# Scientist wants to transplant brains into robot bodies.



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

I came across this and I must admit that I have mixed feelings.

We're talking about the artificial, unlimited prolongation of a human who's body has since expired. If this comes into fruition, I can envision anyone with the necessary funds being able to become virtually immortal. In a way, this may be a dream come true... however, I don't have pink colored glasses and I see a lot of it's possible darkness.

For example:

- How is this technology going to be controlled? By who? 
- What guarantees do we have that certain types of minds aren't preserved? 
- What is stopping them from using this technology to merge the most desirable aspects of several people into one single mind?
- What safeguards are placed so that the minds aren't "hacked"?

In a way, what they are proposing is similar to what we saw in a series called "Doll House" but instead of loading the minds into humans, they load them into artificial bodies. 
Then again, if they can pull out what is contained in a brain, wouldn't they be also capable of erasing its contents and reload new contents into it?

From this point on, speculation is open as to what this technology may bring.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

You can't hack something unless you're interacting with it physically or it is on a network. I would imagine those bodies wouldn't be on networks, and I also doubt many people would have the expertise needed to alter them through the hardware. 

Almost nothing is guaranteed in this world, why should this be any different?

I don't see why they couldn't merge the most desirable aspects of several people into one mind. For one thing, it would be pretty interesting and cool to see.

Reload new contents? Unlikely. A lot of what makes us " us " is based on chance and upbringing. Whatever changes they made would either be corrected eventually or make a completely new person.


----------



## CataclysmSolace (Mar 13, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> I came across this and I must admit that I have mixed feelings.
> 
> We're talking about the artificial, unlimited prolongation of a human who's body has since expired. If this comes into fruition, I can envision anyone with the necessary funds being able to become virtually immortal. In a way, this may be a dream come true... however, I don't have pink colored glasses and I see a lot of it's possible darkness.
> 
> ...


You wouldn't be able to reprogram a brain. To reprogram you would literally have to grow all the synapses/neurons over again from scratch. Also, after a certain time the brain begins to shrink and you would eventually lose your earlier memories upto that time. I believe I saw a show where they supposibly calculated that long-term memory can hold upto 500 years of memories. After that you would have to have an external memory to hold previous ones. It is possible to download all parts of a persons brain into a computer and continue existing. (If it is really you…) 

Nice topic


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Tristan427 said:


> You can't hack something unless you're interacting with it physically or it is on a network. I would imagine those bodies wouldn't be on networks, and I also doubt many people would have the expertise needed to alter them through the hardware.
> 
> Almost nothing is guaranteed in this world, why should this be any different?


You're missing the whole picture.

Those "bodies"* need* to be connected to a network to function as the point is for the "person" to continue living outside. 
Even if they operate on a stand-alone basis, it's a robotic body with an internal computer which is feasible of being hacked due to all the sensory devices that need to be connected to networks to function (think GPS to travel, sensors to avoid obstacles, etc).

I believe you missed the part of the brain's "data" at one point being just uploaded onto a machine and the body being just a holographic projection. If there are machines involved, it's possible to sabotage. 

They also talk about creating artificial brains to hold this "data" which would be possible to sabotage. Take phones nowadays... you don't need to interact physically with one in order to hack it. Anything that needs to be connected in any way to the exterior world is feasible of being attacked.

As for the expertise to operate... are you that naive to think that no one would pay handsomely to get someone to leak this knowledge? And it's not like this is something ultra-secret. I'm pretty sure that if this goes through, soon more scientists will learn it.



Tristan427 said:


> I don't see why they couldn't merge the most desirable aspects of several people into one mind. For one thing, it would be pretty interesting and cool to see.
> 
> Reload new contents? Unlikely. A lot of what makes us " us " is based on chance and upbringing. Whatever changes they made would either be corrected eventually or make a completely new person.


You contradict yourself.

Merging the most desirable aspects of several people into one* is creating a completely new person*. And this sounds very "cool" as you say but if this were to happen, we'd have to think about conflicting personalities, and find ways to completely erase any traits without corrupting any other data while determining which one would be the "dominant personality". 
This could go so horribly wrong that I'm not even going to consider it.

Personality, like everything, can be programmed, therefore your point about "chance and upbringing" is void.
If you want a very layman example of how easy it is to "create a person", think of books and movies and the characters in them... or better yet, games and how different personalities and traits are easily programmed into AI.



