mean to say that he actually interests you because you are all assholes).
I explained to you what he was trying to say and then it suddenly doesn't interest you.
So I also remind you: Wikipedia is not the subject of the article here.
It can be discussed a lot.
One can be sane and accept the opinion of the editors of Nature who conducted a serious examination - and one can not.
The one who chooses the second way - of course he has no difficulty in presenting the sane choice as a problem for the sane - then if he allows himself to condescend to the most prestigious science magazine in the world - condescending to commenters in science is like the peel of garlic in his eyes.
I wonder what subject you think the ignorance belongs to me and not to you.
Lucky we have commenters like Dimitri who know everything better than Nature
Dimitri, it doesn't matter where you go, there will always be disputes. There is almost no unanimity on any issue in the world.
And every professional who writes an article will always write it according to a certain worldview that he has regarding the content of the article, and he will also use his worldview regarding the meaning of disputes and different opinions, and according to this worldview he will write the article. No matter how hard he tries to be "objective" he will not succeed.
Our brother-in-law is interested in the ass Absalom and you can shove these climate issues in the ass
What I was talking about was that Wikipedia is not reliable and according to the test you showed it is indeed not reliable compared to Britannica which has a tradition of some 200 years and the people who write the entries there are certainly professionals and not my neighbor who graduated high school yesterday and writes an entry about the World War.
If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you're in luck. The ignorance belongs to you not me. I did my part as a good citizen and tried to give you some of my knowledge. If you want believe everything you read on the internet because it is on the internet.
Bro, you have the mindset of some 60 year old man. Pretty sad.
incidentally:
Pay attention to Avshalom's blatant attempt at deception, which compares the list of signers of the declaration (32 in number) from the list of the national scientific academies (the number of which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_academies) with a completely different list of academies that does not belong to the matter because it also includes regional academies (which were not consulted at all for the formulation of the statement).
how do you say? A liar is a liar is a liar.
Dimitri:
You have to agree with Absalom.
Although I don't know what binds you, but there must be something.
I assume you agree with the claim that Britannica is a good encyclopedia.
So how many mistakes are there?
I guess if it's a good encyclopedia - you can say very little.
Let's assume, for example (the study does not give a measurable figure on this matter), that one percent of the statements in Britannica are wrong.
So according to your 25%, that means Wikipedia has one and a quarter percent of incorrect statements.
Indeed - this is an encyclopedia of what is not reliable - you must agree!!!
Note that Absalom brought the example of the climate as a reference to the current article.
What does the current article have to do with Wikipedia?
Only the fact that Roy said that the possibility of planting memories can be activated for the purpose of planting Wikipedia in the brain.
Roy did not rely on anything from Wikipedia.
If the possibility of implanting memories exists - then it is clear that false memories can also be implanted. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It will be possible to implant in you the memory that your name is Michael Rothschild.
The fact that a certain memory can be implanted does not mean that the memory is true and it is so trivial that there is nothing to talk about.
So why did Absalom bring up the story with Wikipedia (which does not belong in the article) and with the climate (which does not belong in the article)?
Only because he is a climate troll.
He tries to cover it up with some of his comments later, but it doesn't really work for him because the evidence he has already provided in the matter cannot be erased.
As for my argument with Dot:
First of all - this debate is about what is written in the article and what can be concluded from it.
Theoretically, there is a possibility that what is written in the article is wrong, but this does not change anything regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from it - this is simply a debate about logic and reading comprehension and not about scientific facts.
So what about the correctness of the facts on which the article is based?
This is not part of my argument with a point but since you addressed it I say the following:
Roy relied on an article whose source is indicated at the end of the article.
Don't you think it's funny to make all kinds of unfounded (and obviously incorrect) assumptions about Roy's knowledge and his work method instead of reading the article?
The whole understanding of memory/learning is simply wrong.
There is memory, and that is what the researchers, investigate.
And there is learning. If someone gives me memories of someone's life, it will not necessarily create learning in me. but only a memory.
Learning can arise from the experience itself.
It's like watching a kung fu movie, I don't really know how to go punching.
But to study for a few years, to let my body learn, for new neuronal networks to form, it does create learning.
Memory is more like a movie/text/MP3...they don't necessarily create learning
Perhaps you create access to knowledge that may, perhaps, lead to certain learning at a certain level...only!
So all the
"Instead of going through an exhausting course in flying airplanes, the pilot flowers will be able to have the full memories of an experienced fighter pilot. Instead of spending ten years studying for a first, second and third degree, young people will be able to receive the memories of a doctor who graduated with honors. "
All these, did not really create neural networks that really learned. Only memories...if I have a memory of a certain book, it doesn't necessarily mean that I understand and took a certain understanding from it. To read and remember is different from reading and understanding.
Absalom, it took a lot of time to get nonsense and conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia, so the editors are now showing determination and throwing things out within an hour. All the examples you gave are like that.
There are many countries that do not have an academy, so they are represented by the Academy of Sciences of the Developing World which is based in Italy.
As above the story that governments were able to use hypnosis beyond the level of illusion in magicians' shows. It is also a kind of conspiracy theory that gives the armies powers they do not have, after all, people also serve in the American army and they are also killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for example. If they had telepathic abilities maybe they would still be alive?
Also allow the above document
http://www.wanttoknow.info/mind_control/mind_control_articles/estabrooks_hypnosis
Climate is just an example.
It is also possible in another subject, for example hypnosis.
