Ok, obviously we can't do this now, but maybe in the year two thousand...

Scientists invent a type of nano robot that can FULLY mimic every function and connection that a human brain cell has. Furthermore, the robots are programmed to replace every brain cell as the brain cell naturally dies. The robots are designed to run off of the nutrients normally found in blood, but have stored energy systems that they can run on in the case of a temporary reduction of blood flow (stroke/etc).

The robots are programmed to infiltrate the brain, and set up a loose network based on the natural brain's connections. The artificial cells will be ready to connect themselves as soon as a single cell dies, or an entire region is incapacitated.




I don't have a specific question here, but if something like this were to exist, and the mechanical cells perfectly replaced your natural cells, when would "you" stop being "you?" Is something like this doable?

After the human body was long gone, could these brains continue "running," perhaps even joining/linking together in some way?

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2008 2:05:41 PM

Paging GoldenViper

2/6/2008 2:16:35 PM

^^ That same question was asked in intro to philosophy.

I don't remember what the supposed answer was (if there was one), but I don't see why, if the things were identical in functionality to native cells, you wouldn't stop being you.

BUt, I think it would be extremely unlikely that we'd be able to make something exactly like our cells, without being our cells, or without being less efficient than our cells. Nanobots would be better suited to maintaining our own cells in a youthful condition than replacing them.

2/6/2008 2:20:14 PM

^ha, really?
I never took intro. I saw the philosophy of science topic in study hall and threw this out here, hoping some more in depth stuff would come out of it.

2/6/2008 2:24:18 PM

or what if we were able to mimic every cell in your brain, but switch it on elsewhere... it would have all of your memories and experiences, but would it also be "you?"

I'd say no because the minute you separate the two, they suddenly begin making new memories and are no longer identical.

if you did that to a criminal, should both the "real" and "fake" brain serve the prison term?

2/6/2008 2:27:26 PM

I wasn't being trite when I referenced GoldenViper. He completely buys into the theories that Kurzweil puts forward in his books. I tried to read TSIN, but it got to depressing for a Luddite like me. The author makes a VERY strong case for his theories, I just don't particularly care for where his conclusions lead.

www.singularity.org is a good site for that side of the debate.

2/6/2008 2:27:51 PM

Quote :

"Nanobots would be better suited to maintaining our own cells in a youthful condition than replacing them."

Well, yes. This is what folks like Aubrey de Grey are working on, though not necessarily with nanobots. They want to treat aging as if it were a disease and cure it. I suspect this will happen soon enough for most of us to live indefinitely.

However, I don't see why suitably advanced nanobots couldn't slowly replace our brains with superior material. Computers can process information much faster than we can. Theoretically, an electronic mind would think a million times faster than we do. It's one of Kurzweil's talking points.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Reason : proof]

2/6/2008 2:29:29 PM

So, in that sense, what would be the point of reparing our brains, or even replacing them with equivalent components (unless, like me, you wanted to remain primitive)?

2/6/2008 2:38:44 PM

^^ the devil's in the details

Firstly, smath is talking a 1:1 replacement of neurons, which would mean it wouldn't necessarily be able to "be" you, but faster. Because really, part of what makes you you is your mental ability, and to change that on a fundamental level would fundamentally change you.

The same goes for replacing of enhancing your brain with a computer.

2/6/2008 2:43:14 PM

I wouldn't want to be a part of the sub-human class once humans are reguarly enhanced.


^well that's one of the things I was trying to hint at. Once you replace cells, and update the hardware a little bit, when do you start updating the software that goes along with it?

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2008 2:45:20 PM

meh you'd be the human class, vs. super-humans.

I'm not sure how much say we'd have in the matter anyway. GoldenViper, Kurzweil, and others expect the transition to go rather smoothly. I'm not as trusting of human nature and the actions of those who are the first to get their hands on this technology.

2/6/2008 2:47:48 PM

Adolph Hitler, Khan Noonien Singh, Justin Smith.

2/6/2008 2:52:02 PM

This question is like Bicentennial Man in reverse.

If I could have my brain run even after my body was long gone, I'd definitely do it. I don't see why the "brains" couldn't link up with each other and have crazy discussions. All they'd need is energy to keep on running...

2/6/2008 2:56:04 PM

That becomes another question, what need do we have of a body if our essence is defined by information and that information is contained outside of ourselves?

2/6/2008 2:58:25 PM

without a body, how would you scratch your ass?

seriously though, our brains are wired to exist with a physical form. I think without bodies many minds would go insane.

just about EVERYTHING is related to a physical sense of some form.

2/6/2008 3:04:11 PM

Well thats another issue, and Kurzweil adressed this a bit in what I read of the book, that this is a massive evolutionary step and on a timescale never before seen in human existence.

What do we do about population growth when nobody is dying?

2/6/2008 3:12:58 PM

^

2/6/2008 3:15:15 PM

^^ At that point, we'd have been well passed the singularity, which means hopefully we'd be living in space colonies.

2/6/2008 3:51:40 PM

but i thought there could only be one immortal... i don't want to get my head chopped off

2/6/2008 3:54:36 PM

Quote :

"So, in that sense, what would be the point of reparing our brains, or even replacing them with equivalent components (unless, like me, you wanted to remain primitive)?"

