On memories, on points of view and the "I"
in the movie "The discovery” released in 2017 on Netflix, Robert Redford plays a scientist who proves that there is real life after death. "As soon as the body dies, part of our consciousness leaves us and goes on a journey to another plane," explains the scientist in the film. It is based on evidence collected by a machine he built, which measures, as another character in the film explains, "subatomic brain waves that leave the body after death."
This idea is not far from a true, so-called hypothesis Quantum consciousness, which brought up several people from diverse fields, starting with a physicist Roger Penrose and to the doctor Deepak Chopra. Some versions of it claim that consciousness is not an exclusive product of our brain, but something that exists separately from the material world, and therefore the death of the physical body is not the end of conscious existence. Since this is the subject of my next book, “Heaven on Earth: The Scientific Search for Afterlife, Eternal Life, and Utopia (to be published in 2018 by Henry Holt), the film raised in my mind some problems I recognized with these ideas, whether scientific or religious.
First, in these hypotheses lies the assumption that our identity is located in our memories, which according to this assumption are permanently recorded in our minds: if it is possible to copy them into a computer or duplicate them and pay off in a resurrected body or soul, this will lead to our reconstruction. But that's not how memory works. Memory is not like a recording device that can replay the past on the screen of our consciousness. Memory is actually a fluid process that is constantly being edited. This process absolutely depends on the integrity of the nerve cells in the brain. It is true that when we go to sleep and wake up the next morning, or when we undergo anesthesia before surgery and wake up a few hours later, our memories come back to us. It even occurs after a medical procedure of deep cryogenic anesthesia (DHCA), a procedure in which the patient's brain is cooled to a temperature below 10 degrees Celsius, which stops the electrical activity in the nerve cells. The fact that long-term memories return after such experiences may suggest that they are stored in the brain stably. But this cannot happen if the mind is dead. This is why CPR must be performed as close as possible to a heart attack or drowning: if oxygen-rich blood does not reach the brain, the nerve cells die and with them the memories they store are erased.
Secondly, in these ideas lies the assumption that you copied theconnectome of the brain, the map of the connections between the nerve cells, and uploading it to the computer (as some scientists suggest), or resurrecting the physical self in the next life (as described by many religions), will cause us to reawaken, as if after a long sleep in a laboratory or in heaven. But a copy of our memories, of our thoughts and even of our soul, is not us. This is our copy, no different from a twin. And there is no twin who looks at his brother and thinks to himself, "Here I am." Replication or resurrection cannot reboot us into another plane of existence.
Third, our unique identity is more than the sum of our stored memories. It also includes our personal point of view. neuroscientist Kenneth Hayworth, Chief Scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and President of the Brain Preservation Foundation, divides our identity into two parts: I-the memories (MEMself) and I-the point of view (POVself). He believes that if they copied a perfect copy of the me-memories into a computer (or, for the sake of discussion, resurrected it in heaven), the me-point-of-view would wake up along with it. I disagree with him. If he is right, then when they do the thing without the person's death, two copies of me-memories will be created, and with each of them a copy of me-point of view will arise, and each of them will look at the world with their own unique eyes. From this moment, each of them will turn to a separate life path, will accumulate different memories that will be based on different experiences. We will not suddenly have two points of view. If we die, there is no mechanism by which the viewpoint self can pass from the brain to the computer (or to the resurrected body). A point of view depends entirely on the continuity of the self from moment to moment, even if that continuity is interrupted by sleep or anesthesia. Death is a permanent interruption of continuity, and our personal point of view cannot pass from our mind to some other medium, neither here nor in the next world.
If that sounds discouraging to you, it is exactly the opposite. The awareness that we are mortal is encouraging because if this is so, then every moment, every day and every relationship has meaning. Deep involvement in the world and in relationships with other thinking and feeling people brings meaning and a sense of purpose. Each of us is unique in the world and in history, both in location and time. Our genome and connectome cannot be duplicated, each of us is an individual who has been given awareness that he is mortal, and self-awareness about what this means. And what is the meaning? Life is not a temporary rehearsal for a great show that will take place in the next world - it is our only appearance in the great drama of the cosmos here and now.
23 תגובות
All the way to the bank hahahaha
Wow you dug!!! My memories and my vision are definitely not separate things! We walk hand in hand all the way to the end and back!
Miracles,
1. A silicon neuron does not need to be physically lengthened, it is sufficient that it correctly simulates the effect of this elongation on the computation of the network, for example by adding a small delay to the arrival time of the pulse to the neuron body.
2. Both the electrical activity inside the neuron is chemical and the activity in the synapses is also chemical and they managed to simulate this very well in the human brain project, so why wouldn't they be able to simulate the chemical effect of hormones or alcohol as well? Maybe they actually already imagined at least part of it, it's just an effect on the synapses.
