Kurzweil spoke in a conference call from his home in Boston to the conference attendees and answered the questions of Shlomo Gerdman and Dr.Roey Tsezana
The futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil appeared yesterday in a video conference before the participants of the iNNOVEX 2015 conference that took place at the Avenue Convention Center in Kiryat Airport.
Kurzweil answered the questions of conference moderator Shlomo Gerdman and Dr.Roey Tsezana from Tel Aviv University, author of the book "The Guide to the Future".
Kurzweil is known as the one who promotes the theory of the singularity - a fusion of many technologies that will bring about enormous innovation in a short time in many areas of life, and especially in the field of health.
Referring to what was said a few minutes before by Dr. Henry Samueli, co-founder and chairman of Broadcom about Moore's Law and Disruptive Innovation as expressed in Moore's Law which basically means that at first there was a disruptive invention - the transistor that replaced vacuum tubes, and then a development evolutionary.
According to Kurzweil, Moore's Law is just a special case of a larger generalization of a law he calls acceleration of return. In the case of Moore's Law, it is an exponential curve that extends from vacuum tubes through transistors to chips, and although the technologies have been replaced, the pace of innovation has been maintained. This despite all the upheavals in the 20th century: the world wars, the Cold War, the Great Depression. All these did not affect the rate of development of computers
But not only computers, in fact there are many aspects of information technology: "Biology is now information technology. We can program the software in our body and this is not a metaphor. Genes are sequences of bases. We can remove genes, change genes, insert genes into stem cells that will allow, for example, kidney growth. Stem cell technology is already being used in relatively simple organs - and first and foremost in the rehabilitation of the heart after a heart attack thanks to innovation in Israel. Medicine is also information technology - a lot can be gained by using big data on medical data.
All this happening is different from our intuition about the future, which is linear. In linear progression you start counting 1,2,3,4 and exponential progression 1,2,4,8. It doesn't seem like a big difference, but in 30 steps the difference between the two methods reaches billions. Our smartphone is a billion times more powerful than the phones that were around when I was young. And they will continue to evolve a billion times.
Innovation has an impact on people. For example, the device I developed that reads to the blind what is happening in their surroundings, which once required a volume like that of a washing machine. With the synthesizer a child in kindergarten can play the whole musical composition. My father was a musician and had to hire an orchestra to hear his compositions with a full orchestra.
Dr.Roey Tsezana: "Innovators are always met with ridicule. How do you overcome it?
Kurzweil: Name two areas where I meet skeptics - in inventions. In the 70's we talked about a device that would read anything for the blind. Many people doubted whether it could be done and if so it would probably take many years. But you only need to find a few people to help you in the scientific part, few entrepreneurs in such an environment as in the US and Israel will know how to get the most out of it.
"Another area in which I encounter skepticism is my predictions for the future. The predictions for decades seem very exaggerated in their opinion. The challenges we had a thousand years ago were linear, so we developed a linear view of the future. The encounter with skepticism is mainly about long predictions." However, Kurzweil points out that children born into this innovative rhythm accept it more naturally.
Dr. Cezana: My son is two years and eight months old. how long will he live
"I wrote several books dealing with prolonging life. To achieve this it is necessary to cross three bridges. In the first phase, the intention is to slow down aging by finding cures for diseases that cause early death. The second stage is reprogramming the body using stem cells - Israel is a world leader in writing software that will repair the body (in general Israel is an important place for innovation). The third bridge - nanotechnology that will surpass biology: robots in the circulatory system that will overcome the immune system. This is a wake-up call not only for children born today, people my age, the baby boomers if they extend their lives at least 15 years they may cross the first bridge to stop aging and prevent diseases.
"My children are in their 20s and 30s. They will surely have the opportunity to prolong life by crossing the additional bridges.
315 תגובות
Eyal
You are welcome to look at the related documents on the website of the relevant office http://energy.gov.il/Pages/Default.aspx
Bureaucracy and delays are nothing new in governments in general and Israeli governments in particular. Such a delay is standard and is not raising dust in drawers. In 2008 the tender was postponed to the beginning of 2009, and in 2009 it was postponed to the summer of 2010.
You impose the influence of Netanyahu Kurzwal and Peres where there is no need for them and without justification. If it was as important to Netanyahu as you claim, it shouldn't have taken another two years (and more) to reach the winner of the tender.
Okay, to be fair, I checked and found that you are right, there really was a government decision on the issue in 2007, but the tender was supposed to take place in 2008, and as mentioned, it did not happen.
Like many other government decisions, this decision raised dust in the drawers, and I find it hard to believe that without the push and enthusiasm of Bibi Netanyahu and Shimon Peres and the inspiration they received from the words of Ray Kurzweil, this project would have become something practical.
When Bibi does a good thing, it is allowed to admit it and not point only to the bad thing he did (personally, I don't intend to pick on him).
walking death, I think you are confused, give a reference for your words, according to the article the tender was won only in 2013.
Maybe you're getting confused with some solar energy project you've read about before, not this project.
weak,
You're right, I'm his.
I hope for you that you have an apartment. I have.
Of course, Bibi is the worst prime minister than Molik. And you are the best prime minister. 🙂
Eyal
I just wanted to point out that the establishment of solar power plants in Ashlim in the Negev is something that was announced already in 2007 (if you care that it has something to do with Netanyahu or Kurzwal)
Shmulik
Don't feed him. It does not contribute to the discussion.
Regarding Bibi - be careful not to eat everything that the media publishes. There are many things that happen that are not published, and sometimes what we hear is just a "show" played by both sides.
Bibi is really a bad prime minister, the worst ever. There is not a single mistake in what I wrote about him (now on Channel 10 it was reported that the USA completely cut us off from the intelligence on Iran, how nice of us!) And you have never, ever contributed anything to the discussion, but on the contrary, you made my father throw you off the site.
Eyal
Do you see where we've come? "Bibi is a bad prime minister" - as Shmulik said. Indeed this sentence sums up the whole discussion about quantum computers.. right? )) I even remember Yassin's release... ah... what a scientific breakthrough that was in the field of brain research. In short, it seems to me that you have understood what can be learned from the commenters here on the site.
Indeed frustrating
Your frustration is understandable.
I really noticed that there was not much thought on your part throughout the whole discussion.
Here is the frustrated Nissim showing his true face, well done Nissim.
Shmulik
do not be angry. I made a mistake when I tried to have a discussion with two arrogant uneducated people, who all they have done in their lives is read a populist book without any critical eye.
Not an iota of thought went into this miserable discussion. A mob of bloated nads…
The importance of these prophecies is not necessarily in their fulfillment but in the fact that they were uttered. Kurzweil participates in conferences, publishes his thoughts, others are required for his claims, the industry follows these predictions and developing technologies. As Yogi Bera said (and also before him): it is difficult to predict, especially about the future.
Miracles,
Anonymous MS, this is Rafa.Im all he ever did on this forum was dirty and whining.
Bibi is the worst prime minister that has ever been here. He is a reset zero that is unable to do anything, except to destroy, destroy and annihilate. We will not forget Rabin's murder, the Wall tunnel where 16 of our soldiers died, his lies (remember the Bezeq deniers?), Shihror Yassin's release, his defeat against Hamas at a rock solid for the 60 deaths of our heroes, the insane cost of living, and his failure in the face of its nuclearization of Iran On this subject, Bibi has increased and is doing everything to destroy our chance of doing something to the point of excluding us from the talks on the elimination of relations with the USA. When it was possible to do something, he is of course a friend to do nothing, as usual. zero. What did Meir Dagan say about him? "The one who brought the greatest strategic damage to Israel on the Iranian issue is Netanyahu" and "All our professional bodies opposed military action. Netanyahu should have taken responsibility for the decision. But he didn't want to. I've never seen him take responsibility.' This comes from someone who is the head of the Mossad and Sharon's protégé (they answer, not Ish Meretz)! What Netanyahu said about the left: As far as you are concerned, you did not return them, but Begin returned Sinai, Sharon returned Gaza, and Bibi (!!!) returned Hebron. The left did not return anything (perhaps with the exception of an exchange of territories with Jordan in the peace agreement with it).
So why do I say that Rafa is whining? Because the last time I wrote some of these things here, and especially about Netanyahu's inability to do anything, Rafa whined that the opposition does not allow Netanyahu to do anything. Zero is reset.
PS - "Indeed an impressive project.
I see no connection to Kurzville.'
Miracles, if you didn't understand, I'll explain to you - Ray Kurzweil's optimistic vision of the huge potential of solar energy and his meeting with Netanyahu and Peres were one of the factors that pushed Israel to invest so much in this issue.
Anonymous explain to him 🙂
Nissim I'm sorry, but although the topic is interesting I think Mitsino, I have other things to do.
I authorize an anonymous user to continue in my place 🙂
: )
Eyal
Do you understand? "You lower the level of discussion." Why are you doing that? 🙂 🙂
Eyal
Interesting, I didn't know. An impressive project indeed.
I see no connection to Kurzville, or connection to our discussion.
I made several arguments on the subject we discussed. It's a shame you lower the level of discussion so low. On the other hand, your groupie does it better than you 🙂
Miracles,
Regarding the expert committee, I did not follow, but here are the results in the field:
http://m.ynet.co.il/Article.aspx?id=4629504
Yes Yes. Even when you try to write something funny, miracles, you can't. 🙂 What a loser..
You also did not answer my question:
What bothers you that your prime minister does things that benefit you and your children? Is it just because you are jealous of him and he is the one who decides for you (for your benefit) and not someone else?
Now, it is clear that out of hundreds of his predictions you can find some that are wrong, but in the main things he was right and right. The computing power in relation to the cost is increasing at an exponential rate, the computing power that smartphones have today is thousands of times more than that of a computer from 60 years ago that took up almost an entire building and cost tens of millions of dollars.
You get caught up in the marginal things instead of seeing the picture as a whole, just like your attitude about brain imaging and what will be possible in the future, you get so caught up in the little details and the details of the details that you fail to see the whole picture and where things are progressing.
Eyal
I meant that Bibi is not exactly a scientific expert. To me he is a great demagogue. The speech from 2009, since then, what has changed? Has the government established a committee of experts as promised? I'm asking seriously, because I don't know.
Miracles, just a few messages ago you asked me with a laugh:
"He convinced Bibi." Are you kidding me?"
So the speech I linked to is the answer to your ridicule and scorn.
Eyal
Bibi understands technology like I understand Chinese, so if you bring Bibi as proof of Kurzweil's predictive ability then we have a problem...
If you want to deny Kurzweil's false prophecies then… your right. If you want, start at the Wikipedia entry on Kurzville and you'll find links to everything I've said. I'm sure you don't want to, do you?
Anyway, my claims have nothing to do with what Kurzweil said or didn't say. It seems to me, don't be offended, that you don't understand at all what I'm talking about. Too bad you even try to understand. In my opinion, the loss is all yours.
Miracles,
Again - I'm not kidding you, listen carefully to what Benjamin Netanyahu says about Ray Kurzweil's vision, starting at minute 7:00 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9-XQphOTDY
Miracles, this is what Netanyahu says only a few months after meeting Ray Kurzweil at the 2009 presidential conference:
http://www.globes.co.il/news/m/article.aspx?did=1000539522
So no, I'm really not kidding.
No I'm not kidding you, and you can laugh to your heart's content.
Let's start with the fact that you bring an exact quote of his words, and not an indirect criticism in which it is claimed that he said such and such, first of all let's see that the things were really said and not taken out of context. Look for a review on Google, I also know.
anonymous
Your tongue is brown.
Everyone laughs at you, miracles. 🙂
And what bothers you that one genius convinced another genius to carry out a very important move that benefits the whole nation? Are you resisting doing something that benefits everyone just because you feel like one who can't get anywhere near their sole?
Miracles you are ridiculous.
"He convinced Bibi." Are you kidding me?
Regarding "Moore's Law":
In 2005, they predicted that Moore's Law (doubling the speed of calculation every year and a half) would last at least another 15 years, but already in 2013 the rate was halved!
Kurzweil's response is that an array of PCs is actually a "parallel computer" and therefore his predictions correspond to reality. How do you say "yes, but...".
Eyal
Our man on cancer:
He also seems to have had high hopes a decade ago for the antitumor compounds called angiogenesis inhibitors. His footnotes direct attention to a front-page New York Times story from May 3, 1998 that is notorious in science-writing circles for having grossly overhyped the promise of the research. In his book's formal discussion, Kurzweil merely suggests that angiogenesis inhibitors would help to reduce cancer. Yet in a puckish chapter where Kurzweil chats with a fictional interviewer from the future, he has her say that his prediction was "actually quite understated. Bio-engineered treatments, particularly antiangiogenesis drugs...have eliminated most forms of cancer as a major killer." To which Kurzweil replies, "Well, that's just not a prediction I was willing to make." Talk about having it both ways.
Nissim, believe me I have read and heard a lot from him, and I have never heard such a prediction from him about cancer.
He also never claimed to make a forecast of hi-tech avalanches or similar things, his forecast deals with computer-based information technology (and by the way today, after the cracking of DNA, our genome also became information technology) and he claims that these technologies are developing at an ever-accelerating rate, that is, at an exponential rate that allows Predicting exactly where they will be in so and so years is not bad at all.
Just a few days ago, an article was published here (on the science website) about a forecast by researchers regarding green energies that will be more economical than oil and gas in Asia within 10 years. This forecast is very close to Kurzweil's forecast (in his book from 2005) according to which by the end of the 20s of this century we will be able to rely exclusively on green energy and we will be able to give up oil and gas.
He even convinced Bibi Netanyahu on the issue, and this is one of the reasons why you hear about a lot of investment in this area lately (so we won't be dependent on Arab oil either, which is a distinct Israeli interest).
As far as I know Moore's Law has not failed, tell me about it.
Nissim, believe me I have read and heard a lot from him, and I have never heard such a prediction from him about cancer.
He also never claimed to make predictions of hi-tech avalanches or similar things, his predictions deal with computer-based information technology (and by the way today, after the cracking of DNA, our genome has also become computerized information) and he claims that these technologies are developing at an ever-increasing rate, i.e. at an exponential rate which makes it possible to predict with not bad accuracy at all where they will be in so and so years.
Just a few days ago, an article was published here (on the science website) about a forecast by researchers regarding green energies that will be more economical than oil and gas in Asia within 10 years. This forecast is very close to Kurzweil's forecast (in his book from 2005) according to which by the end of the 20s of this century we will be able to rely exclusively on green energy, and we will be able to completely give up oil and gas.
He even really convinced Bibi Netanyahu on this issue, which is why you hear about a lot of investment in the field lately (that way we won't be dependent on Arab oil, a distinct Israeli interest).
Biologists say his understanding of biology is baffling.
He did not foresee the "fall" of Moore's Law.
He predicted the rise of the Internet, but they predicted it years before him.
He did not foresee the hi-tech crash of the year 2000.
I do disagree with his futurism. He stated that Cancer long ago should have been just the name of an arthropod and a constellation.
Eyal
Kurzweil is a genius with certificates. I don't disagree with that.
Eyal
Not true.
Look, computers used to have light bulbs attached to them and the computer was the size of a room (you've probably heard of it).
Today computers don't look like that. Although they continue to perform the same actions.
Your perception of quantum computers is wrong.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-secret-of-quantum-computing-0303086
You need to understand that in order to perform very complex quantum calculations and provide an accurate answer at the quantum level for phenomena and processes in nature, you need a computer that knows how to perform these calculations. Today a classic computer is not able to do this in a reasonable time.
Release Willie lol 🙂
If you want, I am ready to publish the message on your behalf, just put its content in some accessible place on the net, in some neglected forum or in a temporary email address.
Eyal
Eyal
The man is a genius with receipts. There is no debate about that.
But, his predictions are less successful than everyone thinks. He missed the hi-tech market crash of 2000 by a huge margin. He was grossly mistaken in his assessment of the increase in computing power. Although he was right in his assessment of the availability of the Internet, it was predicted years before him.
According to him, the crab should have long been just a name for a marine arthropod.
Please - release my comments!
Eyal
The man is a genius with receipts. There is no debate about that.
But, his predictions are less successful than everyone thinks. He missed the hi-tech market crash of 2000 by a huge margin. He was grossly mistaken in his assessment of the increase in computing power. Although he was right in his assessment of the availability of the Internet, it was predicted years before him.
According to him, the crab should have long been just a name for a marine arthropod.
A lot of geniuses also talked nonsense, especially when they talked outside their field.
Not pretty, give this smart Jew some respect.
Eyal
Every time I say a bad word about RC I get blocked
Eyal
I only copied the first sentence of the comment and still got blocked. The response refers to Kurzweil's predictions. In particular, how often he is wrong. There are many allegations against him, including the fact that he denies his mistakes, and including the fact that he has no understanding of biology...
The truth is that there is a fairly simple way to release the reaction (I have also come across this several times) take it as a mental challenge, or as they say, start activating the gray cells in your head 🙂
Unblock my first blocked comment. The rest is attempts to overcome this nonsense...
Maybe we should balance the discussion a bit with some things about Ray Kurzweil and his predictions.
1. Kurzweil made a big mistake in his assessment of the development of hi-tech companies in the first decade of the current century.
Maybe we should balance the discussion a bit with some things about Ray Kurzweil and his predictions.
1. Kurzweil made a big mistake in his assessment of the development of hi-tech companies in the first decade of the current century.
2. In 2005 he said that by 2010 we will no longer see computers, because they will all be hidden in consumer products ("transparent computer"). Definately not…
3. Kurzweil firmly states, contrary to the opinion of many experts in the field, that a computer will be as smart as a human in less than 15 years. In 2005, they predicted that Moore's Law (doubling the speed of calculation every year and a half) would last at least another 15 years, but already in 2013 the rate was halved!
Maybe we should balance the discussion a bit with some things about Ray Kurzweil and his predictions.
1. Kurzweil made a big mistake in his assessment of the development of hi-tech companies in the first decade of the current century.
2. In 2005 he said that by 2010 we will no longer see computers, because they will all be hidden in consumer products ("transparent computer"). Definately not…
3. Kurzweil firmly states, contrary to the opinion of many experts in the field, that a computer will be as smart as a human in less than 15 years. In 2005, they predicted that Moore's Law (doubling the speed of calculation every year and a half) would last at least another 15 years, but already in 2013 the rate was halved!
4. Ray Kurzweil predicted the development of the Internet. Yes but …. He is not the first. Even the movie "Tron" predicted the rise of the Internet, years before Kurtzwill.
5. Kurzweil predicted that by this day there would be no more cancer. He is also an expert in this...
6. Kurzweil who predicted that today most chips will be 3D... it's really not so.
7. Kurzweil never admits when he is wrong…
Ray Kurzweil is a genius and has done wonderful things. But, when he starts talking about things that are not in his field then he is less successful.
Hi anonymous user, regarding quantum computers I have already addressed this before, I am copying my message again, I would love to hear your response to things:
"You are caught very strongly on the topic of the enormous speed of a quantum computer but completely ignore its mode of operation.
In order for a quantum computer to solve a problem, you first need to create an array of qubits that includes the entire possibility space *of the specific problem you want to solve* and then make the system collapse to the correct answer (which is part of that possibility space).
So let's say that you now have a high-performance quantum computer in your hand ready for action, in which you will explain to me illustratively how you use it to simulate the neural networks that exist in the brain and how you use it to simulate the electrical voltages and currents that run through this neural network, and the synapses that change dynamically during learning and memory processes ".
Please release my comment 🙂
Maybe we should balance the discussion a bit with some things about Ray Kurzweil and his predictions.
1. Kurzweil made a big mistake in his assessment of the development of hi-tech companies in the first decade of the current century.
2. In 2005 he said that by 2010 we will no longer see computers, because they will all be hidden in consumer products ("transparent computer"). Definately not…
3. Kurzweil firmly states, contrary to the opinion of many experts in the field, that a computer will be as smart as a human in less than 15 years. In 2005, they predicted that Moore's Law (doubling the speed of calculation every year and a half) would last at least another 15 years, but already in 2013 the rate was halved!
4. Ray Kurzweil predicted the development of the Internet. Yes but …. He is not the first. Even the movie "Tron" predicted the rise of the Internet, years before Kurtzwill.