It'll probably be the first step. I imagine brain enhancement will come later.

Quote :

"Because really, part of what makes you you is your mental ability, and to change that on a fundamental level would fundamentally change you."

I think it's a difficult question. My mental ability has significantly increased since I was five. Am I a different person? Yes and no. Enhancing brain function will undoubtedly change personalities, but I suspect it won't erase the sense of self or individual continuity.

Quote :

"GoldenViper, Kurzweil, and others expect the transition to go rather smoothly."

I wouldn't necessarily say that. While Kurzweil and the like are optimistic, they understand the danger of new technologies. Specifically, they're trying to make sure a positive Singularity occurs, not a negative one. It's not simply a matter of waiting for salvation. Transhumanists actively promote their vision of the future. They want advances to used to productively. They want us to plan to for the potential threats.

And I'm not as optimistic as Kurzweil. As you suggest, enhanced versus unenhanced will become a class issue. Assuming the current hierarchal organization of society persists, I'm sure many will be left out of technology's benefits. Molecular manufacturing could dramatically increase access to deadly weapons, possibly leading to more violence. I seriously doubt my genderless anarchist technocracy will appear too soon. My comrades and I might have to leave the planet to create it.

2/6/2008 4:14:19 PM

There was an article on SA that trolled the hell out of anyone who believed in 'The singularity' and associated idiocy.

News flash: Computers are dumber then a bag of shit and will remain so a long time for technical reasons anyone who believes in such a dumb idea clearly doesn't understand.

2/6/2008 4:32:23 PM

Quote :

"There was an article on SA that trolled the hell out of anyone who believed in 'The singularity' and associated idiocy."

Are you trying to repeat that performance? I have this feeling you are. As I'm sure you understand, trolling doesn't prove anything.

Quote :

"News flash: Computers are dumber then a bag of shit and will remain so a long time for technical reasons anyone who believes in such a dumb idea clearly doesn't understand."

Please provide evidence for your assertions. What technical reasons do you speak of?

2/6/2008 5:59:24 PM

I'd rather die.

2/6/2008 6:16:18 PM

2/6/2008 6:35:18 PM

Quote :

"maybe in the year two thousand..."

So, when does the odometer roll over?

2/6/2008 6:57:12 PM

Quote :

"In the year 2000 / In the year 2000!"

2/7/2008 1:41:12 AM

Quote :

"Please provide evidence for your assertions. What technical reasons do you speak of?"

Why don't you provide a self aware computer to debunk my assertions, or anything approaching that goal rather then glorifying gyro sensors.

Furthermore, AI development actually would require advancement in quite a lot of computing and physics fields including but not limited to: programming language,relational memory and distributed processing.

2/7/2008 3:04:54 AM

AI is really a long way off. True AI anyway. I read an article on Wired on 2 guys who were trying to do it. They were basically trying to teach a computer every fact in the world. That's retarded and it could never realistically work. I think a better way to do it would be to somehow build one on top of the internet, which is already the most advanced and sophisticated computing system in the world. But there are already way smarter people than me working on this so who knows...

2/7/2008 3:23:18 AM

Quote :

"Why don't you provide a self aware computer to debunk my assertions, or anything approaching that goal rather then glorifying gyro sensors."

Give me a few decades.

Quote :

"AI development actually would require advancement in quite a lot of computing and physics fields including but not limited to: programming language,relational memory and distributed processing."

Darn tootin', comrade. Said advances are on the way. Such is the nature of exponential growth. No one can predict the future perfectly, but trends point to human-level AI within a few decades. It could easily be sooner, if we focused it.

Quote :

"AI is really a long way off."

No, it isn't. If nothing else, computation speed will advance enough for us to reserve-engineer the human brain. That's Kurzweil's theory, though some say strong AI could come sooner by using more traditional programming methods.

2/7/2008 3:31:38 AM

You, yourself, say it's decades away. That's not close. I'd say that's an accurate prediction. Not anytime soon, though.

2/7/2008 3:35:23 AM

Decades is not 'close by.'

Its the technological equivalent of centuries.

I can get my crystal ball out too and claim

"Why gee golly, a billion years from now men will be destroyed by the supernova of the sun if he is still around."

and it would be a true but vacuous statement.

2/7/2008 10:20:42 AM

Oh, okay. I was wondering if that my be the problem. Different subjective ideas about time. While twenty to thirty years is about as long as I've lived, it doesn't seem so far ahead to me.

Quote :

"Its the technological equivalent of centuries."

Exactly. However, we'll all likely live to see it. Decades can creep up on you. That why I consider futurism relevant.

2/7/2008 1:27:48 PM

Which still in no way leads any credence to Wired'esque claims about the coming 'singularity.'

2/7/2008 1:29:18 PM

The technique is called extrapolation. It's the best way we have to predict the future at the moment.

For Kurzweil's basic argument, see here:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

[Edited on February 7, 2008 at 1:46 PM. Reason : link]

2/7/2008 1:31:28 PM