According to Wikipedia - there is no successful military use of hypnosis
Enter the entry in English and check under Military Applications.
Now enter the following official document into the entry
http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-hypnotic-experimentation-research
And let's see how long it stays there.
And Cezana wants to insert memories from Wikipedia? This is brainwashing par excellence
Michael - I have to agree with Avshalom about the reliability of Wikipedia. Translate the number of errors into percentages and you will see that Wikipedia has 25% more errors than Britannica.
Add to that the fact that these are scientific values where people don't have too much to argue about (depending on which topic, in evolution-creationism, say, there are interests or topics like global warming, but who knows what values were tested. If they tested values like the hydrogen atom and photosynthesis, then there are no arguments and no interests) Happening in historical or political values? Can they be trusted? Is it possible to trust issues that there are people with an agenda who want to see these values in a different way?
We can summarize and say that Wikipedia is a very important and very useful tool, but it should always be taken with a limited guarantee and not overly trusted. I am also convinced that in the future we will see an improvement in the quality of values.
In connection with your discussion with "Point", please note that you are quoting a sentence from an article written by an intelligent and smart man in Dubai, but he did not conduct the research and he is not a renowned researcher in brain research, but is a science enthusiast and his training is in the world of electronics. It can be said that his knowledge of biology and brain research is basic at best and tends toward superficiality at worst. I don't think this is definitive proof that this is indeed the case.
In addition, did he read the article itself that the researchers published or maybe he read an article they wrote in another journal? Or did he read a budget written by someone who read an article who read another abstract of the original article?
Bring the original article, we will all read it, it will sound interesting and we will try to understand if these are really the meanings.
Absalom:
You are so confused that you use every platform - including an article dealing with the memory of rats - to continue your climate war.
I assure you that every issue in the world is disputed so this characterization means nothing.
The link you brought doesn't say anything either, but I won't help you in trilling the current discussion to a climate discussion.
Here is the value:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
*My correction - 32 science academies out of about a hundred
Science tested 42 scientific values in which there is no dispute.
I mean it's fur research without any teeth.
Are you so confused that you don't notice that I mean not the number tested but the type of values?
Let's determine where the truth is:
Put in the entry "global warming consensus", above the list of the 16 academies of sciences -
Only they out of a hundred signed - and add the link.
http://www.interacademies.net/Academies/ByCountry.aspx
Objective information for all intents and purposes.
Good luck with your challenge
point:
What you understood is different from what is written in the article.
This emerges from the facts in different forms, but the clearest formulation of the fact appears in the following paragraph:
"From a balanced and cool scientific point of view, this is not an extraordinary achievement. Activation of a small part of the brain according to a certain pattern resulted to create a memory. "
In other words, they created a memory in the rats that they didn't have before.
Jacob If you don't have consciousness it doesn't mean that others don't have consciousness.
From what I understand the researchers were able to control what causes memories to be created. There is nothing unusual about this that we are not familiar with (even being very tired, or drinking alcohol affects the same electrical patterns that affect how memory is formed). But this is not close to the concept of memory itself (like remembering a certain image from the past).
point:
Did you read the article?
It says that they implanted memories, so there is no logic in claiming that this is impossible.
I also think that complex memories will probably be impossible to implant because of the difference between the minds of different people, but a blanket claim like yours is in contradiction to the facts that have already been demonstrated in the experiment.
Absalom:
This is what is called a sample and it indicates the quality of the encyclopedia.
How many values are you relying on and what is the nature of the test that exists before you made the nonsense statement?
point,
Consciousness is a term that has nothing behind it. Our personality is shaped by trillions of electrical and chemical connections, which are in principle physically measurable. Someday, we will be able to describe the connections with a good enough resolution and build models that link neurological patterns to language, space, input and output.
We probably won't be able to copy a memory template from one brain to another in the naive way described in the article, but I believe we can perform a limited copying of ideas, after a suitable data transformation (abstraction of one brain model, and adaptation to another brain model).
to implant memories? It's just like a brain transplant. It will no longer be the same person. Memory is a building block of personality. And the person's personality cannot be divided in such a way as you assume in the article, as if one could insert Wikipedia into his personality.
I claim that it will not be possible to do this because we do not understand and we cannot understand what is the consciousness through which our memories are formed.
"The editors chose 42 scientific values"
Read first before you link!
Absalom:
Just don't let the facts confuse you!
http://www.haaretz.co.il/captain/pages/ShArtCaptain.jhtml?contrassID=11&subContrassID=0&itemNo=658398
You are living in Hella Land if you trust Wikipedia on "slightly" more controversial topics
"Capital of Eritrea" array
You have an editorial police there if the agenda is very fixed.
Of course, anyone can change - but within an hour at most it will come back,
Even when you added accurate and sourced information.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/wikipedialies20jan08.shtml
Try to add to the entry "global warming consensus" where it is written that 16 academies of science signed the consensus -
that there are over 100 science academies in the world (which, of course, have not signed).
and you will follow
Because of articles like this I don't read popular science.
Popular science will probably stay at a level suitable for children and youth.
The problem is that Wikipedia is not knowledge, it is information, so it will be fed directly to the brain but will not give much more value than reading it from the Internet
It's nice to think about transferring information straight into the brain, but you should also take into account the limits of the brain's ability to absorb. Excess memory can easily cause insanity, or health problems due to "short circuits" in the nervous system.
How many more decades?? Lower limit is at least 100 years in my opinion.
Hi Roy, cute and interesting as usual.
I would love to come again to any lecture you hold :)