5. Kurzweil predicted that by this day there would be no more cancer. He is also an expert in this...
6. Kurzweil who predicted that today most chips will be 3D... it's really not so.
7. Kurzweil never admits when he is wrong…
Ray Kurzweil is a genius and has done wonderful things. But, when he starts talking about things that are not in his field then he is less successful.
Here's a quote worth reading, what professionals think about Kurzwil:
Still, a lot of people think Kurzweil is completely bonkers and/or full of a certain messy byproduct of ordinary biological functions. They include PZ Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who has used his blog to poke fun at Kurzweil and other armchair futurists who, according to Myers, rely on junk science and don't understand basic biology. "I am completely baffled by Kurzweil's popularity, and in particular the respect he gets in some circles, since his claims simply do not hold up to even casually critical examination," writes Myers. He says Kurzweil's Singularity theories are closer to a deluded religious movement than they are to science. "It's a New Age spiritualism—that's all it is," Myers says. "Even geeks want to find God somewhere, and Kurzweil provides it for them."
And of course now the anonymous idiot will come and say I'm talking nonsense.
Eyal
Indeed things are as you wrote. But regarding the "20 years" it is not accurate. It will take longer to get there. This will happen when there will be cont computers that knew how to do the job as I mentioned.
As for miracles, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. If you explain to him then you must have noticed that you will not confuse him with facts. If you try to learn then you won't learn anything from him. So anyway you are wasting your time.
Israel Shafira
that's what I said. If consciousness is in the brain then how is it in the whole body? What's more, there is no evidence that consciousness is any part of the brain. It is more likely that it is the result of the combined activity of many factors (parts) in the brain.
Eyal
I'm starting to understand... EEG measures voltages on the scalp, no one pushes electrodes into the "cortex". Beta will clarify a few things:
1. Short-term memories are not preserved in unconsciousness and are not expressed in permanent connections between neurons. On the other hand, it is impossible to have a conversation without this mechanism. Therefore, I don't think it is possible to "simulate consciousness" without also simulating this mechanism. No brain dead investigation will help here.
2. Personality is not kept only in the cerebral cortex. It is scattered in several places, including the "little brain". The brain is much more complex than you think, and I am just a network of neurons with connections and weights.
3. The phantom pain is a real problem, just like your arrogance. By the way - earlier you lied, you said that you are not rude...
You are also nervous, withdrawn, and unable to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. So you read a book. wow
I won't bother to explain to you, because you have no desire to learn. I don't think you can either.
Miracles,
"Did I do something wrong here?"
1. Yes, you were wrong in that only one message after I explained to you that EEG measures the activity in the cerebral cortex only, you claim that I said exactly the opposite, and that this is an indication of complete lack of activity in the entire brain.
A moment after I told you a certain thing, in response to the same message you claim that I said the exact opposite, it's amazing.
2. Do you agree that when an EEG shows zero electrical activity, this indicates that there is no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex?
If so, how do you explain that people whose EEG showed zero activity in their cerebral cortex came back to life and did not lose their memories or their personality? After all, memories are stored in the cerebral cortex, and you claimed earlier that without electrical activity, memories cannot be stored (you even gave me an example of a hard disk that can store information without electricity, as opposed to the brain).
3. "If we create a consciousness without all the organs, how do we know for sure that this consciousness will not suffer from phantom pains?"
Tell me miracles, do you see now what I'm talking about, and why is it so difficult to have conversations with you? How after I emphasized to you in at least 10 different messages that the brain simulation we will create will indeed be connected to a body with organs and sensors, you are again talking to me about consciousness without organs? After all, I emphasized to you again and again and again... That she will be connected to the organs, so why are you asking me such a question?
Miracles, the visualization of the brain that we will create will indeed be connected to the organs, yes it will be connected to the organs, yes it will be connected to the organs - how many more times will I have to repeat this?
4. Again I tell you, this question of the phantom pains is not related and not relevant at all to our discussion. Leave the moral questions aside it is not interesting at the moment, the question is whether or not we can technologically create an intelligent and conscious simulation of a human brain.
5. "The examples you give are not of brain imaging - they are of artificial intelligence. The fact that there is a little imagination in the way of realization does not change anything. Do you realize that's two different things?'
No, I really don't understand. At the moment we still don't have enough computing power to perform simulations of an entire brain, so on the way there we perform modest simulations of smaller neural networks, and are already getting very impressive results. So what does this mean about much larger and much more complex neural networks that technology will allow us to create in 20 years for example? Don't the beautiful results already obtained today allow us to be a little more optimistic about the future? I think so, and happily I'm not the only one.
Eyal
I know Ramsendran's (work) very well. He has only partial success, and this success is based on a normal vision system.
The examples you give are not of brain imaging - they are of artificial intelligence. The fact that there is a little imagination in the way of realization does not change anything. Do you understand that these are two different things?
Eyal
Phantom pains are felt in people who have had a certain organ removed - and sometimes when they were born without a certain organ. So - if we create a consciousness without all the organs, how do we know for sure that this consciousness will not suffer from phantom pains?
Eyal
You claim that our consciousness is software that runs on the brain's hardware. I mean, and you also gave an example, you can stop the electrical activity and bring it back to regain consciousness. As proof that there is no electrical activity you gave the example that no electrical activity was measured in NDE cases.
I explained to you that EEG only tests the cerebral cortex, and therefore (as it says in the article you linked to) - it is incorrect to say that there was no brain activity.
Did I do something wrong here?
Miracles,
Believe me, I'm far from being rude, but understand that it's really frustrating to talk to someone who, throughout an entire conversation, insists on not understanding simple things that are explained to him over and over again, and what's more, distorts the things that were said to him and claims that completely different things were said.
I tell you in the message on the previous page that if an EEG measures zero electrical activity it means that there was no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex only! Not in the depths of the mind, and I even emphasize this to you. And in a response message immediately afterwards you claim that according to the words of the word it indicates that the whole brain is not active!
Listen, this is no longer related to the topic of discussion here, this is a basic ability of reading comprehension... How can I have a conversation with you when you repeatedly twist my words and do not understand what I am writing to you? Really no offense intended, do you have any kind of problem with attention and concentration?
Regarding your question, what do the phantom pains suddenly have to do with the matter? The basic question we discussed throughout this conversation is whether we can perform a simulation of a human brain, one that will have the same cognitive abilities and self-awareness as a human brain.
Are people with phantom pain people without self-awareness? Aren't they intelligent? So why can't a computer with phantom pains be conscious and intelligent, and in general - why would it have phantom pains in the first place if you don't cut off its hand?
Again, you raise an issue here that has a very loose connection to our discussion, in the same way you could have asked me how we would handle the imaging of a human brain that has depression...
Although your question is really not relevant to our discussion, here is a nice way to solve the phantom pain problem, start at minute 10:30
http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind?language=he
"You are mixing brain imaging with artificial intelligence. Amazing things are being done in the field of AI, but it has nothing to do with consciousness, and that's what I'm trying to explain to you again and again."
Nissim, you claimed (or at least very clearly hinted) that without performing a complete simulation of the entire early visual processing process that is carried out in the simulated eye, you will not be able to understand the world... Doesn't the article I linked to a little throw the rug out of this argument of yours?
Here you have here a neural network that understands well enough what is shown in front of it on the screen and manages to play and reach the level of a human player, how did it manage to do this without pre-processing and without eyes with a retina and a million and a half nerves?
Why can't this early image processing that you put such a strong emphasis on actually take place in the neural network itself? Can it only occur in the eye? I'm just trying to understand your logic.
Eyal
You take it as if someone is trying to hurt you personally! "Go scared..." - are you a little boy? Please, try not to speak rudely, it's not pleasant for anyone (except, maybe, you).
You are mixing brain imaging with "artificial intelligence". Amazing things are being done in the field of AI, but it has nothing to do with consciousness, and this is what I repeatedly try to explain to you.
I gave you some examples of the complexity of the mind - and you only express mockery and disdain, while quoting articles in the press, articles that sometimes contradict what you yourself say.
Eyal, probably unlike you, I make a living from brain imaging, at a really, really low level. I am several times a week in the operating room and work closely with senior brain surgeons. Together we try to provide a visualization of the functionality of the brain, to allow the surgeon to perform surgeries without impairing the function after the surgery. Maybe you do know how, but the doctors I know don't know how to connect severed nerves to make them function.
I tried to imply to you that there is a huge moral problem in trying to realize a human consciousness in a machine, and you don't want to understand that either.
I will ask again (and again, until you understand) just one question - how do you solve the problem of phantom pain?
You must also be an expert on this subject, but for the benefit of those who are a little less arrogant than you: a high percentage of people who have had a limb amputated, or who were born without a certain limb, suffer from pain "in the missing limb". They don't know how to treat this problem today, and sometimes those people live on painkillers. I don't think simulating morphine will solve the problem...
To all those who try to threaten the optimists among us with arguments like "You don't know how complex it is! You don't understand how complicated it is...!'
Just this week, an article was published in the prestigious journal Nature about an artificial intelligence project based on neural networks, in which a computer was able to play a wide variety of computer games without any intention and reach the level of a professional human player!
What's nice here is that the only input to the neural network is the pixels on the screen, and the score in the game, that's it!
This is for all those who insist that "an accurate and meticulous simulation of the entire early image processing process that is carried out in the eye must be carried out...", as if the process cannot be carried out indirectly within the neural network itself.
Also, the neural network in the simulation contains a tiny amount of neurons compared to the amount of neurons in the human brain, and yet it does a really good job at such a complex task.
So you will continue to stand aside and complain and shout "It's impossible, it's impossible..." while there are those who are doing the work and slowly turning these things into reality.
Here is an article from the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31623427
And don't forget that this is just the beginning.
waiting
Miracles,
I went over the philosophical difficulties and I have another excellent example: the human body. From what I read, within 5 years 100% of the atoms in our body will be replaced by others.
You are having fun, gaining experience and getting older but is this the same *you* who is experiencing this?
Read the following link, which also includes a disclaimer):
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18427/are-all-the-atoms-in-our-bodies-replaced-on-a-regular-basis
By the way, for those who are interested, here is the link to the ship of miracles :). I liked the four-dimensional solution
http://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ספינת_תסאוס
Israel,
I survived the marathon, but it was hard. I don't know why, but already halfway through, my twin muscles started to seize up, and once it starts, it only gets worse. In training I reached 37 km and it didn't happen and I do half marathons with my eyes closed. The short cut, a lot of determination and mental games with myself and the end has come 🙂
thank you for your interest
Miracles,
Thanks as usual
Shmulik
There are "processing layers" between the eyes and the brain. Face detection is done in these layers. This is how you quickly discover threatening predators...
Shmulik, did you survive a marathon?
We are going to receive Shabbat.
Shmulik
There are commenters who think differently than you...
Anyway, the idea is just a thought experiment. It reminds me of something ancient called "The Ship of Theseus", a similar idea from 2400 years ago... Another version is Grandpa's ax 🙂
Miracles,
In a shorter time?! Does the eye itself do the processing?
By the way launchers and clones, Spock died today 🙁
Where is the catra that needs it?
Shmulik
I completely agree - we are where our senses tell us. This thought experiment has several steps. For example - what happens when the body is replaced by a robot? What happens when the two halves of the brain are separated? And if we put each neuron in a separate container? And many more options…
Not only do we know very little about the brain, we are also not aware of all its functions. And what's more, the brain itself is not aware of everything that happens in the body. For example, I once participated in an experiment where they showed that we detect a face in a shorter time than the time it takes for a "signal" to reach the brain.
You will really enjoy a book called The Mind's I. There is an amazing collection of ideas there 🙂
Further to what Israel is asking,
When you sent Maya to Mars, by splitting her, whoever will be on Mars will not be the original Maya, just as the duplicate is not the original. What about the Isenberg facilities? After all, you have to replicate it at the atomic level, and that's where uncertainty reigns.
Maya, there will be no news of your death, but… 🙁
Miracles,
The tank experiment is actually The Matrix but there you got a pill and paralyzing reality moved on you.
Nice question. For every matter and thing, the *I* is with the body. As long as *I* am not aware that the thinking part of me is separated from the body, *I* am in the body, because the inputs that shape my existence come from the body area. Here is the car speeding down the road and I have to watch out for it, here is the breeze that cools me down while running, here is my family...
Assuming I'm aware that my mind is in a tank, it won't change a thing. All the decisions I have to make stem from the position of the body and the knowledge that actually a part of me is in a container (Futurama) is nothing more than just a passing thought and does not have too much meaning. Maybe we're all in tanks now, as computer simulations of a bored suitor with an x86 computer?
But what happens if the body suddenly dies? I didn't have time to instruct my body to run away from the car? My mind will be locked in a container until Israel Shapira's surgeon gives my life meaning again.
So for all intents and purposes *me* with my body but technically, in a tank.
Miracles
Take two identical cars, say Susita.
Start moving pieces from one to another, until you have moved all the pieces.
You got Susita A instead of B and vice versa.
At what stage did a heart become a heart?
Take two identical people, say Yoda.
Start moving pieces from one to the other, and after each step ask them which one they are from.
I believe the answers will be something like:
1. I am Yoda A with Yoda B's hand.
2. I am Yoda A with the hands of Yoda B.
3. I am Yoda A with the body of Yoda B.
Now start moving parts of the head, until you reach the brain.
I believe you will get similar answers: I am Yoda A with eyes of Yoda B, with ears of Yoda B, teeth...
Now start swapping brain parts. Let's say the part that speaks Turkish.
You will still get the same answers.
Yoda B will also give you the same answers.
So when will Jude A become B and vice versa?
Very true, when you replace the part of the pushing gravity with the part of the pudding graffiti.
Israel
Maybe because you're not really there... it's a gland at all and not part of the nervous system.
At all, "you" are not located in a certain place in the brain. There is no center for consciousness, at least as far as we know.
OK! So let's say that's where I am.
So why not just take the gland and implant it in another brain and close the matter?
Israel
The gland in the head... behind the pituitary gland, above the cerebellum. It's hard to get to...
Miracles
He must not be a girl.. isn't he?
And where is the gland? Not in the brain?
Maya
If the original Maya exits the machine in the same place she entered, and the other one exits in a different place than she entered, then both of them (both of you...) will know who is who.
I agree it can be changed. Let's say you get out of the machine asleep, then you can switch between the two of you, and you won't know it...
I definitely understand that there is a difficult identity problem here.
There is also a problem with the state of the brain in the tank. "You" in the tank or in the body?
Miracles,
Good point. But, still, that doesn't mean anything. It is still possible that the original letter was moved to the remote location while the duplication was made at home. I don't think this other Maya (to hell with her!) will think for a second that she is another Maya and not the original Maya. And in fact, what really makes me more original than her? I think this is the root of the whole point I was trying to make here. Who am I? What does I mean?
Israel
It is located between the parts of the brain... To say "inside the brain" is a bit meaningless.
Maya
Remember that one hundred came out of the machine at home, while the other had to fly home.
Therefore, each one knows exactly who she is. Despite the memories of the more distant past.
Miracles,
Sorry to take you back to two days ago, but occasionally at work I am also expected to work. gall!
I agree that my childhood has two mothers. I don't agree that only one gave birth to them. How do you know who gave birth to them? Both remember the birth (as far as it is possible to remember after the defense mechanisms of repression) and if we also duplicated the body, then both bodies have signs of a body that went through birth. So which one is the "real" mother?
Besides, I really didn't understand why one of them knows that her memories are not hers. I'm pretty sure they're both convinced that their memories are entirely their own. Not only will an outsider not be able to separate them, neither will they be able to tell who is the original and who is not. What I do think will happen in such a situation is that I (what this word does not mean) will still feel only like me and not like the other Maya and I will be very upset with her for thinking she is me. But she will do the exact same thing too. Of course, once we broke up and went out to experience new things each, then there will already be very relevant changes. Everything I said is only relevant at the very moment of replication.
Regarding the brain in the tank, I understand what you are saying. I need to think about it.
we
And where is the pineal gland, not in the brain?
The truth I can ask…. 🙂
In any case, there is a medical process called DBS, where the patient is woken up and talked to, to make sure that certain things are not damaged. For example, removing a tumor that is close to the area that controls the movement of the hands. Pretty amazing….
Pineal gland elk.., benign.
what's up old lady
If the memory is kept in the brain then consciousness is also in the brain, isn't it?
And what do the doctors say?
Israel
That's what the guy thought..
Miracles
The pineal gland?
Israel,
By and large I agree with you, and regarding your question as far as we know "you" is inside your brain, the feeling of self-awareness and the ability to "talk to yourself" quietly inside your head is a result of electrical/chemical activity inside the neuronal networks.
As for replacing eyes, ears and the other organs with bionic parts that have higher capabilities than the biological organs we have today, I'm sure we'll get there (implantation of bionic organs today is just the beginning).
Regarding language, memories... once we understand in depth how information is stored in the brain we can probably delete it proactively, the question is where is the limit? If they erase all your current knowledge from your head, then what will actually be left "of you"? Maybe the result will be that you become someone else, a different personality. Like a disk that is formatted and a new type of operating system is installed on it, and new software.
Israel
De Carte has an answer for you 🙂
Eyal,
In my opinion, it will take a long time to realize what is claimed. I really don't see the FDA approving such an experiment in the next decade.
The human brain is amazing: 20 watts of electricity and in return you get the ability to calculate and consciousness and today's computers are far from this ability but still the question is, is it worth imitating the human brain, in order to develop artificial intelligence? Google developed software that taught itself how to play and win Atari games without any training (from the developers)
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4631078,00.html
The emotionless super intelligent robot is called Skynet, isn't it? Anyway, here's an interesting article on robot morality:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/.premium-1.2573958
Eyal
Why replace the whole head? If I'm already getting a new young and strong body, why do I need to carry with me the eyes that can barely see, the ears that can barely hear and the nose that no longer smells? Isn't it better to implant me already with a good head?
And why do I also need the painful memories of the war? How will knowing Amharic help me in my new life? Isn't Chinese better?
And anyway, what do I need my feeble mind? Isn't it better to have a real mind already?
In short, if they are already replacing me, then let them take only me and transplant me into a new and perfect body. I will wake up to a wonderful new life.
The question is: where am I in the head? Am I even in the top?
Israel Shafira
Eyal
I will not stoop to your level. Anyone can read the discussion here and see how much each of us understands.
Good luck in graduation.
Eyal
what is your education
Miracles,
It is very difficult for me to have a conversation with a person who insists on not understanding the simplest things that are spoken to him, and interprets things in a completely opposite way from what was really said in them.
I am willing to talk to a person who listens, but you have zero listening. It's a waste of my energy. Conversations with you are really hopeless, there's a feeling that you're talking to a wall.
Miracles,
In the section you quoted, I referred to the data given at the beginning of the article: "The process included stopping the heart and breathing by cooling the body to a temperature of 16oC and draining the blood from the brain for the purpose of cooling it. In a cooled state, all electrical activity in the brain stopped, and the aneurysm was removed.'
But why are you ignoring what I wrote just two messages ago?
"In other words, the EEG measures electrical activity in the cerebral cortex, and if it measures zero activity, it means that there was no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex! The electrical seizures that were measured were measured *deep in the brain* by electrodes that were inserted inside, not in the cerebral cortex Nissim - deep in the brain.
I mean, I wrote in the clearest possible way that recording 0 activity with the help of EEG only indicates lack of activity *in the cerebral cortex*, why after I make this so clearly clear do you claim that you said that this indicates lack of brain activity?
As usual, I say something, and you understand exactly the opposite.
Eyal
I would appreciate your response on the phantom pains. I want us to move forward slowly, slowly. No personal smear attempts, okay?
Israel Shafira,
An experiment was done in the distant past (in Russia I think) of swapping the heads of two monkeys, and they survived and reacted for several hours.
An experiment was also done with a dog's head that was separated from the body and connected to the oxygen and blood supply, the head was awake and responded to stimuli and what was happening around it on the table on which it was placed.
Both experiments are available on YouTube and online.
Eyal
You wrote "3. I didn't say the word brain death, I said that people came back to life (just like a computer reconnected with electricity) even after their brain was completely quiet and without any electrical activity:”
Do you understand what you wrote?
"But that's what I asked about: the amount of input means is enormous. Do you think it is possible to waive the huge amount by sending a limited number of inputs? What about feeling hungry, tired, mental pressure..."