3. Good.
4. Yes, this should come to mind, I was just trying to understand why you claim that a cognitive chip cannot be plastic like a biological neural network, and it seemed to me that you gave the size issue as one of the reasons.
rival
1. Neurons also change physically. They get longer and create new connections. How can a silicon neuron do such an action?
2. The neuron should respond to chemicals (alcohol for example) and hormones like a normal neuron. The brain is very affected by these substances.
3. The neurons are sensitive to changes in the energy source in their environment. Here it may be possible to connect a complex power source that will sense what is happening in the brain...
4. It should go into the head, shouldn't it?
Miracles,
You raise a lot of speculations here that I don't think are all that well founded:
1. "The same chip will not only have to imitate the computational part of a particular neuron, but also the development of that neuron over time"
Why? Is it not enough that the neural network applied to the chip learns and changes and the connections in it are updated according to the learning process?
2. "It should be identical to a real neuron both biologically and chemically"
Why? How did you get to that?
3. "She will have to consume energy of the same type"
You mean she'll have to work on oxygen and sugars? Again, how did you figure that out?
4. "And being mechanically similar, it can't be a big deal"
Why? Who told you that a large neural network will not function like a small neural network? Did the giant computers of the past that occupied an entire building not know how to perform calculations that today's pocket calculator can perform?
rival
The same chip will not only have to imitate the computational part of a particular neuron, but also the development of that neuron over time.
That is, it should be identical to a real neuron both biologically and chemically.
And also... in other respects. It will have to consume the same kind of energy and also be mechanically similar (it can't be anything big).
Of course, the energy consumption should also be reasonable, we don't want to cook someone's eyes...
anonymous,
Yes, the subject is familiar to me and the truth is that it has been known for quite a few years, it is not such a new discovery. This is part of what is called the "flexible brain" or the plasticity of the brain.
But Nissim claims that I am not referring to "facts" and that a cognitive chip will not allow the brain to be plastic. I don't find logic in his words (because a cognitive chip definitely knows how to learn and change accordingly) and I'm still waiting for him to answer me and explain himself.
rival
In recent years, neuroscientists have discovered an interesting phenomenon that occurs in the brain:
When a certain area of the brain is damaged - another area of the brain (undamaged area; normal cells), which does not trust the actions performed by the damaged part - "comes into action" and performs the same actions (which the damaged part would have performed) in its place.
Miracles,
That is, a cognitive chip knows how to change (break connections, connect connections, change tension levels in existing connections) and be plastic according to the inputs it receives, so why do you claim that it will not allow the brain to be plastic? What is your claim based on?
Miracles,
I still don't understand why you claimed earlier that a cognitive chip would "stop the brain's plasticity". After all, every average digital chip knows how to perform billions of switchings per second (using transistors) and also knows how to change voltages in an analog way - more voltage, less voltage, similar to a synapse.
So why do you claim that a cognitive digital chip (of the type made by IBM) will not allow the brain to be plastic? What is the logic behind this argument?
Ram
It is absolutely wrong to look at the brain as a hard disk. It is more correct (and not entirely accurate) to look at the brain as a network of tens of billions of computers. Each such computer has both a hard disk and a RAM memory.
The brain is much more complex than a collection of such computers. Consider the following case: you ask a friend for his phone number and type it into your phone. This number is in your memory for a short time only. But, where is he? It is not in the area where you store the numbers you know, but in the area of the memory that deals with language. This is the same area that understands sentences - when you hear a sentence, you have to briefly remember all its words, right? And to remember a word - you have to remember all its syllables. But, even a syllable is not a "house" in computer language. A syllable is a short sequence of sounds. So do we keep these sounds for a short time?
Now - this whole explanation is also extremely partial. If your friend talks to you and says "my father is very sick 034568835 are you going to the movie tomorrow?" Oh, that was my phone number - write it down." Will you be able to write down the number now? Probably his. I can make it even more complicated - it turns out that what we hear depends on what we are thinking at that moment, and even our mood!
Do you still think that the brain is something simple that includes a disk and software?
You wrote: "But this cannot happen if the brain is dead. This is why CPR must be performed as close as possible to a heart attack or drowning: if oxygen-rich blood does not reach the brain, the nerve cells die and with them the memories they store are erased." But here I think you skipped a step and therefore reached the wrong result.
If we assume that the theories are correct then the mind is the "tool" or "mechanism" (like HARDDISK for that matter).
The brain cells die from this lack of oxygen like the transformer in the hard drive will be destroyed.
Can and the information is still there (for example at the quantum level) but the broken "mechanism" cannot use it.
All in all, your review is fascinating and the conclusion is interesting - try to give your opinion on this point as well.
Unfortunately, it seems that we won't know soon what the correct answer is (neither scientific nor religious) because for that you probably have to die (and from there, in the meantime, no one has returned yet...)
Miracles,
"I'm not saying that in the future we won't be able to create synthetic neurons - on the contrary! I'm convinced it is.'