Shmulik, my answer is that I don't know, and there are things you just have to try to see what the result will be. In any case, if the brain knows how to handle such a large amount of information, surely it can handle a smaller amount as well.
And let's say that as a start we will have a super intelligent emotionless robot, which will be able to carry out research work of thousands or millions of scientists together, for me it will be worth the investment.
"Then why do you say that if the EEG gives a measurement of 0 then there is no activity in the brain?"
Nissim, I already said that talking to you is like talking to a wall, and you prove it over and over without stopping.
Where did I say what you claimed, I want you to provide an exact quote of my words (what's funny is that I claimed exactly the opposite, and even emphasized it to you, but as usual your brain interprets things in a very strange way, and I'm no longer surprised in light of the extensive experience I have with you).
Maya, for you.
http://healthy.walla.co.il/item/2833375?m=1
Eyal,
But that's what I asked about: the amount of input means is huge. Do you think it is possible to waive the huge amount by sending a limited number of inputs? What about feeling hungry, tired, stressed...
I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think that if it is possible (nanobotic mapping), it will happen for a long time. Do you think the FDA will approve exactly such in the next decade?
Eyal
If you don't have a solution for phantom pains, do you understand what that means?
1. The president of Intel Israel is not a brain researcher, not a neurologist, not a neurosurgeon, not a psychologist, not even a software person - how is his opinion better than anyone else's?
2. I can't understand what you don't understand. You agree that EEG only tests activity in the cerebral cortex. So why do you say that if the EEG gives a measurement of 0 then there is no brain activity? Eyal, do you understand that an EEG only tests the scalp? Therefore - an EEG at level 0 does not say anything about what is happening inside the brain.
I clarified - they have never succeeded in reviving a person after brain death, as is also written in the article you linked to.
3. Stop looking down on people you don't know. You are a rude person who speaks far beyond your understanding. I was CTO of a company that deals with image processing with the help of a mathematical model called SNN (you must be familiar with the subject....). The whole idea is based on the complex transition of information from the eyes to the brain.
All this is very interesting, but communication with the eyes is two-way. Let's say there are a million neurons in the optical fiber, how will we transmit the information the brain needs without building a complex eye? Where exactly do we connect the pair of wires from your camera?
4. I quote you - "...miracles, the method that Ray Kurzweil describes is like this, after billions of nano-robots map a small piece of brain in your head, a cognitive computer chip will be prepared that is completely identical to that piece, and it will be implanted in your brain and replace the original biological piece of brain that was there.
And then you will be asked "Is Nissim still you?" Do you recognize the family? the friends? Do you remember the trip to Honolulu last summer?'
After your answer is "yes of course" they will repeat the process again with more and more pieces of brain, until finally your consciousness will be all on a digital computer chip that will contain your personality and your consciousness, and you will still continue to feel "you" just like before."
First - there is a biological-electronic interface here that should also be similar in size to the real part of the brain. That is: you need a digital neuron the size of a biological neuron - if the same electrical-chemical interface. Won't happen in the next 30 years.
And I almost forgot - there are many types of neurons of all kinds of sizes.
The bigger problem again stems from your (and Kurzweil's) understanding of the mind. We don't know what many parts of the brain do. If we replace them - how will we know if we have damaged the brain or not? Will we know that we have damaged some important memory? Of course you thought of all this…..
Eyal - leave all this. Only solved the phantom pain problem for me.
1. I suggest that you listen to what the president of Intel Israel said at a conference just a few months ago, starting at minute 13:22:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AxLN32d8ME
2. "I'll say it again - the link you provided clearly explains that it's about the absence of signals only in a certain part of the brain, and even then it's only about the machine's inability to detect the signals... Not logic - knowledge. Some of the knowledge is explained in your article 🙂 It's becoming a joke...'
No miracles, the joke is your very basic lack of understanding in relation to the most basic and simplest things that you talk about and this thing is repeated throughout all the conversations with you. You have no minimal understanding, talking to you is like talking to a wall, just zero reception.
Let's read together what is written in the article I brought: "EEG measures activity *in the cerebral cortex only*. Situations are documented in which serious seizures were measured by electrodes *inserted into the brain*, seizures that remained without any registration in the EEG measurements on the surface of the skull.
That is, the EEG measures electrical activity in the cerebral cortex, and if it measures zero activity it means that there was no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex! The electrical seizures that were measured were measured *deep in the brain* by electrodes that were inserted inside, not in the cerebral cortex - deep in the brain.
But it's clear that even now you won't be convinced, because things go in from one ear and immediately go out from the other, Nissim simply refuses to understand and absorb.
3. "Two cameras???? What do you even know about the human eye? You speak with the level of knowledge of a school child, not even high school. Do you really think our eye is like a video camera? A pair of wires come out of a video camera, a million - a million and a half nerve cells come out of the eye. The type of information is completely different, the connection in the brain is extremely complex, and is built on several layers of processing, and so on."
Nissim, are you sure you have a degree in software from the Technion? Have you ever learned some image processing on a computer? two wires The software running on the computer (or alternatively the electronic chip) can receive in real time the exact value of each pixel in the image! This is equivalent to much more than a million and a half nerve cells transmitting signals at the same time! How do you think automatic facial recognition works in digital cameras?
4. "When exactly can you take a part of the brain and talk to it?" Eyal, where does your knowledge of the mind come from?'
Nissim, once again you show your elementary lack of understanding - where did I write that it would be possible to take a part of the brain and talk to it? Where did you find these things?
I said that as soon as they replace a crumpled piece of biological brain with a computer chip with the same function (a cognitive chip) they will ask you miracles, you, not the piece, this question.
I promise you that except for you - everyone, but everyone who read my words understood this, only Nissim refuses to understand.
5. Shmulik, why are you asking me about disconnecting the brain from the body after I repeated and emphasized throughout this conversation that the brain that will be built will not be disconnected, but will be connected to a robotic body that will contain sensors and various input/output means? Did you read what I wrote? And if so why are you asking me such a question? (I'm no longer surprised by miracles, it's a wonder of the world at all)
Shmulik
totally agree. That's why the idea of connecting the brain to two cameras made me laugh. This shows, in my opinion, the gulf between the understanding of the brain and the understanding of those who want to simulate the brain.
Miracles,
This is exactly the question I wanted to present to Eyal, but in a broader context:
Isn't the phantom pain a decisive proof that the brain cannot be separated from the body, but that everything must be treated as a whole? Another example is that my mood was negatively affected by the pain in my ankles. The brain handles unimaginable amounts of information that flows to it from the whole body, so my question to Eyal is, is he not underestimating the importance of this input? How do you model such an amount of information?
Eyal
I have to ask a little something. I assume you know what phantom pain is. How will you prevent such pains from the same consciousness that will run in the brain image?
There is a lot about it in the literature, but the feeling when you see it is strong because you feel a little special, I got to meet people who died and came back to life after the rehearsals, sometimes it's just another ordinary day only they are alive
There is no afterlife, and we have no existence of memories and self-awareness without a biological brain.
Come to terms with reality.
I mean I only took from them before
There is a sequel with the father, and they took the "Bazakozi" after I wrote my name, what's more, the idea is from the dual reality, I like to tell my truth because it gives a special feeling, even though in this reality not many believe in the "next world" after the return
Blowing water, probably taking the idea from the movie "Back to the Future" where the main character meets himself in the past.
Maya, there was a beautiful scene in the movie Avatar where the neural network created by connecting the roots of the trees on the planet made contact and united with the neural network in the mind of the researcher who was lying on the ground, then her awareness "switched" to that vast network and for several moments she described the amazing feeling and what it is Views.
Kind of reminds me of the matter of keeping the ads.
Look Mr. Nissim, I saw myself in perspective from both directions, this is also consciousness
Shmulik
I also agree that duplication does not help the original. Beyond the fact that mind duplication will not happen anytime soon - and my main reason for this opinion is the lack of understanding by "those in the know" how complicated it really is 🙂
I had the dubious honor of meeting myself after going back in time, it's not the most fun. Thanks
Maya,
The film is called Prestige (if I'm not mistaken). great movie
Miracles,
If you mentioned Star Trek, then there is a chapter exactly on the subject of replication in Star Trek Next Generation. In the episode, No. 1 (the deputy to Picard) is removed but a problem occurs and two return, apparently identical. The difference begins to occur because of trivial things such as who gets into the elevator first, who wins at poker. Precisely the fact that the source and source. 2 Haim demonstrates that the replication is not me. The death or non-death of the original doesn't change anything, except, maybe, for retirement, so I agree with Maya. It won't help *us*.
By the way, the writers of Star Trek know a bit of physics, so Telefert has "Eisenberg facilities", still an uncertainty. When the writers were asked how these facilities work they answered: (translated into English): "They work well, thank you for asking"
Eyal,
It seems to me that it is easier to model the brain than to understand how all those substances and gases affect the different cells under the model. This is a huge amount of permutations that our brain is dealing with. If we talk about alcohol in the context of a single cell, let's say it only inhibits the electrical potential in the cell but why does it turn some people into evil classes?
And one more thing, just because I'm compulsive, in The Simpsons and Family Guy they created episodes about cloned Homers and Peters who help (or are forced to) help the original. entertaining
Maya
So your children basically have two mothers. But, only one gave birth to them. Your memories are different, from the moment of transition, and the second Maya will understand that. She will know that she is not the real mother, regardless of what happened in the distant place. I don't think it's a situation you'd want to be in... She will know that her memories are not hers!
Regarding the container - think about it for a moment. You have no way of knowing that your mind is not in your body :). We "are" where our senses are, not where the mind is.
But did I actually stay in the remote place? As far as my children are concerned, there is no difference. Mom came home. They don't know there is another mother somewhere else. What is the difference for them if the original me were to return to them and the cloned Maya would go to the distant place? For them the situation is the same. This situation is different only for me. That's why I'm only talking about myself here. Regarding my effort to come back, it depends on how much my kids pissed me off before I left, but let's say I've recovered from what they did, so I'll probably try to come back, but the cloned me will also try to come back just as much because they're her kids as far as she's concerned and she misses them. The real question for me, in this case is: Is one of us more their mother than the other? We both remember exactly the birth experience, the smile/first step, etc. What makes me more their mother than her?
Regarding the brain in a tank, I once read some fictional story about it. But I don't think anyone will tell you that they are where their body is, I think most people would agree that they are where their mind is (think of all those stupid teenage movies where the daughter switched bodies with the mother or something similar). The question to me is different - put all your memories in one body and all your loves and hates, for example, in another body. Where you?
Maya
You enter the new generation machine and replicate. The original Maya comes out of the machine in the remote place, and a "new" Maya goes to her family.
What would your children think if they knew that you actually stayed in the remote place? What will you, the original, feel? Don't you want to go home anymore? Won't you make every effort to come back? And if you manage to come back, what now?
I have many more such examples... One of the interesting philosophical experiments is "brain in a tank". Let's say your brain is taken out and connected back to your body through an elaborate transmitter-receiver system. My question is - where are you? In a tank, or where your body is?
Eyal,
I didn't miss it. I also know the book, but I haven't read it yet. Thanks for the recommendation.
Miracles,
Why not get into the machine? Because you told me I was dead. We've already talked about my general reluctance to die. OK. In the new scenario, I'm like entering the machine and then exiting it on Mars, for that matter, and for that matter there is something there that I really want to see. In that case, the answer is yes - as far as I'm concerned, overall it's a really fast way to get from one place to another and it's always a good idea (because traveling is always a bad idea). So yes, in this scenario I enter the machine.
Maya
Why not enter the machine? And if I tell you that you are being transferred from a distant place back to your family, even then you won't come in?
Let's try both options in version 2.0 of the machine. This machine doesn't do any damage to the original - you come out safe and sound.
Now, in the two scenarios I described, would you be willing to replicate?
Eyal
I agree with you. You probably really know what you are talking about. I just write visualizations of the brain without understanding.
Maya,
If you missed it before, I recommend the following book that talks about exactly the topics you asked about:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?EntryId=1065939
Maya first of all why think about bad things, I hope such things don't happen to you.
Think about the next thing in relation to your questions, you go to sleep, lose self-awareness and then wake up in the morning, how do you know that this is still the same "you" who went to sleep the night before, and not say a copy of her?
(maybe a bit philosophical question)
Nissim, no offense, but I really came to the conclusion that I'm talking to a wall, everything I tell you goes in one ear and immediately comes out the other. I see no point in continuing the conversation with you right now, I'm really wasting my time and this is not said hastily.
Eyal,
So I guess this is actually my question: Is there something physical in the brain that creates the self? Or (and I understand that this is what you are saying) I am all as a whole she is me and I continue to "believe" that I am me just because I don't have a time jump. So here's a question - let's say I experienced a brain injury and lost all my memories and most of my personality (definitely things we heard happened). I lived like this for a while and then my brain managed to heal itself and restore all my memories. Is the newly created me the same as the previous me that was before the accident? If so, then yes it is something physical, because the continuity is interrupted. More importantly, how will I know the difference between a new me who believes with all her heart that she is the old me and the same old me? Beyond that, was it that in this interim period in which I lost myself, I was no longer me?
Eyal
1. I like your certainty "99.9%" and so on. And as usual your arrogance stems from a lack of knowledge. A very little chemical substance is enough to change a person's character from end to end. The next day, the person returns to what was before.
2. You are so full of yourself again that you don't listen, unbelievable :). I have repeatedly explained to you that there is no such situation in which you can go from "no electrical signals in the brain" to a living state. I'll say it again - the link you provided clearly explains that it's about the lack of signals only in a certain part of the brain, and even then it's only about the machine's inability to detect the signals.
3. Try to get over it Eyal. In the past we thought we knew everything about physics, and that our knowledge was approaching 100%. Here is a short explanation from Wikipedia:
At the end of the 19th century, physics had evolved to the point at which classical mechanics could cope with highly complex problems involving macroscopic situations; thermodynamics and kinetic theory were well established; geometrical and physical optics could be understood in terms of electromagnetic waves; and the conservation laws for energy and momentum (and mass) were widely accepted. So profound were these and other developments that it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement.
This is exactly how intelligence was thought 40 years ago. We thought we pretty much knew what was important, meaning that our knowledge percentage was high. Today we know this is not so.
That's what I mean, get over it already...
4. Two cameras???? What do you even know about the human eye? You speak with the level of knowledge of a school child, not even high school. Do you really think our eye is like a video camera? A pair of wires come out of a video camera, a million - a million and a half nerve cells come out of the eye. The type of information is completely different, the connection in the brain is extremely complex, and is built in several processing layers, and so on.
5. Cheeky 🙂 Read your article 🙂 Do you really think the signal in every neuron can be measured?
You wrote "Yasim, in your opinion, what kind of electrical activity can there be in the cerebral cortex when it is completely drained of blood, cooled to 16 degrees, and the heart and lungs are not working? How about using some logic?"
Not logic - knowledge. Some of the knowledge is explained in your article 🙂 It is becoming a joke…
You wrote to Maya "After your answer is "yes of course" they will repeat the process again with more and more pieces of brain, until finally your consciousness will be all on a digital computer chip that will contain your personality and your consciousness, and you will still continue to feel "you" just like before."
Since when exactly can you take a part of the brain and talk to it? Eyal, where does your knowledge of the brain come from?
Eyal
1. I like your certainty "99.9%" and so on. And as usual your arrogance stems from a lack of knowledge. A very little chemical substance is enough to change a person's character from end to end. The next day, the person returns to what was before.
2. You are so full of yourself again that you don't listen, unbelievable :). I have repeatedly explained to you that there is no such situation in which you can go from "no electrical signals in the brain" to a living state. I'll say it again - the link you provided clearly explains that it's about the lack of signals only in a certain part of the brain, and even then it's only about the machine's inability to detect the signals.
3. Try to get over it Eyal. In the past we thought we knew everything about physics, and that our knowledge was approaching 100%. Here is a short explanation from Wikipedia:
At the end of the 19th century, physics had evolved to the point at which classical mechanics could cope with highly complex problems involving macroscopic situations; thermodynamics and kinetic theory were well established; geometrical and physical optics could be understood in terms of electromagnetic waves; and the conservation laws for energy and momentum (and mass) were widely accepted. So profound were these and other developments that it was generally accepted that all the important laws of physics had been discovered and that, henceforth, research would be concerned with clearing up minor problems and particularly with improvements of method and measurement.
This is exactly how intelligence was thought 40 years ago. We thought we pretty much knew what was important, meaning that our knowledge percentage was high. Today we know this is not so.
That's what I mean, get over it already...
4. Two cameras???? What do you even know about the human eye? You speak with the level of knowledge of a school child, not even high school. Do you really think our eye is like a video camera? A pair of wires come out of a video camera, a million - a million and a half nerve cells come out of the eye. The type of information is completely different, the connection in the brain is extremely complex, and is built in several processing layers, and so on.
5. Cheeky 🙂 Read your article 🙂 Do you really think the signal in every neuron can be measured?
You wrote "Yasim, in your opinion, what kind of electrical activity can there be in the cerebral cortex when it is completely drained of blood, cooled to 16 degrees, and the heart and lungs are not working? How about using some logic?"
Not logic - knowledge. Some of the knowledge is explained in your article 🙂 It is becoming a joke…
You wrote to Maya "After your answer is "yes of course" they will repeat the process again with more and more pieces of brain, until finally your consciousness will be all on a digital computer chip that will contain your personality and your consciousness, and you will still continue to feel "you" just like before."
Since when exactly can you take a part of the brain and talk to it? Eyal, where does your knowledge of the brain come from?
Shamulik these things (hormones, etc.) will be taken into account as far as I understand from what I have read and heard on the subject, their effects will be included in the simulation.
"Why is the gradual process you suggest better than me staying myself?"
Maya, you understood correctly, you will still remain the real you and not just a copy ("twin sister" with the same memories as yours) because of the continuity, just as you are today not the same as you were a month ago, because all the atoms in your body have changed to new atoms that you got from the food you ate, You are not the same physically, what remains is the "template" and the structure of the networks in the brain, even though, as mentioned, they are already made up of other atoms.
Miracles,
I read the guide when I was young (I'm still young!), I don't remember much (my memory isn't what it used to be) but I don't remember it convincing me that I don't want to live forever. I understand where you are coming from when you say that, but my fear of death is too great for me to go along with it. Life I can understand (I managed to do) death no and I really don't like things I don't understand.
There is a movie like this (not very successful) that I forgot what it's called about this magician who duplicates himself every time to do the magic (we find out at the end of the movie so I ruined it for those who haven't seen it) and then kills one of the duplicates. And he does state that he no longer knows who he is, whether he is the original one or whether he died in one of the stages.
Regarding the teleportation machine, I don't understand what is my interest in entering it? So that someone else can experience new worlds? I am too selfish for such a sacrifice...
Regarding the king and the subjects, does the fact that these subjects are our creations make them "less people"? Someone must be suffering. Are these the same someone from the original kingdom? i don't know Do you know the excellent series: black mirror? If not, I highly recommend it. The last episode they did was for last Christmas with a wonderful story (and very disturbing, like most of their stories) about duplicating consciousnesses that are created so that you can put them in a small box so that they can serve the original consciousness that created them - maintain the house the way the person likes, prepare for him the food he likes, etc. Because who would know better how to manage your life than you yourself? warmly recommended.
Maya, correction to the link:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?EntryId=1065939&iphRD=1
Maya I highly recommend you to read this book:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/mobile/viewentry.aspx?entryid=1065939&iphRD=1
Eyal,
I understood what you wrote, but I don't think it answers my question. Of course when they asked me if I was still me and I remember the trip to Honolulu (I've never been to Honolulu :() I would say yes. The question is will it really be me. Because even if I stop being me, the new "me" will still think she is Me. I still think I'm the same me since I was 15 (or some random age that I still somehow remember what happened) but is that true? Probably not. Apparently I change every second and "I" don't notice it because there is continuity. In the process you describe there also seems to be continuity, so won't I notice it even then? Will I remain "me"? What is this self anyway? Instinct says that if there is a duplicate consciousness of mine (that is, there are two selves) it will no longer be the self. But why not? If she is physically the same as me, why shouldn't my self suddenly divide into years? Why is the gradual process you suggest better for me to remain me? And who can count how many times I wrote me?
Maya, I hope this answers your question, if you don't ask again.
Maya
And I found a link to Lem's story 🙂
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/analytic/Lem1979.html
Hi Maya,
I addressed this at the beginning of the thread, I copy here what I said:
... Miracles, the method that Ray Kurzweil describes is like this, after billions of nano robots have mapped a small piece of brain in your head, a cognitive computer chip will be prepared that is completely identical to that piece, and it will be implanted in your brain and replace the original biological piece of brain that was there.
And then you will be asked "Is Nissim still you?" Do you recognize the family? the friends? Do you remember the trip to Honolulu last summer?'
After your answer is "yes of course" they will repeat the process again with more and more pieces of brain, until finally your consciousness will be all on a digital computer chip that will contain your personality and your consciousness, and you will still continue to feel "you" just like before.
....I didn't say that a small area of the brain contains the "I"... On the contrary, I say that the *entire* brain contains the "I", your personality, so when small pieces in your brain begin to be replaced little by little with computer chips that have the same synaptic structure, you will slowly be "sucked" into the computer, until finally your entire personality You will be contained within, say, a million digital computer chips (which will replace a million biological brain pieces in your head).
Maya
First - read the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and realize that you don't want to live forever 🙂
I will illustrate the problem you describe in a more extreme way, and you will see that you are more right than you think...
The idea is a book I read a long time ago, called The Mind's I, a collection of stories by Daniel Dent and Douglas Hofstetter.
Invent a teleportation machine like in Star Trek. The machine scans a person and builds him - atom, atom - on Mars. A perfect copy. But there is a "problem" with the machine, unlike the one in the series: in the process of the transfer, the person inside the machine dies... (without pain...)
The question is - will you be ready to enter the machine?
This book is wonderful, and full of insights into our consciousness. I remember one of the stories there, by Stanislav Lem. In this story someone builds a simulation of a kingdom and gives it to a cruel king who has been banished from his world. The mech, of course, "plays" with the subjects of the kingdom. The question is - are the subjects really suffering?
1. "I have already said that there are several types of memory... sensory memory... short-term memory... long-term memory... the brain imaging must contain all the types of memory I mentioned..."
I imagined that this is your direction, and I think you are taken for a trivial matter that is not of such great importance in our context. The main part of personality, memories, knowledge, character, intelligence and basically everything that we are is determined by the topological structure of the massive neural network that was built in our minds and shaped during our lives. Once you have copied it you already have 99.9% of what is needed.
The two short-term memories you mentioned are supposed to be created as soon as the system "wakes up" and starts receiving electrical inputs from the outside world, from the sensor system that will be connected to this brain. The electrical activity that will be created ("the electrical storms") is the short-term memory (as far as I understand) and can become a long-term memory if and when it also causes a physical change in the synapses themselves.
2. "My brain death is final"
You know the conversations with you are really de je vu, again and again I have to repeat things that I have already said and explained to you before and you continue to repeat yours as if I didn't say anything... You are, as usual, attacking a straw man.
I didn't talk about brain death, how many more times will I have to explain this? Brain death is a condition in which important parts of the brain are damaged and destroyed *physically*, and cannot function again, and that's not what I'm talking about.
I am talking about a situation where there is no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex for a short time (seconds, minutes) but the brain is not damaged and can return to function just like an electronic card that you connected electricity to and it "comes back to life".
3. "Today we know less... In the late 70s we had more knowledge about the brain than we have today..."
I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense over and over again - there is a huge difference between saying that we understand today how little knowledge we have about the brain, and saying that in the past we had more knowledge (that is, not only did we learn nothing, but we also lost knowledge and we know today less than scientists knew 30 years ago... you understand how ridiculous this claim is).
4. "You are talking about building an entire robot that is as complex as a human being"
no no no! How many times do I have to explain to you that this is not my intention? I was talking about a robot much simpler than a human body, two cameras, two microphones, a simple robotic body even one that moves on wheels, two robotic arms, and that's it! (big time)
Why do you insist on exaggerating it? You are attacking a straw man, I did not say that the body that will be connected to the brain that will be built should have a level of complexity of a biological body, that is your claim not mine.
5. "As usual - you took care not to quote the following sentence, apparently because it contradicts your claim - "situations are documented in which serious seizures were measured by electrodes inserted into the brain, seizures that remained without any registration in the EEG measurements on the surface of the skull"
Oh miracles... I didn't contradict myself, you as usual read and didn't understand what you were reading. Read the things again, EEG measures the electrical activity *in the cerebral cortex* (where all our memories are stored) and there, as I told you before, there was no electrical activity.
The activity that was mentioned there is electrical activity *deep in the brain*, not in the cerebral cortex. And again - the explanation given in this section is a general explanation that does not refer specifically to the analysis in question.
Nissim, in your opinion, what kind of electrical activity can there be in the cerebral cortex when it is completely drained of blood, cooled to 16 degrees, and the heart and lungs are not working? How about using some logic?
Friends, I have another question, if I have more. Let's assume you can copy my brain exactly, turn it on and create consciousness. This consciousness will be the same as mine in the sense that it will know my entire family. Love my dog, hate that annoying lab lady and think that black bread with feta and tomato is the food of the gods. She will also remember that great trip to the Grand Canyon and the upset stomach in The Hague. Good. My question is what does it do for me? Is this consciousness, though it thinks it is Maya, really I? I guess not. I mean, I, when I see her I will understand that she is different. She will also understand that I am different and will probably think that I am her imitation, but no matter. My point is, even if it were possible to reconstruct my brain with meticulous grammar and connect it to a robot or computer so that it would live forever it would not help me. I will not live forever and I will crumble and die. Two questions for me:
1. Is what I wrote true in your opinion?
2. If so, is there a way to solve it? Are there three cells in my brain that make me realize that I am me and if we can physically insert them into this restored consciousness of mine then can I live forever?
Thank you for your answer, because on the list of things I still need to do, figuring out how to live forever is quite high. I don't like this whole thing about death.
Eyal,
Question: Is the amount of oxygen, glucose, hormones, salts and what not, present in the brain at a given moment relevant to brain activity in your opinion? Is the thought that suddenly popped into my mind affected, for example, by the amount of hormones in the blood in your opinion?
When you wrote: "(and I am a million percent sure of this, unless you convince me otherwise) that it is enough to build the physical network only on all the synaptic connections in it," did you also mean the amount of oxygen, glucose, etc.?
Eyal
1. I have already said that there are several types of memory, but I will repeat myself with some examples.
Suppose you read a long sentence - you read the end of the sentence and understand the whole thing. Where is the beginning of the sentence saved?
Suppose you see a bird flying in the sky. How do you know it's the same bird and not a different bird each time?
How do you see traffic on TV?
This is one type of memory (sensory memory), which is not preserved over time at all. The changes here are extremely fast and there is no building of connections, or strengthening of connections.
Another type of memory is short-term memory, of a few tens of seconds.
Suppose someone tells you a phone number and you dial it on the spot.
This memory is also not preserved in bonds, because people who lose consciousness completely forget what happened immediately before losing consciousness.
A third memory is a long-term memory, in which there is a change in connections. We know, for example, that damage to both hippocampus severely impairs the ability to build long-term memory. Search for material on "anterograde amnesia" (I have no idea how to translate into Hebrew...).
It may be possible to "retrieve" only a person's long-term memory, but the brain imaging must contain all the types of memory I mentioned. By the way, the model I described, called the Atkinson-Shiffrin model, is today considered too simplistic, and there are modern models that are much more complex. This is one of the reasons I said that "today we know less".
2. Brain death is final. As soon as the brain's electrical activity stops (and not just in the scalp as in the article you linked to, which I'm sure you haven't read yet), the person dies.
But, let's assume you're right (and not a single neuroscientist is as sure as you, so maybe you know something they don't?). This information is stored in a thousand trillion connections, and each connection is very complex (meaning each connection is defined by a large number of values). There is no reason to think that all information is stored over time. On the contrary, the cells undergo major changes in death.
In addition, there are glial cells, which are the most common type of cell in the brain, some of which (eg astrocytes) play an essential role in brain function. We know even less about them. Here is another reason for my claim "today we know less".
Regarding a living person - I have already described what our capabilities are today, but I understand that you claim that it is not relevant.
You are talking about building an entire robot that is as complex as a human. Do you really think this will happen in 30 years? Today we cannot imagine a worm with 1000 cells, let alone the possibility of building it.
3. I am quoting you "It is also explicitly written there that there was no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex itself, so according to your theory (no electrical activity, no memories, like RAM memory) the woman was supposed to wake up from the surgery with a completely erased head, no memories, and even without Ability to speak and language."
As usual - you took care not to quote the next sentence, apparently because it contradicts your claim - "situations are documented in which serious seizures were measured by electrodes inserted into the brain, seizures that remained without any registration in the EEG measurements on the surface of the skull (Tao, Ray, Hawes-Ebersole, and Ebersole 2005).”
4. Unlike you, Likon is not a million percent sure that he is right. I'm also not sure that in the very distant future we won't be able to copy humans. I rely on the knowledge that exists today, which implies that this future is very far away.
It's interesting how you cite your absolute certainty on very little knowledge... read a bit about the Dunning Krueger effect, when you have time of course.
Miracles,
1. "I have already tried to make it clear to you that there are components in memory that are not expressed in the connections and the strength of the synaptic connections"
Listen, I'm always ready to expand my horizons and learn new things that I didn't know before, come expand my horizons - let's say I learned a new word: "Australia", and now it exists in my head. In what way is it represented in my brain beyond the neural networks and synaptic connections?
2. I still don't understand why you think that in order to simulate a human brain (of any kind) one must make a real-time recording of all the electrical activity running through his head.... (After all, it is dynamic and changes from moment to moment and depends on a thousand and one things such as what he is looking at at that moment, what thoughts are going through his mind, etc.).
I claim (and I am a million percent sure of this, unless you convince me otherwise) that it is enough to build the physical network only on all the synaptic connections in it, and as soon as you connect it to a suitable input/output (a robotic body with sensors and cameras) and it will start receiving electrical signals from the outside world (exactly as occurs in our brains) then all this electrical activity you speak of will arise automatically.
Just like a computer you plug in, keyboard, mouse and screen, and voila - you immediately get all your favorite computer games and all the files ("memories") you saved on your computer in the past.
3. "In the article you linked to, it is written explicitly that they have never succeeded in reviving a brain-dead person"
It is also explicitly written there that there was no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex itself, so according to your theory (no electrical activity, no memories, like RAM memory) the woman was supposed to wake up from the operation with a completely erased head, no memories, and even without the ability to speak and language.
4. The article you linked to looks interesting, but right now I don't have time to sit down to read it, only one small section caught my eye:
Spectrum: ….I don't think you believe we will be downloading our consciousness into them in 30 years.
LeCun: Not anytime soon.
Spectrum: Or ever.
LeCun: No, you can't say never; technology is advancing very quickly....
Eyal
I suggest you read Jan Likon's opinion on the subject, in particular his opinion on IBM's work. Licon is considered one of the leaders in the world in the field of neural networks and artificial intelligence. I hope you don't underestimate him so much...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/facebook-ai-director-yann-lecun-on-deep-learning
Eyal
1. Again - how many pieces are missing in our puzzle? How many parts (in percentages) do you need to identify the picture in the puzzle? I would appreciate an answer only to the first question.
To draw a conclusion from an analogy, one must show that the analogy is valid. The periodic table is periodic, our brain is not. The Higgs boson is the result of a calculation, and I see nothing to do with the brain.
2. Let's assume I agree if the idea. Let's close the issue of scanning a dead person first. The article you linked to specifically states that they have never been able to revive a brain dead person. In addition, I have already tried to make it clear to you that there are components in memory, as well as "consciousness" itself, that are not expressed in connections and the strength of synaptic connections.
Therefore, we need to scan a live person. The condition of 86 billion neurons should be pumped (provided that it is allowed to ignore the other cells in the brain and the rest of the body). The state includes, for each neuron, the length of each synapse, the conduction velocity of each synapse, the frequency and the occurrence of the signal at each synapse. And all this at a given moment - the entire brain should be scanned in less than a thousandth of a second (in my estimation). And just an anecdote - there are between 100 and 1000 trillion (!) synapses in the brain.
Now, I don't understand much about the brain, so I've probably oversimplified the problem. In any case, I have already explained here what our ability today is to see brain activity (a resolution of a few tens of cubic millimeters and a few seconds).
Therefore, I don't think it's going to happen in the next few years (Kurzweil is talking about another 30 years. Even if we take into account Moore's Law it won't happen...).
Instead of trying to kill me, belittle me, or check my education, re-read what I wrote, and tell me why you disagree.
third,
You are very strongly on the subject of the enormous speed of a quantum computer but completely ignore its mode of operation.
For a quantum computer to solve a problem, you first need to create an array of qubits that includes the entire possibility space *of the specific problem you want to solve* and then make the system collapse to the correct answer that is part of that possibility space.
So let's say that you now have a high-performance quantum computer in your hand ready for action, in which you will explain to me illustratively how you use it to simulate the neural networks that exist in the brain and how you use it to simulate the electrical voltages and currents that run through this neural network, and the synapses that change dynamically during learning and memory processes .
Eyal
indeed.
It was I who said.
Already today it is possible to simulate parts of the brain.
but,
To accurately simulate a human brain, you need a computer that knows how to solve problems efficiently (quickly and correctly).
In order for this to happen today, a computational system of such enormous size needs to be built that it borders on the illogical.
What will help in this matter is: minimization of the components.
The only thing that allows this is the construction of a quantum computing system.
In other words: a quantum computer.
The road is still long and winding but the day will come.
Successfully
Miracles,
1. "You wrote 'what is certain: you don't need to know the brain 100% to be able to simulate it' - what percentage do you think is needed? And what percentage do you think we know about the brain?'
On this subject I completely agree with G, and by the way, this is also the opinion of Henry Markram, director of the Human Brain Project, and also the opinion of Ray Kurzweil. It is difficult to give you an exact answer in percentages, but try to imagine a puzzle in which several pieces are missing, many times the missing pieces can be completed with the help of the image that already exists around their location.
The same was the case with the periodic table of the chemical elements, although at first it was incomplete, she predicted in advance that in places where there are "holes" elements with very specific properties should be found, and later they were indeed found and exactly matched the prediction.
A similar thing happened with the Higgs boson particle whose existence was predicted in advance from the physical knowledge that existed, and it was also eventually found with the help of the large particle accelerator.
In a very similar way, there is no need to wait until we 100% understand the brain in order to access its visualization structures, you can start right now with the help of the existing knowledge and it is likely that missing pieces of information will "fall" into place with time.
2. "I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me how they want to simulate a certain person's brain." I think it's an interesting topic that can be talked about without getting into personal lines."
As I told you before, if you create an *exact copy* of a human brain in a computer or digital chip including all the synaptic connections that exist in his brain and represent his memories and who he is (scanning the brain of a living donor with the help of future technology that will be available like a swarm of billions of nano robots that will travel in the bloodstream , or scanning the brain of a deceased donor immediately after his death, even before the cells in his brain had time to disintegrate and disintegrate from lack of oxygen and energy) and activate this neural network you created (which will of course be connected to input/output means) so yes, self-awareness will arise in it and it will feel and think exactly like the brain from which It was copied, and she will know the members of that person's family - his mother, his father, and his brother, and she will also remember the trip he took in Australia.
third,
"You say on the one hand: 'Everything in our world ultimately operates on the 'quantum level', and on the other hand you disagree with the fact that the mind obeys quantum laws.... If you claim this innocently then there is only one possibility left and that is that you know quantum theory at a very shallow level.'
Regarding the closing sentence, you are right, but I still think that the little knowledge I do have on the subject is enough for this discussion.
I didn't claim for a moment that our brain doesn't obey quantum laws, I only claimed that it doesn't matter at all when trying to create a simulation of a piece of brain, just like you don't take quantum theory into account when designing a car engine, and yet it works.
As for your man who claims the opposite, the burden of proof is on him. I, on the other hand, have heard world-renowned neuroscientists who claim that the subject has no importance here. Another thing, pieces of brain for which computer simulations have already been created in the project I mentioned work very well and learn and remember, even though the project did not take into account quantum mechanics.
ג
There is no point in having a discussion at the level of personal slanders here. Try to get over your arrogance, okay?
The car is related to quantum systems just like the mind is related. Do you think otherwise?
Miracles
So maybe you can explain to all of us what kind of energy a quantum computer uses!?
In general, your response is confused. You mixed up unrelated things and things I did not claim and ask incorrect and unrelated questions. What does it have to do with your car anyway?? 🙂
"How many percent do you think is needed? And what percentage do you think we know about the brain?" - Irrelevant question. You don't build a quantum computer based on the amount of percentages we know about the brain. A silly question from someone who is not knowledgeable on the subject.
Besides, I'm at least happy that you didn't ask me how a time machine works, and expected an answer..
ג
I never claimed that the mind is not "part of nature" - why do you slander? 🙂
Even when you drive the car, you activate a "quantum system" - what exactly is the connection between my car's engine and quantum laws - if I don't look at it, then it is half driven and half non-driven? Maybe I can't know its position and speed at the same time?
Eyal is very persistent in his opinions. On the other hand - you don't exactly understand what you are talking about (in my opinion): how can you claim that a quantum computer works on electrical signals?
You wrote "What is certain: you don't need to know the brain 100% to be able to simulate it." - What percentage do you think is needed? And what percentage do you think we know about the brain?
I would be happy if someone could explain to me how they want to simulate a certain person's brain. I think it's an interesting topic that can be talked about without getting into personal lines.
Miracles
And it's perfectly fine that you think so. I, on the other hand, agree with Feynman's words, and we both disagree with you. In your opinion the mind is not part of nature. In my opinion (which is similar to Feynman's opinion) the brain is indeed a part of nature and since "...nature, operating according to quantum mechanics" - as Feynman said - includes the brain (like the rest of the body) - the brain also obeys the quantum laws.
Eyal
I did read the "concluding section entitled 'Principle Limitations'." - and the content does reinforce my words.
1. In this section you tried to explain to me how a quantum computer works and you said that: "It is not clear to me how such a method of operation can simulate what happens in the brain".
Without going into long and arduous explanations (which you can find on the Internet) I tell you that if you had only tried harder and studied the subject you would have found that you are claiming things that are contrary to what people who work in the field claim.
"The neuron system in our brain works more in the direction of scheming electrical voltages in each neuron and firing electrical pulses when the voltage passes a certain threshold value" - what energy do you think the quantum computer is based on? Potato energy? "That's all" runs on electricity. "There is electricity in the air" - and in a quantum computer... you have nothing to worry about.
2. In this section you really had a surprise!
You actually, probably without being aware of it because otherwise this behavior cannot be explained, contradicted yourself.
You say on the one hand: "Everything in our world ultimately operates on the "quantum level".
And on the other hand you disagree with the fact that the mind obeys quantum laws.
If you claim this naively then there is only one possibility left and that is that you know quantum theory at a very shallow level.
The rest of your words in this section actually support and strengthen my words.
As I argued before Haim: already today there are computers that simulate the brain at a primitive level.
But, to simulate a brain developed like a human brain, a computer many times more powerful is needed.
Such computers are quantum computers.
Quantum computers are just at the beginning, so it will take quite some time to develop them to a high level.
What is certain: you don't need to know the brain 100% to be able to simulate it.
And finally an ending:
"And again, I can't think of a big advantage that a quantum computer would give us here, in my opinion it would only complicate matters."
So again: you can't think.
But, everyone who manages to think and works in the field thinks the opposite of you.
C, I read the passage you quoted, and I don't think it contradicts what I said. I suggest that you also read the concluding section entitled "Principle Limitations" in the same Wikipedia entry.
1. Do you know how, in principle, calculations are performed on a quantum computer? You prepare a system of "qubits" which simultaneously includes the entire possibility space of the problem you want to solve in superposition mode, then you make the system "collapse" to the correct answer. This is how you can solve, for example, the frequent flyer problem, or find the two initial numbers whose multiplication gave a very large given number (if you know, a subject related to encryption and information security).
It is not clear to me how such a method of operation can be used to simulate what happens in the brain, the operation of our brain is fundamentally different from the operation of a quantum computer, there is no known situation in which the neurons in the brain are in some state of "superposition" and then in one moment "collapse" into thought the right one and again, God forbid.