If you are sure that in the future we will be able to create synthetic neurons that know how to make and break connections, then there is no reason why you should not agree with me that such a synthetic neuron could replace a biological neuron in the brain.
rival
The cells in the brain are alive. They reproduce and die. Connections are made and broken. A synthetic cell is not like that - it is an electronic component that has several connections.
Electronics is not at the level of biology - we are very, very far from creating an electronic component with such properties. A component that should also be sensitive to the various hormones in the brain, the amount of oxygen and alcohol in the blood, and so on.
The claim that the brain is "hardware" and consciousness/thoughts/emotions and so on are "software" is just nonsense. Our mind is not a computer just like the body is not a robot.
I'm not saying that in the future we won't be able to create synthetic neurons - on the contrary! I am convinced that it is. And I am convinced that we will build machines that are much "smarter" than us (if we can ever say what wisdom is). But the idea that an electronic chip could replace the brain is a demagoguery of people who make money from the matter.
Miracles,
You are not writing down facts, you are just trying to convince yourself that you are right. After all, I already explained to you before that the cognitive chips will preserve the plasticity of the brain and that new connections will be created and old connections will weaken. Why then do you continue to claim that brain plasticity will stop? How did you get to that? You have created a straw man and you are attacking him instead of addressing the facts.
rival
The problem is that people get excited, without understanding. The experiments that were done proved that stopping the "plasticity" of the brain does serious damage.
I'm a little worried that Shermer is quoting Chopra, who is quite a charlatan. Shermer knows this - and even makes fun of him at every opportunity.
I know you don't want to discuss facts. I write for others who are interested in understanding.
Miracles,
The brain changes all the time but not so quickly and not so dramatically that it is impossible to reproduce. The you of now (your personality, your memories) is not much different from the miracles of yesterday morning or the miracles of two weeks ago. If they take care to replace pieces of brain quickly enough (say within two or three days from the moment that piece of brain was scanned and copied into a chip) nothing dramatic should happen and the person going through the process will remain with the same personality, with the same memories and with the same self-awareness that he had.
And of course, even in the chip, new connections will constantly be created and old connections will be destroyed, just like in a biological piece of brain.
But Nissim, we have already been in this discussion dozens of times in the past, do you want us to repeat previous discussions again? It seems a bit pointless to me.
rival
Forgetting a tiny detail - the brain changes all the time: connections are made and destroyed, and even new cells are formed. Experiments were carried out that showed that if this mechanism is damaged then the brain is damaged.
It wouldn't hurt for Mr. Kurzweil to learn a little about the brain 🙂 For others too…
Nostradamus,
I completely agree with you and we have already had quite a few discussions on this topic here. This is an old idea that I first heard from the futurist Ray Kurzweil (I don't know if it is his original idea), and the idea talks about the gradual replacement of pieces of the brain with corresponding cognitive chips into which the mapping of the synaptic connections of the piece of the brain they are supposed to replace has been copied.
In this way your consciousness will continuously and gradually move into the computer, and it will still remain you and will not be just a copy that is a spring of your "twin brother". At each step of the process it will be possible to talk to you and ask you if it is still you, and if you want to continue to the next step.
In my opinion, this is a really beautiful and original idea that elegantly solves all the problems raised in this article, and I believe that someday it will also be possible.
A thought experiment (theoretical, obviously
Technically we are not
Name) . Suppose we had the possibility to intervene inside the human brain, to change circuits, memories and everything, now suppose two people are in a deep coma, one in Tel Aviv and the other in Los Angeles, we have uploaded a complete mapping of the brains of both, and now we have replaced the memories while in the coma, The experiences, the neural circuits unique to each one, from one to the other and fully, now that they will wake up, will Bel Aviv want to go to Los Angeles and vice versa? And if we assume that it is, then nothing has changed in the body, we have just changed the consciousness? A simpler experiment. Let's say we succeed in replacing the whole body in sleep, part by part, will the one who will be restored be the same one or its twin, after all one body dies, even if in parts and gradually, how is this different from the exact copying of the consciousness?
"The awareness that we are mortal is encouraging because if this is the case, then every moment, every day and every relationship has meaning."
Precisely because we are mortal, nothing matters! not the other way around.
Everything you will ever experience will go to waste along with the body.. Everyone lives every day in a lie that has meaning and globally denies their own death.
The article is very annoying to read and the writer is a total jerk. There is no such thing as a person's point of view that is not expressed in the mind in a way that cannot be duplicated. Everything can be replicated theoretically, and of course preferably before death to verify the correctness of the replication.
I am afraid that the author has not read enough MDV books, and therefore his discussion is somewhat superficial.
First of all, clone the brain when the person dies? It's better to clone while he's alive.
Second, what will happen when we find the deltas between versions that have undergone parallel development and update one with the memories of the other? We can thus cause "identification" and sharing of experiences between the person and his copy, or between two copies. From here things just start to get interesting.
And what if small parts of the brain are replaced each time with a suitable electronic component? Isn't that us yet?