The neuron system in our brain works more in the direction of planning electrical voltages in each neuron and firing electrical pulses when the voltage passes a certain threshold value (this depends on the strength of the synapses in the network, the firing threshold of the specific neuron in the network, the amount of inputs received at any given moment, etc.) Talk about "looking at" spectacular electrical firing patterns running along and across our brain in different areas at different times, these are our thoughts (it's very nice to see colorful visualizations of this electrical activity).
2. Everything in our world ultimately operates on the "quantum level", even the engine in your car operates on the quantum level because the pistons, spark plugs and the fuel inside are all made up of atoms and electrons. But hey, your car drives every morning even though we didn't base its construction on quantum computers.
I see no logical reason to assume that for the simulation of a biological brain we will have to rely on a quantum computer, one of the proofs of this is that in the prestigious human brain project they performed a very accurate computer simulation (down to the level of the single neuron and beyond) of a piece of rat brain, and the results were remarkably similar to those obtained in the test of an identical piece of biological brain in the laboratory (the electric currents, voltages and even the electrical patterns created in the simulation were identical), which means that a very realistic simulation of a piece of brain can be performed with the help of a regular classic (super)computer.
And again, I can't think of a big advantage that a quantum computer would give us here, in my opinion it would only complicate matters.
Testing
C, I read the passage you brought, and I don't think it contradicts what I said. I suggest that you also read the concluding section entitled "Principle Limitations" in the same Wikipedia entry.
1. Do you know how, in principle, calculations are performed on a quantum computer? You prepare a system of "qubits" which simultaneously includes the entire possibility space of the problem you want to solve in superposition mode, then you make the system "collapse" to the correct answer. This is how you can solve, for example, the frequent flyer problem, or find the two initial numbers whose multiplication gave a very large given number (if you know, a subject related to encryption and information security).
It is not clear to me how such a method of operation can be used to simulate what happens in the brain, the operation of our brain is fundamentally different from the operation of a quantum computer, there is no known situation in which the neurons in the brain are in some state of "superposition" and then in one moment "collapse" into thought the right one and again, God forbid.
The neuron system in our brain works more in the direction of planning electrical voltages in each neuron and firing electrical pulses when the voltage passes a certain threshold value (this depends on the strength of the synapses in the network, the firing threshold of the specific neuron in the network, the amount of inputs received at any given moment, etc.) Talk about "looking at" spectacular electrical firing patterns running along and across our brain in different areas at different times, these are our thoughts (it's very nice to see colorful visualizations of this electrical activity).
2. Everything in our world ultimately operates on the "quantum level", even the engine in your car operates on the quantum level because the pistons, spark plugs and the fuel inside are all made up of atoms and electrons. But hey, your car drives every morning even though we didn't base its construction on quantum computers.
I see no logical reason to assume that for the simulation of a biological brain we will have to rely on a quantum computer, one of the proofs of this is that in the prestigious human brain project they performed a very accurate computer simulation (down to the level of the single neuron and beyond) of a piece of rat brain, and the results were remarkably similar to those obtained in the test of an identical piece of biological brain in the laboratory (the electric currents, voltages and even the electrical patterns created in the simulation were identical), which means that a very realistic simulation of a piece of brain can be performed with the help of a regular classic (super)computer.
And again, I can't think of a big advantage that a quantum computer would give us here, in my opinion it would only complicate matters.
ג
In the quote you brought it says that quantum computing can be effective in calculations of quantum systems. What Eyal is saying, and I think he is right, is that our mind is not a quantum system.
Some think otherwise (like Roger Penrose), but I don't think Feynman was referring to the mind at all in this quote.
Eyal
Just so there won't be an argument 'about me' or 'about you', here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"One of the pioneers in the field was the physicist Richard Feynman, who in 1981 formulated the following distinction - when trying to calculate the predictions of quantum mechanics for large physical systems, it seems that a normal computer cannot do it efficiently because of the exponential resources required to represent the wave function. However, nature itself performs these calculations, in an enclave, when the physical system exists in reality. From this, it seems that nature, which operates according to quantum mechanics, has an advantage in its calculation ability compared to a "classical" computer. If so, we may be able to build a new type of computer that utilizes quantum effects to perform calculations more efficiently. Such a computer will be able to calculate the predictions of quantum mechanics efficiently - and perhaps even perform other calculations more efficiently than any "classical" computer.
Quantum computers are not designed for other types of calculations (contrary to what you wrote).
Quantum computers are designed for the same calculations as a classical computer does.
The difference in the calculation capabilities of the machines is in the calculation time and the 'flexibility' of the components.
C, I don't see any real reason for this assumption, quantum computers are designed for a different type of calculations (for example solving the traveling agent problem, or finding multiples of prime numbers) they are not designed to simulate neural networks.
There is no evidence that our brain is based on quantum calculations or needs them for its operation, and there is no reason in my opinion to believe that such computers (when they exist) will advance the subject of artificial intelligence.
"As for the predictions - they will only come true in the era of quantum computers. These will be able to simulate the brain in a much more accurate way."
C, I don't see any real reason for this assumption, quantum computers are designed for a different type of calculations (for example solving the traveling agent problem, or finding multiples of prime numbers) they are not designed to simulate neural networks.
There is no evidence that our brain is based on quantum calculations or needs them for its operation, and there is no reason in my opinion to believe that such computers (when they exist) will advance the subject of artificial intelligence.
Eyal
Nicely written. But as for the predictions - they will only come true in the era of quantum computers.
These will be able to simulate the brain in a much more accurate way.
Eyal
When a person writes here that it is not worth getting vaccinated, then I will call him an idiot. guess why
I don't want to continue the discussion with you. You are too full of yourself.
Bye
1. "When you shout, you only exaggerate your determinations"
Understand that it's pretty crazy when they try to explain to you again and again and again a certain simple thing for several consecutive messages and you continue to be locked in your own way and completely ignore what you're being told, I kind of feel like I'm talking to a wall.
2. "These electrical signals are a representation of text. That's how it is in SyNAPSE as well, as far as I understand - you can probably correct me if I'm wrong.'
Specifically regarding the project you mentioned, you can read a bit here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ibm-synapse-chip-2508119
As far as I can understand, it is not fundamentally different from the human brain project and the cognitive chips that IBM built, and it also comes to represent a dynamic neural network (neuron network) that is capable of learning.
I don't know if the chip in their project is based on hardware only or also on textual software that determines when each neuron fires, how often and what synaptic connections it creates.
But I think it doesn't matter, as long as the network in the simulation works and learns like a biological neural network (at the basic level) then it doesn't matter at all if it is activated by textual software, or by electronic components only that fire electrical pulses and strengthen or weaken connections synaptic inside the chip as part of the learning process.
It is a fact that computer simulations of neural networks manage to learn things (much better than traditional programs) and remember even though they are based on a text language, that is to say that it is not important, the main thing is that the network operates according to the learning rules of a neural network.
3. Don't get confused, what we talked about before was a completely different aspect, I was just trying to demonstrate to you that just as a computer has hardware (the electronic cards and the processor) and software (the electrical pulses that run through the cards when the software is running), so the brain also has hardware (the physical neural network that currently exists, which includes all the information and all the memories of that person/mammal) and there is also "software" that these are the electrical pulses that run within this network, and they are the ones that create the feeling of awareness, and the thoughts.
4. "Let's move on, okay? You agreed with me that consciousness is a "collection of electrical signals". After that you said that consciousness can be extracted from the mind of a dead person. Are you ready to decide?'
I think I explained it quite clearly, but I'll try one more time:
If you create an *exact copy* in a computer or digital chip of a human brain (a living donor, or a dead donor, immediately after his death, even before the cells in his brain had time to disintegrate and disintegrate from lack of oxygen and energy) including all the synaptic connections that represent his memories and who he is, and activate the network This neurotic, then yes, self-awareness will arise in her and she will feel and think exactly like the brain from which she was copied, and she will know all the family members of that person, his mother, father, brothers...
I talked about another topic (indeed an idea of Ray Kurzweil as I mentioned before) and that is the theoretical possibility at this stage and that is to transfer your personal consciousness into a computerized system, so that you still remain and not just a "twin brother", but let's leave that for a later stage because already We have covered too many topics.
Eyal
Hello. No need to get upset. You're just trying to explain facts to someone who doesn't understand what he's talking about. Hence your argument.
If you would like to learn about the subject, there is a lot of information on the Internet. It is enough to tick on Google and Wikipedia. Here you are just wasting your time.
Eyal
When you shout, you only exaggerate your determinations (feel free to correct my Hebrew).
My computer also only has "electrical signals". But, and this is what you don't understand, these electrical signals are a representation of text. That's how it is in SyNAPSE as well, as far as I understand - you can probably correct me if I'm wrong.
My claim is that there is no text that describes our brain, at the level of consciousness. There is no way to "scan" a living brain and record its state.
You also throw in very different concepts to strengthen your claim (which I understand is not really yours, but you read Kurzweil, or about Kurzweil...). You talked about the IBM chip, which is a symmetrical, two-dimensional model of neurons, of a certain type, many orders of magnitude away from the human brain. After that you talked about the decoding of the human genome, from which we will supposedly understand how the brain is structured. Then you insisted that consciousness is a collection of electrical signals that "run" on the hardware of the brain. You also think there is a way to take a human brain and understand the connections between neurons, their speed and the strength of synapses.
Let's move on, okay? You agreed with me that consciousness is a "collection of electrical signals". After that you said that consciousness can be extracted from the mind of a dead person. Are you ready to decide?
And here is the message I was blocked from yesterday, I finally understood why it was blocked and eliminated the problem:
1. "Do you like me talking like that? If not - curb your tone of voice a little..."
Interesting, and to say this to other commenters on the site is probably fine for you:
"Safkan, please stop spreading your stupidity. You have no idea what you're talking about.'
2. What are the quotes you brought related? All that is said in them is that the NDE she experienced occurred while there was still electrical activity in the brain, this does not at all contradict the fact that at the time the brain was emptied of blood and cooled, there was no such activity, and this is also emphasized in the section that opens the article.
3. "We have several memory mechanisms, and only one of them is based on a change of synaptic connections"
I remind you that the discussion on the subject began after you asked me in surprise and bewilderment how information can be stored in the brain without electrical activity? (and giving an example of a hard disk that "remembers" information even without power supply).
So of all the mechanisms you know in the brain, isn't it clear to you that the synapses are the main and central mechanism that allows us to remember things, even without electrical activity?
In the link I gave earlier it is explicitly stated that the electrical activity that was measured was *deep in the brain*, however in the cerebral cortex itself where all memories are stored there was no electrical activity. So according to your theory (no electrical activity - no memory) that person was supposed to forget all his memories similar to the RAM memory of a computer, and return to functioning like a one-day-old baby mentally after being brought back to life.
4. "I have a degree in computers from the Technion (what degree?) and a master's degree in the philosophy of science"
That means, bottom line, you don't have any official academic degree in the field of brain studies or brain research.
"Eyal, you're talking about a textual code again"
Say miracles, do I speak Hebrew or Chinese? In what language do I need to explain to you so that you understand? Forget the textual code, forget it! I'm talking *exclusively* about the electrical pulses that run through the processor and electronic cards of the computer while the software is running!
Where is your difficulty in understanding? In what other way should it be phrased so that you understand something so simple?
Eyal
You're right, but then it's a tiny number of apps. We do not know how to break down a complex problem into a large number of many processes.
Eyal
Again, you talk about "textual code". Any textual code is equivalent to the C language. This equivalence is called "Church and Turing's thesis".
And I claim that consciousness cannot be compared to tacts at all.
"A number of restrictions apply to them. The first is that they run the same code. Everyone has their own memory, but their software is uniform'
First of all, Hebrew - "a number of restrictions apply to them", not "they apply".
I don't know how it is with regard to graphics processors, but with regard to a multi-core central processor in a computer this is certainly not true, software can run on several cores at the same time when each core runs a different section of code at the same time as the other cores, there does not have to be uniformity between the sections of code that each core runs.
Miracles
I never thought the brain was like a computer nor parallel. You also saw it in the links to my articles on the subject. My question comes out of curiosity. By the way, to date I have published a little more than 450 articles on a wide variety of subjects, including 3 books. Chapters of them are in the knowledge. The books were not published because of the market. It's hard for me to believe that whoever enters Stimatsky's, will see a book with many tables and flow charts, and will take out his credit card.
Miracles you are just amazing! All in all, I deleted what is written in brackets to make the quote easier to read, the meaning remains the same!
I'll rephrase it to make it easier for you -
I'm talking about the stage where the textual code was translated while running into a series of electrical pulses in the electronic cards of the computer, that is, what was before a sequence of text signs, is now pure electrical pulses that run inside the processor and inside the cards of the computer!
Is it clearer now? Do you understand now that I'm talking about the electrical pulses and not the textual code they were before?
"Cheeky 🙂 Here's your quote again. I only missed a comma between the two parts you quoted.'
No, read your quote again, you left out the whole part where I explained that the text marks turn into electrical pulses which for me are equivalent to the electrical pulses in the brain! It's not just a comma, you completely changed the meaning of what I was trying to say there!
Life
Practically, parallel calculation is done today on graphics cards. These cards contain hundreds, even thousands of processors. Each processor is weaker than the computer's processor, but together they are much faster. But, and this is a big but, a number of restrictions apply to them. The first is that they run the same code. Each has its own memory, but their software is uniform.
There are other types of systems, such as Google servers, but then you reach the limit of communication between the computers.
There is of course a lot of academic research, where suitable algorithms are searched for, I am less familiar with this today.
But, our brain is not a parallel computer. Far from it. He is not a computer at all.
Eyal
Cheeky 🙂 Here's your quote again. I only missed a comma between the two parts I quoted, and you deleted the contradiction...
"The second thing I've already emphasized several times is that I'm not talking about textual software like the C language, but about another aspect, which is that in the end the software (the sequence of text signs) is translated into a sequence of electrical pulses that run through the computer's cards."
And you still don't understand what the secret is?
Trying to send the response again:
1. "Do you like me talking like that? If not - then curb the debauchery tone a bit..."
Interesting, and speaking this way to other commenters on the site is fine for you I guess:
"Saf-kan, please ms-pik spread your tum-tum." You have no idea what you're talking about.'
2. What are the quotes you brought related? All that is said in them is that the NDE she experienced occurred while there was still electrical activity in the brain, this does not at all contradict the fact that at the time the brain was emptied of blood and cooled, there was no such activity, and this is also emphasized in the section that opens the article.
3. "We have several memory mechanisms, and only one of them is based on a change of synaptic connections"
I remind you that the discussion on the subject began after you asked me in surprise and bewilderment how information can be stored in the brain without electrical activity? (and giving an example of a hard disk that "remembers" information even without power supply).
So of all the mechanisms you know in the brain, isn't it clear to you that the synapses are the main and central mechanism that allows us to remember things, even without electrical activity in the brain?
In the link I gave earlier it is explicitly stated that the electrical activity that was measured was *deep in the brain*, however in the cerebral cortex itself where all memories are stored there was no electrical activity. So according to your theory (no electrical activity - no memory) that person was supposed to forget everything similar to the RAM memory of a computer, and return to function like a day-old baby mentally after being brought back to life.
4. "I have a degree in computers from the Technion (what degree?) and a master's degree in the philosophy of science"
That means bottom line you don't have any official academic degree in the field of brain studies or brain research.
It is not clear to me why my response is delayed, in the meantime just another point that I missed before:
You wrote "I'm not talking about textual software like the C language". After that you wrote "but about another aspect and that is ultimately the software (the sequence of this text's signs)". Do you really not see that you are contradicting yourself?'
Obviously it looks like I'm contradicting myself when you quote what is convenient for you, why didn't you quote the continuation? Can you only read half sentences? Here is the full section including the section you left out:
"I have already emphasized several times that I am not talking about textual software like the C language, but about another aspect and that is that in the end the software *is translated into a sequence of electrical pulses that run through the computer's cards*, and in this way it is not fundamentally different from the electrical pulses that run in the brain."
Now it already sounds a little different, doesn't it?
Can you please publish my comment?
Miracles
What is the situation today in the field of parallel computing? In Pre History of the Internet I published several articles on the subject. Since there are many graphics in them, a field I am not familiar with and I do not know how to upload them to the Internet, references to these articles are attached
"What is a parallel calculation? Mathematical presentation" People and computers issue no. 67 January 1987
"Parallel calculation for tabular information" Computers issue 122 February 1992
"Management Applications for Parallel Computing" Issue 129 September 1992
I am ready to photograph these articles and send them to you, but to which address?
Eyal
1. In the article you gave a link it says "never has an NDE been recorded for sure during a flat EEG". I continue – it says: “Clearly the NDE did not occur while the EEG readings were flat. Over two hours passed from the beginning of the NDE until they started cooling her blood! Eliminate the "NDE while the brain is dead" order... what negligence on the part of doctors to point out repeatedly, and more in scientific articles, that the experience was experienced during brain death!"
And I ask myself - why am I conducting a discussion with a person who brings as a source for his claim - an article that completely contradicts what that person says....
2. You wrote "A person who presents himself as an expert in the field of the brain does not know such a basic thing". Not only do you not read the sources you cite, you are also unaware of how clueless you are about what you are talking about (do you like me talking like that? If not - then curb your tone a bit...).
We have several memory mechanisms (I know 4), and only one of them is "based on the change of synaptic connections (the creation of new connections, or the modification of existing connections)". For example - the word "for example" at the beginning of this sentence is not found in any "change of synaptic connections".
Say - the IBM chip should sleep? There are critical things that happen in the brain during sleep, not that we understand them.
3. The IBM chip is interesting, but it is several (many..) orders of magnitude weaker than a human brain. Its structure is symmetrical, for example, 256 synapses compared to a variable number in the brain (varies from cell to cell, and possibly also over time). One of the interesting things that separates a biological system from a planned system is exactly this "mess" and I believe it is a fundamental difference.
4. Our brain is not a parallel computer - it is not a computer at all. software running on a computer. If something is not understood here, ask...
You wrote "I'm not talking about textual software like the C language". After that you wrote "but about another aspect and that is ultimately the software (the sequence of this text's signs)". Do you really not see that you are contradicting yourself?
5. My studies are a bit of a mess, and a bit none of your business either. In our context, I have a degree in computers from the Technion and a master's degree in philosophy of science. Most of the years I was involved in imaging, in the field of flight, and today I am mainly involved in imaging the human brain. And of course continues to learn 🙂
1. I actually read the part in question (even before I gave the link here) and according to the best of my understanding, only a general explanation was given there and not specifically regarding the aforementioned case. Note that in the opening part of the article it is emphasized *that there was no electrical activity in the brain*, what is more, it is a little hard to believe that there was such activity when the heart and respiratory system are not working, the body is cooled to 16 degrees and the brain is completely drained of blood.
2. The main and central part of creating new memories in the brain is based on the change of synaptic connections (the creation of new connections, or the modification of existing connections) and it is rather surprising and surprising that a person who presents himself as an expert in the field of the brain does not know such a basic thing.
3. "Do you expect those chips of yours to continuously build new connections?"
Your question is not understood, what is "you expect"? Computer simulations of neuron networks have existed since the 70s-80s and indeed the learning process in them is based on the change of synaptic connections. Each synapse in the simulation is represented by a memory cell whose value determines its strength, creating a "new connection" is simply changing the value of a memory cell (the synapse representation) from zero to 34 for example.
Computer chips also contain memory cells so your bewilderment is not really understandable, you are welcome to send an email to IBM people and ask them exactly how they implemented this mechanism in their cognitive chip, and come back here with an answer.
4. First of all today in the era of multi-core processors computer programs know how to work also in a parallel way and not only linearly.
Secondly, I have already emphasized several times that I am not talking about textual software such as the C language, but about another aspect, which is that in the end the software (the sequence of text signs) is translated into a sequence of electrical pulses that run through the computer's cards, and in this way it is not fundamentally different from the electrical pulses that run in our brain (which by the way is for me the "hardware", and is equivalent to the electronic cards of a computer).
5. Is it possible to know just out of curiosity what academic degrees you have, and from which academic institution did you receive them?
Thanks.
Eyal
Tell me, did you yourself read the link you posted? It says there that the flat EEG recording does not mean that there is no brain activity at all. Are you serious???
Not all of our memory is built on building new connections, but let's assume it is - do you expect those chips of yours to continuously build new connections?
I don't think our brains contain software that runs on hardware. The software has very specific characteristics. One of the characteristics is that software is one-dimensional. That is - software is text, a sequence of characters. Our brain is far from that. In particular, there is no way to describe the brain in a linear way. do you get that
Hi Anonymous, I thought only Nissim and I stayed here 🙂
Eyal
Handsome. I like your answers. You seem to have understood my words well. You are of course right (or as Nissim would probably say: very right). Another thing: also note that humans tend to personify other objects and animals. It's because of "short communication". Lack of a common language leads to communication in other ways such as gestures. The language is not narrow. Languages can be invented to communicate. In fact a language can even be invented to communicate with a dog or a tin can with wires and transistors.
And speaking of languages, don't get excited about Chaim.. He is angry at your use of the Hebrew language because he had nothing to say against your arguments. And probably also because he sent a letter to Father Ibn and Eliezer ben Yehuda and still hasn't received a reply from them.. 🙁
Miracles really, no offense, but it really amazes me every time how much you don't know the most basic things about the brain while you present yourself as a great expert in the field that is his daily occupation.
1. In the previous message, section 2, you claimed that stopping the signals in the brain causes damage to the brain that does not allow it to return to function... of course this is not true. The brain can return to full function even after there was no electrical activity in it, a "plateau" brain. What causes damage to the brain is a lack of oxygen and as a result the cells break down, the interruption of signals is only the result, it is not the cause...
2. Again, I'm quite shocked that you don't know such a basic thing about the brain. Where is information stored in the brain without electricity? In the synaptic connections between the neurons there are miracles. When you learn to play a new piece of music on the piano, new connections are formed in your brain that didn't exist there before between the neurons, and existing connections break or change their strength.
The newly built physical network represents the tune you learned, it is the one that will determine what electrical pattern will form in your head when you try to play the same piece of music again after a week from memory.
3. I didn't say the word brain death, I said that people came back to life (just like a computer reconnected with electricity) even after their brain was completely quiet and without any electrical activity:
http://sharp-thinking.com/2012/03/22/בשערי-המוות-7-זכרונות-של-מוח-מת
Eyal
2. Don't get upset - we know long before Kurzweil that almost every live production starts from a single cell.
3. Your computer has a disk that contains the software. Your computer contains a disk that stores information even without electricity. Where exactly does it exist in the brain?
And where did you read that someone came back to life after brain death? Tell me 🙂
But leave it, you have no desire to understand what I'm talking about. I may not have written a book on the subject, but I did write a thesis. At least I understand something...
Nissim, first of all I'm glad that you've finally been convinced and you're even openly admitting it, what progress!
1. It is completely clear, I have not said a single thing that contradicts this, the genome contains the basic structure of the brain, and it is the environment that shapes it.
2. But you didn't write it in the book, one zero for Ray Kurzweil.
3. It is strange that every day I turn off the computer and when I turn it back on the next evening it returns to its original state with the operating system that was on it and with all the programs and files that I saved, if this is not the case with you then you are probably using a very strange computer 🙂
People came back to life even after a state where their brain was "completely quiet" without EEG signals and without any electrical waves... a "plateau" brain.
What causes damage to the brain is not a break in the electrical signals as you wrote, but a lack of oxygen. When oxygen does not reach the brain for a certain period of time, the cells stop producing energy and therefore they also begin to physically disintegrate, a disintegrated cell can no longer function again and cannot fire electrical signals.
4. Ask Professor Idan Segev from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he actually mapped together with his students in a completely accurate way the firing pattern of dozens of types of neurons in the brain and according to each type of input that arrives, the mathematical equations they wrote create firing patterns that you cannot differentiate between them and firing patterns of real neurons, so accurate is their imaging.
How does the firing between neurons represent language, emotion, pain or a preference for pistachio ice cream? Listen, I already told you before it's really not interesting, as soon as we connect an input and output means to this brain we can simply ask it directly about the above things.
The aforementioned phenomena and preferences will be created spontaneously within the brain when it interacts with its environment, just as they are created in the brain of a growing child, it should not interest us what specific structure in the neuron networks in the brain creates a preference for pistachio ice cream (surely this brain is a relative of Bibi's) .
5. You keep insisting but so do I, the mind is definitely hardware and software and I'm sorry I can't convince you about it.
The physical network of neurons and the links that exist between the neurons and their strength is the "hardware", the electrical signals that run between the neurons is the "software" even if it is not written in the C language. It's just like the electronic signals that run inside an Intel processor when you run any software on a computer, the chip is the hardware, the signals that run inside the chip is the software.
6. Miracles I didn't say that a small area of the brain contains the "I"... On the contrary, I say that the *entire* brain contains the "I", your personality, so when small pieces in your brain begin to be replaced little by little with computer chips that have the same synaptic structure, you will slowly be "sucked" into the computer, until finally your entire personality You will be contained within, say, a million digital computer chips (which will replace a million biological brain pieces in your head).
7. Wake up, we know how to create hair and even already know how to grow an artificial liver and heart and brain cells in the laboratory.
8. I didn't say anything like that, you don't understand my words again, did you read the article that was published not long ago about a sophisticated robotic arm that can transmit feelings?
So I'm talking about something like this, it really doesn't have to be a body with a heart, kidneys and blood vessels that match one to one with a human body.
9. Regarding your comment to life, no, I'm not confused, it's you who is confused. When you create a perfect replica of the structure of the brain, consciousness will also spontaneously form just as it spontaneously forms in the brain of a baby.
Life
In the world of aviation, a device that simulates an airplane is actually called a simulator. And if they want to speak Hebrew, they will call it a flight trainer and not a simulator, for political reasons...
In the world of medicine it is more complicated, because there is imaging and there is the simulation (which is sometimes called imaging).
In our context, it is interesting. Eyal, to my understanding, is mixing two concepts. One concept is an image of consciousness, as Marvin Minsky led at the time. The second concept is the image of the structure of the brain, for example by a structural network.
Eyal
I definitely agree with you that language is a living, breathing, kicking thing. A language that freezes on the yeast will eventually fade away and yet there are jarring things. What you do in this case is you anglicize the Hebrew and the result is neither Hebrew nor English. In the past I encountered this phenomenon of Lasmeltz and I didn't like it. Don't forget, as I told you, this is my profession. Transferring a word from one language to another must be done so that it fits into the rationale of the second language. I'm not sure that the supplier works for Smeltz will survive for long. If there is a word in Hebrew that gives the same meaning why not use it? A beautiful example of transferring meaning is the word from helicopter to helicopter, on the other hand, the word chess far to phone has not stood the test of the years.. When you transfer a word from one language to another, even if it is phonetic, it should flow with the flow of the language. Why break teeth?
Eyal
1. Identical twins can differ in character, so not all information about personality is coded in the genome.
2. I have always argued here that evolution is true and that there is no soul. It follows that our structure is coded, more or less, in the genome.
3. Clinical death is not brain death. As soon as there is a "stop" in the signals in the brain, there is an impairment of brain function. Without signals the brain does not function and cannot be made to function anymore. Think of a computer that you turned off - nothing will return it to its original state. I already explained it…
4. You have some implicit assumptions here. The most jarring is this: the genome, as well as the environment, contains information to create neurons. Let's assume that we will succeed in how this coding is performed. There is another layer of knowledge that is needed - how the neuron fires in response to the information in its input. Then there is another layer of information - how this shot represents a language, emotion, pain, political leaning and so on. This also needs to be deciphered.
5. I said - in a certain sense. Our brain is not a computer and hardware and software cannot be separated. There is a fundamental difference here, but the salient difference is that the brain is not running an algorithm or algorithms. You were right when you said that even a dead brain still has a lot of "information".
6. Here we come to science fiction. I don't know a small area in the brain that contains the "I". I don't see any way that a machine much smaller than a neuron would be able to recognize the thousands of inputs to the neuron, the output of the neuron, and all this in a dynamic system of complex signals. At the same time as all of this, you need to know what the connections are between the different neurons, when this entire complex system manages an entire body at the same time, and when all of this changes all the time...
We know how to build small chips with billions of transistors, but most of them are exactly the same type, with very little connection to other transistors.
7. I mean, you say that the machine will be more complex than the human brain. Wake me up when we know how to make synthetic hair...
8. I understand, we will create a robot that is identical to a person at the cellular level. Again, I settle for her hair 🙂
Eyal - check what a "nano-robot" is capable of doing today. Check out our ability today to transfer huge amounts of information in a short time. Check what medicine knows about the brain - doctors are the only ones who put their money where their mouth is. All the rest - write books 🙂
Miracles,
1. Regarding the contraction ratio, there is no need to guess too much, let's say that one sixth of the genome contains instructions for creating a brain, that means 500 million bases in total which is not really terrible, which contain knowledge of how to create an entire brain containing 85 billion neurons, and ten thousand times more synaptic connections. So do the math about the shrink ratio we have here.
2. "Regarding the development of the brain from the genome, this is a very interesting idea, which I have thought about a lot"
It's nice that you say that in retrospect, the question is if you have proof of that 🙂 Ray Kurzweil not only thought about the matter, but also wrote it in a book.
3. "We need to get a 'recording' of everything that happens in the brain at the level of signals and at the level of connections, over time, and at a relatively high frequency. I'll say it again - this information does not exist in a dead brain!'
Miracles are absolutely not true, you don't need any recording of the signals, they will be generated by themselves as soon as you activate the brain, just as an electronic card starts generating electrical signals as soon as you connect it to electricity.
As soon as the computerized neuron network (or electronic - chip) you created receives electricity and begins to receive electrical signals from the external sensors it is connected to, then the network will "come to life" and begin to generate electrical signals by itself, just like those that are created in the brain of a person who has been clinically dead and has been brought back to life, or like these which begin to form at a certain stage in the brain of a fetus.
Besides, think about it this way, the part of the genome that contains instructions for creating a brain does not contain any information about the electrical signals and their firing rate... Once the brain is formed and begins to receive electrical impulses from the eyes, ears, hands, feet, and other parts of the body, electrical signals also begin to spontaneously form within the brain, It is not information "saved" somewhere, it is information that is created naturally as soon as the network is activated, as a result of its structure and as a result of the links that exist in it.
4. "In principle, you are very right, the cell contains all the necessary information. But note - this is the whole cell, because the decoding of the genome depends on the components of the cell. There is no way to take DNA without its environment to build a phenotype."
You probably didn't understand what I meant, I meant that once you know how the information in the genome is translated into cells and proteins, you can actually create a computerized copy of the neuron network in the brain according to the same template, you can read a piece of the genome and say ok, that means adding 17 billion type A neurons here, and this section of the genome Says to connect another 24 billion type B neurons to them and so on.
That is, you can read the piece of genome like a book and prepare software based on it that simulates (alien life is for you) a neuron network, or design a cognitive digital chip based on it.
5. "Without firing rate, there is no consciousness, and no memory." In a certain sense it is similar to a switched off computer.
Nice, I see you started using the on and off computer model I gave you earlier and you were very against it, this is already progress.
6. "Apart from the fact that we will understand all this only in the distant future (certainly not in the current century), we did not get what you wanted - preserving the consciousness of an existing person. We received a tabula rasa, without any knowledge of the world, without any experiences."
The method that Ray Kurzweil describes is this, after billions of nano robots have mapped a small piece of brain in your head, a cognitive computer chip will be prepared that is completely identical to that piece, and it will be implanted in your brain and replace the original biological brain piece that was there.
And then you will be asked "Is Nissim still you?" Do you recognize the family? the friends? Do you remember the trip to Honolulu last summer?'
After your answer is "yes of course" they will repeat the process again with more and more pieces of brain, until finally your consciousness will be all on a digital computer chip that will contain your personality and your consciousness, and you will still continue to feel "you" just like before.
7. "We got baby X, and he will be a certain human being, and not some genius who will benefit humanity..."
This is not accurate, let's start with the fact that electronics work at least several tens of thousands of times faster than a biological brain, another thing - because it is a computerized brain you have much more control over its flexibility, what will happen for example if you double or even triple the amount of neurons in the network you created? How will it affect?
Look for example at the brain of a mouse, it has much higher abilities than the brain of an ant or a worm, look at the brain of a cat which contains more neurons - it has much higher abilities than the brain of a mouse... and what about the brain of a monkey? And a human brain that is 3 times bigger than a monkey's brain?
And what about a digital chip that will not only work much faster than a human brain, but also contain many times more neurons? Are you willing to bet what abilities such a mind would have?
8. "Of course, we must not forget that the development of a fetus depends on the environment, and we will have to simulate that as well. Consciousness does not exist in a vacuum.
But I have already addressed this matter several times in the current thread, I told you that the brain we create will be connected to a robotic body, and it will be able to experience the world just like a baby, and also learn languages. And he will come here to the site and argue with you about the issue.
Eyal
Regarding file compression - the ability to compress depends on something called "Kolmogorov complexity". Broadly speaking - a gigabyte file that is all zeros can be shrunk to 4 bytes, but a file of the same size that contains a sequence of coin flips, for example, will hardly shrink (I'm simplifying a bit).
Is there information redundancy in the brain? I don't think we know for sure today.
Eyal
I was talking about the amount of information that needs to be known, not the processing rate of the visualization. The cells are constantly firing, and their rhythm defines the information/processing that takes place. Therefore - without it, there is no information about the brain.
Without a firing rate, there is no consciousness, and there is no memory. In a certain sense it is similar to a switched off computer: you are welcome to take my switched off computer, and simulate Linux by disassembling the computer (without the disk) into components.
The tools I get information from are the best in the world. You are talking about something like ten orders of magnitude higher than existing today, and in my personal opinion, much more than ten orders of magnitude. Again - we need to get a "recording" of everything that happens in the brain at the level of signals and at the level of connections, over time, and at a relatively high frequency. I'll say it again - this information does not exist in a dead brain!
Regarding the development of the brain from the genome - this is a very interesting idea, which I have thought about a lot. In principle, you are very right, the cell contains all the necessary information. But note - this is the whole cell, because the decoding of the genome depends on the components of the cell. There is no way to take DNA without its environment to build a phenotype.
Apart from the fact that we will understand all this only in the distant future (certainly not in the current century), we did not get what you wanted - preserving the consciousness of an existing person. We received a tabula rasa, without any knowledge of the world, without any experiences. We got baby X, and he will be a certain human being, and not some genius who will benefit humanity...
Of course, we must not forget that the development of an embryo depends on the environment, and we will have to simulate that as well. Consciousness does not exist in a vacuum.
Oops correction - "in the whole genome we have about 3 billion bases".
"WinZip Retirement Rules".
Miracles, the firing rate is really irrelevant because a digital computer chip knows how to generate electrical pulses at much higher rates, I wasn't even thinking about the direction of fMRI but about technologies with a much higher resolution that will be available to us in the future.
And if we are talking about a physical scan of a frozen brain of a donor who is no longer alive, then the brain can be sliced into thin slices (this is actually already done today) and reach much, much higher resolutions, as was done in the connectome project, meanwhile on mouse brains.
Actually, there is a much simpler way and it is also described in Ray Kurzweil's book (as mentioned, this is an article related to it), think about a small zip file, when you unzip it into a folder on your computer (unzip) you can get a file that is several thousand times larger than the compressed file . That is, if you know the deployment rules of the WinZip software, you can actually take a small file and unzip it into the original file, which is much larger and more complex.
Similarly, although our brain is very complex and contains a huge amount of neurons (around 85 billion), the piece of the genome that instructs how to create the brain is much smaller (by orders of magnitude), in the whole genome we have about 3 billion neurons, so let's say that a sixth ( 1/6) of the genome contains instructions for creating a brain, and here you have a total of 500 million bases that contain explicit instructions on how to create an entire brain.
And because we understand more and more how the genome is decoded into proteins and structures, then at a certain stage (and this day is not very far away) we will be able to take the relatively small piece of the genome that contains the instructions for creating a brain, and simply follow the instructions.
So basically you will have a "baby's mind", and from this moment you will start raising him and teaching him things, including French and English if you want.
Eyal
The ability to separate fMRI, a tool that shows brain function in real time, is measured in millimeters, and time separation is measured in seconds.
On the other hand, our brain has between 100 and 1000 trillion synapses, and the firing rate is measured in tens of milliseconds (and even less).
I deal with brain scans all day...
good morning nisim,
So scan the brain of a donor (and if this is possible, and in my opinion yes - the brain of a living person) and make an exact copy of it, make a copy of all the neurons and all the synaptic connections that exist in his brain, without even understanding anything, just copy and paste.
And of course this brain will be dynamic and the learning rules existing in a real neural network will be introduced into it, just as it was done in the "Human Brain Project", the computerized piece of brain they created is capable of learning.
And this must of course be connected to some body so that this copied brain can also communicate with us, otherwise it is just a useless black box.
Eyal
In my opinion, it is very relevant. If we don't know how humans know language, then how will we teach a machine to speak? Language is part of the structure of the human brain, something we are born with, not something learned. Therefore, the language capability should be built into the machine.
"When do you think we will understand, by looking into the human brain, what languages he speaks?"
Let's say for the sake of it that we will never understand this from a direct observation of the neuron networks that exist in his brain, so what? Why is this relevant?
As mentioned, we can deduce which languages he speaks indirectly, by simply asking him, or if it is a mouse, we will test in an experimental way which food he prefers to eat by giving him a choice between several types of food.
"Eyal, you wrote that it is possible to understand what happens in the brain with the help of connecting to input/output - or am I imagining it?"
Nissim, what I said is that the brain contains certain information, for example which ice cream Moshe likes - vanilla ice cream, chocolate ice cream or pistachio ice cream.
Now you can try to figure out which ice cream Moshe likes in two ways:
1. A difficult and very complicated way that today is also impossible is to look at the neuronal networks in Moshe's brain and the connections that exist there through a microscope in order to try to understand what kind of ice cream Moshe likes (and as mentioned this is the hard way, and it is quite pointless and illogical, maybe it will be possible in another 100 or 150 years).
2. A much simpler way is to use the input/output means that are naturally connected to Moshe's brain (ears, mouth...) and simply ask him naturally what ice cream he likes, or if it's a mouse's brain, place several bowls with different types of food in front of him and see which He prefers food.
Eyal
You're just trying to catch me with your tongue. So I will wait patiently until you answer me one simple question (as I remember you said "50 year roof"). From your explanations, I understand that you are imagining a machine consisting of a network of neurons that is structurally similar to the human brain.
If so - when, in your opinion, will we understand by looking at the human brain which languages he speaks?
After all, you are talking about "replication of consciousness" - don't forget that the argument is "is it possible to preserve the consciousness of person X over time".
Eyal
You wrote that it is possible to understand what is happening in the brain with the help of connecting to input/output - or am I imagining?
Hi anonymous user, I deduced this based on the fact that you wrote to me "the day is not so far when a quantum computer will be built that knows how to do everything you mentioned".
That is, it seems that you are making a connection between a quantum computer based on quantum calculations, and our thinking that I talked about before.
Eyal
I don't remember that I wrote or meant: "Our thinking is based on quantum processing". I would appreciate it if you could remind me where it was written in my response. The sentence may have been taken out of context. Except that it would be more correct to say that: it will be possible to symbolize our thinking through quantum information processing.. if anything..
A quantum computer is not like a normal computer. In the simplest terms, in my opinion, the issue can be explained: on a normal computer, the representation of a symbol requires an existing symbol. For example, the number 1 is the result of a previous calculation operation, performed by the computer, before displaying the number 1.
In a quantum computer, the number 1 is a "calculation operation" in itself (as strange as it sounds).
Something that allows the miniaturization of components and operations and therefore makes the quantum computer faster. by a lot And also more 'flexible' in terms of physical complexity.
Wow, I didn't think I was speaking so unclearly... Did I say it doesn't matter what happens inside? How exactly did you infer that from me? From which sentence I wrote did you get this?
It is clear that the external behavior we see is ultimately due to the connections created in the network and their strengthening, but from a direct look at the network itself through a microscope it will be very difficult for you to conclude whether the network has learned to recognize circles, triangles or faces.
Once you connect it to input/output means, it will be much easier for you to understand and deduce what it has learned and what it contains (or what games are installed on the chip, if it is a chip), just as it will be much easier for you to understand whether a certain person prefers vanilla ice cream, chocolate ice cream or pistachio ice cream by simply asking him, than inferring it indirectly based on observing the neural networks in his brain, even though they obviously also contain this information.
And if we talk about a computer program, it's kind of like trying to understand what a certain program does by looking at its binary code (1/0) which is the hard way, compared to reading it in C code, or simply running it and looking at the screen and its reactions to mouse clicks and a keyboard.
I hope I wrote clearly enough this time.
Eyal
So you are saying that it is not important what happens inside, but only the external behavior is important? That is, you completely dismiss the importance of thinking itself.
This is a legitimate approach, similar to Skinner's approach in the XNUMXs. This is an approach that was proven wrong many, many years ago. Again - please read in the literature.
On the other hand - you say that a neural network is the solution. You say that it doesn't matter how the brain is built, we will take a complex network of neurons like the brain, and we will be able to program it to behave like a brain, without understanding how the brain works.
Please tell me how to approach such a problem, because I can't understand that it is even possible.
"You don't think, neither do I, but one who understands much more than most people in the world does think so"
And most of the experts in the field, at least the ones I've heard, don't think so, also he can claim until tomorrow, the question is what practical evidence is there for this claim? As far as I know there is none.
"Suppose I give you a human brain in my hand - what can you tell me about this person?"
It's kind of like asking me about a computer chip (plus some ancillary components, flashes, etc.), without connecting an input/output device to it, can you tell me what programs it contains? What games are installed on it, etc.? What operating system?
Both the brain in your example and the chip in my example contain "something", when you connect input and output means to them (for example a robotic body with sensors in the case of the chip that simulates the brain) you will be able to better understand what it contains, and indeed the European project has a clear intention to connect the resulting product For a robotic body, through which this digital brain will also be able to learn just like a baby.
Eyal
You don't think so, neither do I, but one who understands much more than most people in the world does think so.
You are again talking about the cells in the brain and do not understand what I am talking about at all. Suppose I give you a human brain in my hand - what can you tell me about this person? What did he prefer - Bach or "Big Brother"? What books did he read? What is the name of the person he likes (maybe her) the most? What language did he speak?
I will make it easy for you - the person is still alive, awake and healthy, but you must not talk to him. Can you tell me anything about him?
"One of the greatest physicists alive today, Roger Penrose, actually thinks that our brain is based on quantum processing. I personally think like you, that he is wrong, but will you know?"
I am glad that at least on this issue we have an agreement. In the end, it can be said that everything operates "on the quantum level", everything is composed of atoms and electrons, and in this sense even a lock and key operate "on the quantum level". The question is whether it has any practical importance when they come to perform a simulation of a certain thing, in our case at least I see no reason to think so.
"Our brain is not only made of neurons, there are many more cells that we don't know what their role is.
Another reason is the structure of the human brain. The IBM chip, and probably a hundred thousand of them, are identical neurons, or of a small number of types. It's not like that in the brain"
Nice, and indeed the European human brain project takes into account all the dozens of types of neurons that exist in the brain, which have already been mapped and their mode of activity is known. Watch the lectures of the people leading the project, they explicitly state this.
It is true that there are many other cells besides neurons (glia for example), but it seems that their main importance is a "supporting skeleton" (for example supplying oxygen, food, physical support...) to the neuronal network, and not an essential role for the action itself (except for the glial cells, and this is known and taken into account as far as I know).
I don't pretend to be an expert in the field, but I listen to the experts and try to use some judgment based on what I do know.
Eyal
One of the greatest physicists alive today, Roger Penrose, actually thinks that our brain is based on quantum processing. I personally think like you, that he is wrong, but will you know?
You talked about "smelling" a whole brain. And you are talking about neural networks. Let's assume that IBM manages to connect a hundred thousand of their chips and also increase the connectivity to that of the brain. Do we have anything approaching a brain?
I think not. One reason is that our brain is not only made of neurons, there are many more cells that we don't know what their role is.
Another reason is the structure of the human brain. The IBM chip, and probably a hundred thousand of them, are identical neurons, or of a small number of types. This is not the case in the brain.
I say again, you, in my opinion, do not know the mind, are not aware of its complexity, and do not understand how little we really know. And again in my opinion, you don't even understand how much you don't know. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about the 70s. Please, I directed you to the books (if you prefer professional articles then just say). The more you learn, the more you will realize how much we don't know today.
Miracles no one here reads minds and doesn't have to guess what you mean when you write:
"I know that at the end of the 70's we had much more knowledge about the brain than today"
So it is clear to anyone who reads your words that this is what you think.
Eyal
I was trying to make a point... please don't underestimate my intelligence, it doesn't contribute to the discussion.
Haim, language is a breathing thing and that is what is beautiful about it, sometimes foreign words also enter the language and become an accepted part of the language.
Usually in such cases I go to ask Google, and these are the results I got:
"We did a simulation": 102 results.
"We did a simulation": 178 results.
"We did a simulation": 675 results.
(Although personally I have no problem with the word "simulation")
Eyal
A moment of Hebrew - to smaltz in Hebrew is to simulate from the word simulation. In my profession I am a linguistic editor. of technical literature I worked with aviation material. So please spare my heart. Such words are neither Hebrew nor English. Words like that can give me a heart attack. Hebrew is a beautiful language, why destroy it?
A leftist who votes for Itzik,
I really don't think it is necessary to wait for the age of quantum computers to simulate an entire brain, I am not aware of any finding that proves that our thinking is based on quantum processing.
In my opinion, a digital chip (which by the way works several times faster than a biological brain) based on a neural network will do the job.
I think that quantum computers are generally intended for a different type of calculations in which you place before them the entire range of possibilities and they "collapse" immediately to the correct answer (for example, a very large prime number that you are looking for).
Haim, thanks for the link, I haven't had time to read it yet, I just skimmed through it.
Nissim, do the following two sentences have the same meaning in your eyes?
"I claim that we have learned how little we know, even though we have learned a lot"
"I know that at the end of the 70's we had much more knowledge about the brain than today"
I think they have a completely different meaning, and the second sentence is certainly not true.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
One thing's for sure, politeness and respectful address to other people are not in your dictionary. Regarding the questions I presented to you, you did not answer. As someone who claims to be a computer expert of the first order. I would expect you to answer all my questions one by one. My impression is that you have read a number of articles on computers in total. What exactly do you do on computers? Answer at least this question so that the people living in Zion will come and learn from you. If you didn't understand Nissim's response, then try to translate my last sentence into one of the computer languages - the quarter of the chicken you eat understands life better than you.
Anonymous cheeky
We know all 302 neurons and 7000 connections in the connectome of one dangerous worm - and none of this explains the behavior of this worm.
As an expert in the field, how exactly do we know the "average" person's connectome (remember, there is huge variation between people).
And unlike you, I am engaged in the field.
Strange life
1. I will speak however I decide. I don't curse or impersonate other people.
Regarding everything else, it seems that apart from asking me to build and explain to you here and now a computer that is exactly like the brain (something that has not been done yet. Beyond primitive levels) you are not actually asking anything. Of course there is no need to state that your request is "a little" excessive I would say. not like that? 🙂 After all, by doing this, you are breaking the second commandment that you yourself invented: "You shall not do your homework." "
In general, you gave the impression that you were stuck somewhere in the 80s and since then the evolutionary movement has stopped for you.
At least I got the impression that you are simply trying to excuse yourself from the tree to the ground.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
1. Please do not distort my last name. The name is a foreigner with a pinch under the m and an opening under the z. Your attempt to express disdain for others indicates you as the saying goes "everything wrong in one's life is wrong".
2. I didn't ask you to do my homework for me.
3. The article was evaluated by professionals who know at least as much as you and was published in the professional literature.
4. What is your academic training?
5. The name you use to present yourself as a disgusting leftist who votes for Itzik Bouzi Livni. Yikes says what he is unsympathetic about you
6. To this day, we understand less than 10% of what happens in the brain. From here to draw sweeping conclusions the distance is very large
7. The sentence "the subjective interpretation of the mind of the action." Categorically incorrect. The subjective interpretation is that of the owner of the brain
8. What is the connection between brain variation between humans and artificial intelligence. .
7. Is there some kind of sophisticated computer that can say "don't want" or "don't confuse your head"?
8. I will add a joke from the 70s that will be valid for many years. In the Pentagon we gave the sentence far from sight far from heart, we gave him an instruction to translate it into Russian and for the purpose of criticism they told him to translate it back to English. The answer was invisible idiot. I hope you understand what this is about.
9. Apart from linear thinking which I understand you are familiar with, there are other forms of thinking such as emotional thinking, associative thinking, value thinking, structural thinking and more. Try to explain to me and all the readers how to transfer emotional thinking to a computer. A number of people were asked on a scale from 1 to 10 what they feel emotionally towards any woman, where 1 expresses hatred and 10 expresses total love. Everyone will say what is different. How do you transfer it to the computer? And both would give a value of 7. A depth question will show that there are differences between the 7 of one and the 7 of the other. How do you transfer this variation to the computer?
9. Suppose you work with a computer for an extended period of time, can he pay you a salary or fire you?
10 I understand that you deal with computers. Haven't you learned that even computers have limitations. David Harel wrote a book about it, read the articles of the late Zvi Yanai who, although he was not a computer expert, understood the subject no less than you.
11. I have the impression that you are only at the beginning of your journey.
12. In your approach, you are similar to first or second year physics students who think that if they have studied a few formulas they already know physics by heart. When they get older, they start to sober up and realize how complex their profession is. I hope for you that this process happens for you too,
13. In your words I hear quite a bit of arrogance, I and zero more. For your own good, try to get rid of her.
Strange life
So despite and even though you "wrote an argument" - your main argument is flawed.
You don't need to know 100% about the brain to know how to build a machine that knows how to imitate actions performed by a biological brain. In fact they already do. If you weren't lazy you wouldn't ask me to do your homework for you. You could check for yourself (after all, you claim to know how to read. Don't you?)
In general, a baby's brain is not developed like an adult's. But as the person grows the brain also grows/develops. And although the brain performs the same actions, such as releasing some chemical in the body, brains still differ from person to person like a fingerprint. That is, there is a certain activity that characterizes all brains. The result in behavior is the brain's subjective interpretation of the action.
In other words, to say that you need to know 100% of the brain in order to imitate it is the argument of someone who does not come from the field.
Maybe so you stick to political science or what you studied. Instead of talking about things you don't know.
Life
There are at least two famous cases where this actually happened 🙂
The first case is that of James Cook who came to Hawaii and was initially considered an important god named "Luno". When they realized he was not a god, they murdered him...
The second case is the arrival of the Americans to various islands in the Pacific Ocean, during World War II. All kinds of sects, and even at least one religion, developed as a result of these cases. There are wonderful videos about it on YouTube - search for cargo cult.
And of course - Clark's third law 🙂
Miracles
For them, an animal can be, for example, a kangaroo or a penguin
Miracles
I don't know the story. They may have seen some unusual animal and all they could do was describe it in their own terms. I will present you with a completely fictional situation as food for thought. A battalion of soldiers and a tank are thrown by a time machine into the courtyard of Sennacherib's palace.. How would the locals react? They would go into shock and describe the tank using their content world. One possibility was that someone who came from an unfamiliar and fearful place would be offered sacrifices. They did not know concepts such as rpm, infrared, radiator, load contact, etc.
Life
I read about an interesting case in Greek mythology - the griffin, an eagle's head on a lion's body. The stories about him were different from the stories about other creatures, such as the minotaur, and it turned out that apparently the ancients really believed that this creature existed! Adrienne Mayor (acquaintance?) claims that fossils of a dinosaur called Protoceratops, which appears to have the body of a large carnivore, and the head of a bird, may have been known.
Miracles
I liked your answer. As for my article on the Vimanas what I do is I take the text and analyze it as it is in the way of a case study. Our knowledge of ancient history goes back to Sumer. For the reason that the oldest written evidence has been found so far. Earlier still not found. Mythologies should not be underestimated. A careful examination of them on a comparative basis will reveal new historical truths. And I did it. The most prominent example of this is the case of Troy. A German amateur archaeologist in the late 19th century named Schleimann insisted that the city of Troy mentioned in Homer's Iliad still existed. He traveled to the supposed location of the city in Turkey and indeed found it. Recent archaeological evidence that can confirm the existence of civilizations before Sumerian are the underground caves in Cappadocia, Turkey, which according to the researchers' estimate were dug 10,000 years ago and thousands of people lived there, the giant underground halls in Malta. The most interesting find is Yonogami in Okinawa Japan. In the 90s, huge structures the size of the pyramids were found at a depth of 40 meters under water. 12,000 - 10,000 years ago. No one built underwater cities, the place was flooded with the rise of the sea level. The Egyptians claimed that they were preceded by two civilizations in Egypt up to 45,000 years before them. I have read quite a bit of material on the subject which is extremely fascinating. Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt called his pioneering book "History begins in Shumer" I would add one word "History begins anew in Shumer"
Life
You assume that he even knows how to read...
A disgusting leftist who votes for Itzik Bozhi Livni. Ugh
I wrote my article in 1987. How you came to your conclusion I don't know.. No one was talking about quantum computers then. If you had read the article carefully you would have seen one of my main arguments. that you can't imitate the mind when you don't know it yet. Everything we know about the brain even today is little. According to you, the brain works on a quantum basis. Do you have any research references? If not, then try not to mix fields just because you read something about them. Also try to read what is in the philosophy of science.. If you have done so, mention the name of at least one book or article that you have read..
Eyal
We saw that you realized on your own that "miracles" are irrelevant. That's because he doesn't understand what he's talking about. All in all, he quotes from Wikipedia all kinds of concepts about which he has no idea.
You're not the only one who noticed this. There are many other good ones who say that.
As for what you said, you are right. The day is not so far when a quantum computer will be built that will know how to do everything you mentioned. Already today there is a foundation on which a quantum computer will be built. It's just a matter of time.
Strange life
Hello. If I understood you correctly, you claim that a quantum computer will never be built. Why do you claim this, when all the evidence points to the contrary?
Life
What I wrote starts with "if" and after that "then" appears. I wanted to clarify the idea.
I started reading the article, thanks. looks interesting. Not that I believe for a second that anyone flew in ancient India….
Miracles
Even with regard to the tornado, this is also not certain.. in an article I read in the 80s about computers and the weather that appeared in
Scientific American discussed predictive power using computers. In Abstact they wrote that the ability to predict is only 4 days ahead, but in any case take an umbrella with you. The number of variables is so large that it is impossible to quantify them all.
I am attaching a link to my article on another topic. Read it carefully. The article was greatly appreciated by one of the Air Force pilots.
http://www.yekum.org/2011/05/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A1-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%94/
Life
Thanks! In my understanding, what Eyal is saying is that once we wait for the structure of the brain, then all the features we are talking about are emergent phenomena, and will appear automatically. It's like saying that if I enter in the computer the properties of a huge amount of air molecules, including the rotation of the earth, the sun, etc. - then I will get tornadoes, clouds, and snow. In this case - I think it is true, but in the case of the brain, I think we will have to simulate the entire process of human formation, starting from the embryo, and including the rest of the body's organs. Won't happen soon...
Miracles
Link to another article
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mazarcogcomp-1201031
Life thanks!
You mentioned a business meal there. Every businessman knows that it is worth hosting customers. Today we know better the importance of the meal: when we are happy we make less wise decisions. At first thought it sounds the opposite, but when we are happy the "associative brain" has more influence, and is less balanced....
Nissim and Eyal
Link to another article of mine on artificial intelligence. Miracles as an engineer by profession you will find interest in it
https://www.hayadan.org.il/frankenstein-wont-wait-0101027
Eyal
I argue that we have learned how little we know, even though we have learned a lot. At that time they talked about artificial intelligence as a solution to all the world's problems, and that in a few years we will be able to converse freely with such programs. At the time, Weissenbaum wrote a cute software called eliza that knew how to talk like a doctor and ask smart questions to diagnose diseases. And the same Kolby I mentioned wrote a program called parry who knew how to sound like a paranoiac. There were other examples, for example the work of Roger Shank, for understanding natural language.
So, think that consciousness is our thinking, the way we process natural language. This is the idea behind the Turing Imitation Test. Helen Keller wrote an amazing thing about it - "Until I learned a language, I didn't exist" (a very rough quote for the sake of explanation).
Today, we think that the important part of consciousness is based on "associative processing", something that also exists in other animals (therefore, in my opinion, it is incorrect to say that only humans have consciousness). It is very difficult to ask people about this part, because we are not at all aware of its existence - and even deny its existence!
I suggest you read the article: http://www.neuromarkewiki.com/images/8/8c/Inhibiting-and-facilitating_strack-martin.pdf
The article describes the following experiment: take a group of people and a group of pictures. The people have to say with each picture happy or not. The trick is - they have to hold a pencil between the lips, part horizontally, to make the mouth smile, and part lengthwise, to make the mouth contract. It turns out that their smiles thought the pictures were happier....
This is an important part of our consciousness, not some extreme case - how will we know how to implement it in an artificial neural network?
Do you really think we're close to that?
"I know that at the end of the 70's we had much more knowledge about the brain than today"
Are you claiming that for 35 years we haven't learned anything new about the brain?
Eyal
I wrote "in complex systems there is a lack of knowledge, and a lack of knowledge is equivalent to randomness". The sentence is correct. I didn't define randomness - I'm just saying that if we have a large system that we don't know all of its data, then we think there is randomness. A coin toss is a good example of this. Stop turning my every sentence into an argument, just try to understand what I'm talking about.
Before you continue talking about the brain - learn a little, okay? Check out in particular what brain death is and why it is so difficult to determine death. Just understand that this is a legal concept, not a medical concept.
Really, you demonstrate exactly what I was saying about knowledge in the 70s. You know very little, and are not aware of it. I don't think this discussion helps anyone. You insist on yours, without thinking and without understanding. Give one more slander and let's close the matter.
Eyal
I did not mention books, but researchers who also wrote books. I did read books by everyone I mentioned, not always to the end. You're trying a personal attack now, I understand? 🙂
By the way, just out of curiosity, have you personally read all of the books you are throwing out their names left and right? From beginning to end? Everyone ?
Miracles, you speak so irrelevantly, and with such self-confidence...
"In complex systems there is a lack of knowledge, and a lack of knowledge is equivalent to randomness"
Absolutely not, I suggest you read on Wikipedia what is the correct definition of randomness. If you have a very complex system (like a person, for example, who has to make a decision whether to press the red or green button), and every time you direct it to the exact same initial conditions it gives you the same result as the previous times, then it's really not random. The fact that the system is too complex and it is difficult for you to calculate in advance what result it will give, does not mean that it is random.
"Your comparison to a computer is wrong. A dead person - his mind as a computer that does not run the correct program"
Not true, once again you are talking off the topic - what "incorrect software" can run in the brain of a person who has no electrical activity in his brain?! A dead person is like a computer that doesn't get electricity. Your comment about the oxygen is really irrelevant, you know I once had a transistor radio that continued to play music even a few seconds after you disconnected it from the electricity, so that means that a radio can function without electricity right?
"How do you know that a computer is stuck? Looking at the screen, at something connected to the computer"
And how do you know that a person died miraculously? We look at his reactions, at his pupils, at his breathing, at his pulse, at something connected to the brain...
"Look at the processor itself - you won't know anything"
Again not true, if you test the processor properly under Intel laboratory conditions you will find that there is no electrical activity in it, just as if you scan the brain of a dead person you will find that there is no electrical activity in his brain.
Shmulik
This is exactly my opinion - in principle there is only random and deterministic. In complex systems there is lack of knowledge, and lack of knowledge is equivalent to randomness. like flipping a coin. Like the weather forecast.
My car turns off the engine by itself. At first it seemed to me that it had a will of its own, and I couldn't understand why it didn't always turn off. I researched a bit and found out that there are quite complex conditions for engine shutdowns, such as the angle of the road, the angle of the steering wheel, the temperature and much more. Now I already know how to work on it so that it doesn't turn off when coming to a stop for example 🙂
Do not know. He is not completely bound by the input he receives but why are we not exactly in the same boat? Which turns a greater amount of sensing and processing capacity into free will.
Free will must be related to randomness. If true randomness does not exist, given the same parameters will I always react the same way?
Maybe it's like Christopher Hitchens said about the question of free will: we obviously have free will. I have no choice but to believe this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH2G7fkXAc8
A fascinating project. I am interested in this project on the subject of "free will". Even such a creature simply has free will, doesn't it? And if he doesn't have it, then why should ours be?
This time it's openworm... :)
Shmulik
We need to justify our contribution to Wikipedia, don't we? 🙂
What did you search for on Wikipedia?
Miracles,
Well what will happen? After every response of yours I have to run to Wikipedia.
you're the best!
Eyal
The link to the article
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ai-iluusion-or-reality-290512
Due to transfer from software to software there was a disruption in the mathematical presentation. I hope you understand the principle
Eyal
Your comparison to a computer is wrong. A dead person - his mind as a computer that doesn't run the right program, that's all. I'm talking about shortly after death. How do you know a computer is stuck? Looking at the screen, at something connected to the computer. Look at the processor itself - you won't know anything. The brain can function for several minutes without oxygen, so it doesn't help us.
In the late seventies, or so, we were sure that artificial intelligence was around the corner. We thought our brain was a language processing machine. Read a bit about Terry Winograd, Marvin Minsky and Kenneth Colby to understand what I'm talking about.
And no - we learned that there is no such thing as an "average person". If there was - there would be no need for an election 🙂 We would ask the average person what they think, and we would save millions... Which pasta sauce does the average person prefer? They once seriously tried to answer this question, and it turns out that there is no answer.
Regarding complications - do you know openworm?
Life
I did read, and I agree with what you say. There are two more points to understand. The first is that our consciousness is not software that runs on the brain's hardware - the terms "software" and "hardware" do not belong in this field at all. The second point is that the brain cannot be separated from the rest of the body - I learned this only recently. The brain is fed with information from the whole body as long as we live. Its large parts, which cannot be separated from the other parts, control the parts of the body and receive feedback from them. A clear example are the pupils - a topic that Daniel Kahneman wrote a lot about
Haim, can you give the link to the article again?
Nissim, you're just being smart, I wasn't talking about external indications, I was talking about the true state of the mind. The difference between a living person and a dead person is just like the difference between a working computer that receives electricity and a computer that has been turned off.
A dead person's brain does not receive oxygen and therefore has no electrical activity, therefore it also has no thoughts and no self-awareness.
"I'm totally serious"
No miracles, you can't be serious when you claim that at the end of the 70s we had much more information about the brain than today... I don't believe you are serious when you claim such a nonsense, watch some lectures by brain researchers, the reality is completely opposite of what you present.
"Average person? You mean a person with an IQ of 100? I understand it's transgender, right? I wonder what the skin color of this average person is….”
Come on, what does skin color have to do with it now... an average person is an average person, you don't need to get too smart.
"I'm not trying to belittle you, God forbid. I say that the problem is many orders of magnitude more complex than you think, and it doesn't matter how complicated you think the problem is"
I also think the problem is complicated, but not beyond what we are able to handle 🙂
Miracles
The whole subject of artificial intelligence has a logical fallacy. You can't imitate what you don't know. With all the power of computers, a number of brain functions have been translated into formulas. We gave them a linear expression. The brain thinks in a completely different way that is completely unfamiliar. I previously sent you a link to my article on the subject, an article written in 1987
Eyal
I'm totally serious. We do not know how to distinguish between different minds. For example, brain death is defined by various parameters such as no reaction to pain, no breathing, no dilation of the pupils, no fixation of the eye, no reaction to cold water in the ear. There is also the matter of brain waves, but it is not mandatory in every country. But, what is really different in the brain? we do not know.
Average person? You mean a person with an IQ of 100? I understand it's transgender, right? I wonder what the skin color of this average person is….
You mentioned calculations. What do you mean? In an "average" brain there are 100 billion neurons, with each one connecting to thousands of other neurons. Each nerve cell has dozens of glial cells. Today we know that the timing of signals in the brain is critical, meaning that all this mess has to run at the same time, at the right pace.
To understand the complexity of the problem, I suggest you read books by Hofstadter, Dennett, Pinker, Kahneman, Ariely and Sax. Each describes in a different way different behaviors of the brain. And note - only behaviors. After that you can be interested in brain anatomy books in the various fields. Then, maybe we will move to computer science, to topics of calculations and complications. And of course books by McCulloch and Pitts, Hebbs, Kohonen, Rosenblatt and more.
And all this knowledge, which is the tip of the iceberg of how the brain really works, will all be built in one machine...
I'm not trying to belittle you, God forbid. I'm saying that the problem is many orders of magnitude more complicated than you think, and it doesn't matter how complicated you think the problem is 🙂
"Who do you think knows the brain best" - a brain researcher biologist I think...
"The brain that we create according to you - will be that of..." - of an average person I hope, unless I really made a mistake in the calculations.
"What is the difference between the brain of a living person and the brain of a person who is currently dead?"
Nissim, I really wonder about you, a person like you who comes from the direction of science asks such a funny question? You really don't know the difference? This is a question that usually comes from the clergy, and of course their answer is: "Soul".
"I know that at the end of the 70's we had much more knowledge about the brain than today"
Say miracles, are you serious?
Eyal
I definitely agree that there is no magic. Our brain is completely explainable physically.
Who do you think knows your brain best - a brain surgeon or a psychologist or a computer scientist?
What is the difference between the brain of a living person and the brain of a person who is currently dead?
According to you, the brain that will be created will be that of a computer science student, or that of a psychotic murderer? Who do you think knows the difference between these minds?
I don't think I'm a failure, Eyal. I know that at the end of the 70's we had much more knowledge about the brain than today....
Miracles,
The things you said are taken into account, and there are still quite a few neuroscientists and computer scientists who think that this is possible already in the coming decades. IBM's cognitive chips and the simulation in the "Human Brain Project" include dynamic connections that change as part of the learning process, and there is also an intention to connect these simulations to a robotic body that will include cameras + sensors, so that the scientists are well aware of all the points you raised.
In the meantime, we have accumulated a lot of knowledge about the brain (even though it is far from perfect) and this knowledge is enough to get started, the simulations we have built in the meantime behave very close to real pieces of brain that are tested in the laboratory, which shows that the scientists are definitely in the right direction.
As I said before, there is no magic in our brains, so there is no reason why we can't do this.
Eyal
When we build one with trillions of connections... call me. Of course, the connections should be built and destroyed all the time, the communication time between the components should be like in our brain and so on.
And of course let's not forget - our brain is connected to every place in our body, every muscle and every spot on the skin. All of this has to exist for it to be human-like. In other words, you need to build a whole person, because a brain similar to ours will not function without all these connections.
We are very far from understanding in detail how the human brain works (much further than you think). So how do we build a machine that will imitate a system we don't know at all?
Miracles,
As in previous discussions we had, you continue to refer only to the current model of a computer (memory unit, data processing unit...) and you completely ignore a new trend that is starting to take shape in recent years (for example in the human brain project, or IBM's cognitive chip) and is the creation of a chip A digital computer that will operate according to the principles of our brain, i.e. a learning neuron network with variable synaptic connections, just like your brain.
Eyal
Absolutely nothing to do with the soul 🙂
What I claim is that there is a fundamental difference between a computer and a brain. It's a bit complicated to explain, but there is a difference between the mathematical model of a brain and the model that describes a computer - and this is on several levels. It is interesting that Turing himself came up with this difference (in his doctoral thesis) but after that he forgot about the matter and invented his test.
Miracles -
"I don't believe it is possible to separate our consciousness from the physical brain"
Neither do I 🙂 Usually this is a claim of religious people, they call it "soul".
"In general, I do not believe that artificial intelligence is possible"
I actually really believe that it is possible, and I see no reason why it won't happen, within 50 years.
Eyal
Today you want to live forever. I'm sure in the future you won't want to. If the future is long enough it will happen someday...
I say that there is no reason to think that our consciousness knows how to deal with major changes in the environment, which will happen over the years. "Future Shock" explains this in depth, and shows how many problems we have today (the book is 45 years old...) due to environmental changes.
I do not believe that our consciousness can be separated from the physical mind. In general, I do not believe that artificial intelligence is possible. We can build machines with tremendous capabilities in any field we want. In particular - we can build a machine that will pass Turing's test. But this machine will not think.
I'm talking in the relatively near term. In 1000 years I have no idea where we will be.
Nissim I didn't understand how the first sentence you wrote is related to what I said.
Do you think that once you switch to your copy you will stop changing? If so, this is really not the intention, the copy will be dynamic just like you, and it will also continue to learn and change.
Eyal
I am not the same person I was 20 years ago, and I don't think I would want to be the same person.
Do you think our brain will be able to cope with the changes in the world over a long period of time? If so, I suggest you read "Future Shock".
The Vision Jubilee is not unnecessary, for example I want to have continuity, I am not interested in them creating a perfect copy of me that will include all my memories and personality, for me he will be like a twin brother, I will not be ready to be destroyed so that he can be my continuation.
Ray Kurzweil talks about continuity, that is, about a perfect copy of you, that you can literally pass into and still remain you, not just a "copy" or a twin brother.
Children are not a copy, they are just a mix of parents' genes, it's not the same.
jubilee
Let's assume that each of us has 24,000 genes. We give 12,000 of them to each child. How many children do you think it takes to ensure that all 24,000 genes pass? Hint – more than 2…
Layal: I understood what he was talking about. I think his vision is simply unnecessary.
What would happen if you copied your brain into a computer, but continued to live normally?
Will the computer be you or something else?
Are two identical twins the same person or different people?
Children's natural method for continuing life is the best.
For Jubilee, Ray Kurzweil talks about replicating your life right now, with all the knowledge you have. Imagine that you go to sleep and wake up in the morning, only to find yourself in a new and much more sophisticated body, and a brain that is not biological but a digital computer chip that contains all your personality and all your knowledge.
for miracles:
One child receives half of the parent's genes.
The second child also receives half of the genes but not the same genes that the first child received...
Lori:
What life can you create a replica of - is the me of today exactly like the me of 10 or 20 years ago?
If you have lived and raised your children then some of the information you have has passed on to them.
Ori
I think we are so far from that. Turing made a big mistake, in my opinion, in his imitation game. I think a better test is "The Simpsons Game" - you show the computer an episode of The Simpsons and it knows exactly when to laugh. And there is also the "Ikea test" - you give the computer a box from IKEA, and it opens and assembles according to the instructions. This will not happen in the next few years.
Yes, one of these words causes the message to be automatically blocked... When I write the exact same message only without the separation between the letters, the message is blocked....
Funny, forbidden words 🙂
H-Z-Y-V-T, S-M-Y-M (was the message blocked?)
Automatically.
There are probably keywords in the message that cause automatic blocking... strange.
"It is still a direct continuation of your life in terms of thoughts and biologically"
Biologically and physically, you can say that it is in the right direction, but in terms of thoughts and personality? Definately not.
Ray Kurzweil talks about a future where you can create a copy of yourself, including the self-awareness that will remain the one you currently have (he even describes a nice method of how to do this, how to transfer the self-awareness from you to your computerized copy, so that it will really be you and not just a twin brother)
Nissim I can't respond to you, for some reason my father doesn't release my comments.
jubilee
"...how many children already receive most of the kindergartens" — this is absolutely not true! How do you get there?
to the stag,
I am not kidding. It is still a direct continuation of your life in terms of thoughts and biologically.
And if we go into small children - one child receives half of the genes of one of the parents, but some children already receive most of the genes.
A world with eternal life is a world that has no place for children - simply atrocious.
Why are my messages blocked, what happened??
Nissim, your analogy to the drug LSD is not appropriate here, I was talking about a situation in which a person will feel happiness (similar to the supreme happiness - bliss, described by Maharishi's flying meditators) that does not contain all the negative effects of drugs such as hallucinations and addiction.
Yuval you laughed, every child is a random genetic mix of the father's and mother's traits, they are not really the entity of each parent separately, certainly not everything related to brain and personality.
By the way, the picture he named here is very old, about 20-30 years ago, it is not an updated picture of him.
There are already objects you can load your entity into and also load the genes.
They are called children.
Unfortunately, this is the situation today. We have a lot of zombies. But when their lives are long, they will eventually get tired of the repetitive content. It seems to me that they will look for things with deeper content and more
Out of the box
Most people in the world are interested in "Big Brother" and not in the exploration of the universe. "Big Brother" gets boring after 32 seconds, and that's only if there was a 30-second commercial...
for miracles
Peace
I may be ignoring the difficulties you talked about and I agree that there are difficulties. But to this day, with all the inherent difficulties, man tries to overcome them and finds amazing solutions. And this is not the place to give examples regarding boredom due to the longevity of the years. I think that even here the person will not be bored. We have another whole universe to explore and the business will actually be more diverse.
What happened that all of a sudden comments are blocked?
Miracles, we can make a person feel happiness without all the negative effects of LCD (hallucinations, addiction...) If anything it will be more similar to the effect of meditation or yoga, what they call "supreme happiness" (Bliss).
And precisely when a person is happy, he functions much better.
Ori
Yes, it's called LSD. We have long known how to prevent boredom.
If the goal is to turn us into robots then I personally give up the pleasure. Our brains evolved for a purpose. If we change it too much we will no longer be human. At some point, children will stop being born, who needs them? Think about what size table is needed in the Passover order? And with whom will we do it?
Suppose we stop old age - what age will we all be? 20? 40? 60? 100? Whoever thinks that 20 does not understand, in my opinion, what he is talking about. Those who develop the technologies are 100 years old...
Miracles, at the time that Ray Kurzweil is talking about we will already (so he says) have such a good understanding of our brain that we can easily prevent it from feeling bored, we can stimulate and change the appropriate cells in the brain so that the person always feels happy.
You really look good for your age jacky manor
outside the box
I think you are overlooking some important points.
Resource management for example. If people live significantly longer, many more resources will be needed. I am aware that the rate of "resource invention" has also increased, but this is a slower process.
Therefore, we will reach a lack of resources - the truth is that we are already there, and look what is happening in the world.
Another point is psychological. In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" it is told about a man who got a good life. The man is so bored and sets himself a goal: to insult every intelligent being in the galaxy - personally
Our consciousness is not built for a very long life, and phenomena may arise that even Kurzweil did not think about.
And another point - there are probably other points that no one has thought of. For example - most of the cells in our body are not human cells, so shouldn't we ask them for their opinion?
To Eyal
Peace
OK . We don't have to agree. And I gladly accept it. But I would be very happy if you read one of Isaac Asimov's novels (one of the greats of science fiction) such as Tomorrow Times Nine or Selfish the Robot. Look how limited he was in describing the future. And through no fault of his own, he simply did not know what Deacon Key was. He just didn't know what a digital camera was. He knew the tape recorder. . Only when you read his stories do you see how limited he was. On the other hand, his ideas as a whole are the key to the technology of the future. And he wrote his literature about fifty years ago. Not to mention Zol Warren who envisioned the submarines and the flight into space. But still with all his imagination. Reality is much more wonderful than Zoll Warren's fertile imagination. I think it is the same today. And my explanation that the future is much more wonderful than people think
Outside the box, I'm not sure I agree with you.
Before the industrial revolution, during the time of the Bible for example (about 3500 years ago) were there no diseases? Were there no plagues? Didn't people die of cancer then?
In my opinion, even if we live in perfect harmony with nature, there will still be diseases and genetic defects that we will have to treat in an "invasive" way (nano robots that circulate in their bloodstream and repair defects are not really considered "invasive" in my opinion, they are no different in my opinion from the white blood cells that currently exist in our bodies and work against bacteria and viruses).
That's not what I meant, God forbid. There is a process which I wrote later "It seems to me that science will seek as little intrusion into the human body as possible. He will act over time in complete harmony with the laws of nature" Certainly one should do everything possible and do. But over time while doing and learning will eventually reach a balance. Surely the actions being taken today are the only option we have according to the available data. And they should be done, but the ultimate goal is to reach such a good understanding that in the end we will know how to live in complete harmony with the laws of nature. Something that is very clear that we do not know how to do so is proof of this hole in the ozone and the greenhouse effect. Deforestation of entire forests, drying of days and at the same time melting of the pole. Damage to the living fabric of the bees in nature. Extinction of different species in nature. Creating insects that can withstand harsh conditions they were not supposed to withstand. Like the cockroaches who spray them with stronger chemicals over time. or viruses of any kind. This only shows a shortcoming in understanding the harmony of nature. It takes time to learn it. And man begins to look for better ways. ..but it is clear that for now we need to use the capabilities we have.
Eyal
We will not reach eternal life in the foreseeable future. In my opinion, not in the distant future either. Death from old age is not only due to the failure of spare parts but because aging is built into all forms of multicellular life. All multicellular organisms base their lifespan on cell division a limited number of times. The only cells that reproduce without limit are the cancer cells, this is exactly the definition of cancer (an eternal life of organic tissue that causes the destruction of the non-cancerous tissues).
As for Kurzweil. Kurzweil is a science fiction writer, a complete fantasist, who considers himself a scientific prophet. As an entertaining entertainer he is fine, as a prophet he is a fool. His few predictions that have come true are banal predictions that many have predicted.
"The tendency is to reach a situation where we interfere with the laws of nature as little as possible"
I mean let millions of people die naturally from diseases and epidemics? Not to intervene and try to cure them?
To Eyal
Peace.
I definitely agree with you that at this stage the line of thinking is organ transplantation or tissue or cell regeneration. But the progress of science in recent decades is no longer linear. It is logarithmic and even more so. Today the tendency is to reach a situation where as little as possible we will interfere with the laws of nature, if only to use them for the better without changing the existing nature. See a striking example of natural (green) energy (water flow, wind power, solar radiation...and more up to the concept of free energy. Like magnetism. Or maybe cold energy about which there are many disagreements. But Einstein was also disputed at first and in fact scientific history is not lacking in such (Not long ago, an Israeli scientist was in such a situation and finally received global appreciation.)) It seems to me that science will seek as little invasion of the human body as possible. He will act over time in complete harmony with the laws of nature (string theory) and will be able to return situations to their beginnings out of an infinite number of possibilities (chaos theory) It seems to me that this is the direction Yitzhak Menor is striving for
Regarding Nissim's comment - I agree, what determines this is only statistics on a large population, and not the case of a single person.
Outside the box, think about a machine that every time some part breaks down or starts to wear out it is replaced with a new part, what reason is there that this machine cannot continue to operate forever?
In my opinion, the day is approaching when we will be able to replace and repair every part of our body, cancer cells will be eradicated even before they become tumors, blood vessel walls will be cleaned of grease and not blocked, etc.
I see no real reason why we can't get there.
Itzhak
How do you know that your health condition is not the result, partially of course, of luck?
I recently had the chance to meet a guy half your age, with small children and a pregnant wife, who is dying of a malignant brain tumor.
How can one stand in front of him and say that diseases can be prevented without medicine?
I definitely agree that you should eat healthy, be active and be happy. I just think that the effect of these actions on health is not great. Heredity plays a very large part, and luck plays an even larger part.
I really hope that I am wrong and that you are right...
Dear Friends
The first stage of prevention of old age diseases has been implemented by successfully
I am 70 years old, young, healthy and strong
Engaged in information systems analysis in a large healthcare organization
Believes that our body has received everything it needs
My vision comes true a healthy society without diseases doctors and pharmaceuticals
Facebook – jacky manor
My contribution to the community appears in various forms
Eternal life? 111 What? This is not the thing that the ultra-orthodox have been talking about all the time. Just religious fantasies.
His book is fascinating and full of words of wisdom, I highly recommend trying it (I read the original version in English)
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?entryId=1065939
If a world war does not break out, there is no escaping the conclusion that the man who draws graphs based on the rate of progress of the human race in all fields, is one hundred percent right!!!!!!!!!!! Gentlemen, the days of the coming of Messiah are near...... He who will live a few decades more, will load his entire consciousness into a computer, choose any character he wants, and live forever. For all those who are worried that they will die before they have enough, don't worry, we will restore them according to their genetic information... As Herzl said: If you want, it's not a legend...
The most effective way to stay young is to plant old portrait photos in a new article.
According to a quick check - Kurzweil is 66 years old today. It seems to me that the picture in the article is a picture of him when he was 50 years old at the most.
The bureaucracy is a bottleneck. So what is the technology worth?