Armageddon_Wasteland said:


> You wouldn't be able to reprogram a brain. To reprogram you would literally have to grow all the synapses/neurons over again from scratch. Also, after a certain time the brain begins to shrink and you would eventually lose your earlier memories upto that time. I believe I saw a show where they supposibly calculated that long-term memory can hold upto 500 years of memories. After that you would have to have an external memory to hold previous ones. It is possible to download all parts of a persons brain into a computer and continue existing. (If it is really you…)
> 
> Nice topic


The brain is a bio computer and anything in the brain is made by means of electric impulses, you don't need to regrow everything if you have a base architecture to build upon. The contents of a brain are *usually* always in the same areas depending on what they are.

If you can read what's in it, there's nothing saying that the tech to overwrite it isn't there. As for the brain architecture, if we were to go by what you say, those people who have Hemispherectomy (half the brain removed) wouldn't be able to function. The brain rewires itself all the time and this would be no different. 

It's very easy to, for example, create fake memories in a person in a few minutes and that doesn't involve any kind of fancy technology, just the proper methods of conditioning the person to think those memories are theirs. That means that rewriting a brain to act as someone else isn't that much of a stretch.


----------



## CataclysmSolace (Mar 13, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> You're missing the whole picture.
> 
> Those "bodies"* need* to be connected to a network to function as the point is for the "person" to continue living outside.
> Even if they operate on a stand-alone basis, it's a robotic body with an internal computer which is feasible of being hacked due to all the sensory devices that need to be connected to networks to function (think GPS to travel, sensors to avoid obstacles, etc).
> ...


So you are proposing a brain in a vat scenario? And what about the brain decreasing in size over time?


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Armageddon_Wasteland said:


> So you are proposing a brain in a vat scenario? And what about the brain decreasing in size over time?


I believe that is the very reason why they intend to develop artificial brains in which they store the contents of the deceased's brain. According to what they propose, they will start with the "brain in a vat" concept and evolve into sophisticated artificial brains and from there, not even that. Just contents of a brain loaded into a computer that controls a holographic body remotely.

The interesting part here (and perhaps the most creepy) is that they don't intend to just keep the raw contents of someone's brain. They intend to keep "the whole person", personality traits and everything which may entail quite a bit of AI programming to achieve this in such a way that it won't create conflicts with the "dead" persona that they're loading... or risk changing the person completely.

I mentioned the brain erasing as some time ago, I read some articles about how it is already possible to modify or erase memories from a person's brain or even change their behavior completely. Here are a couple of links from various sources:Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

So... it is possible to erase memories chemically and with the technology to read what's in a brain giving gigantic steps, I believe it's plausible that the tech to erase and reload a brain with new "data" may be possible in the future. 
Of course, if at some point a way is found to bypass the natural brain and instead, have someone use the data contained in an artificial brain (like the latest eye implants for example, that bypass the actual eye)... well...

Imagine this extremely simplistic example: nanotechnology incorporated into your cerebral cortex that would enable someone to control you remotely. Now, translate that into having that same nanotechnology erasing "who you are" and loading up someone else into you brain.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

So kind of like a full body prosthetic like in Ghost in the Shell movies and Ghost in the Shell: stand alone complex series. People have augmented brains in the series so to advance brain functions and to allow compatibility with such devices. People in those movies and show get Ghost hack which in other words gets there entire existence changed around to suit the needs of the hacker. Of course advancements in anti-virus/vaccine programs and the complexity of the human mind requires such hackers to be very advanced or there victims very easy and vulnerable to such things. 

I know my comments are easy to dismiss since I am basing on an anime. But such anime usually inspire such thoughts and technology(mainly the sci fi ones) and the original writer of the story had probably put much thought into either due to thinking of how such things could come to be and what effects may happen or reacting to such news or thoughts of others in this field.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> I came across this and I must admit that I have mixed feelings.
> 
> We're talking about the artificial, unlimited prolongation of a human who's body has since expired. If this comes into fruition, I can envision anyone with the necessary funds being able to become virtually immortal. In a way, this may be a dream come true... however, I don't have pink colored glasses and I see a lot of it's possible darkness.
> 
> ...


Its a good idea some of us want to live beyond a 100 in useful bodies, I'm sure I going to deteriorate beyond recognition


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> You're missing the whole picture.
> 
> Those "bodies"* need* to be connected to a network to function as the point is for the "person" to continue living outside.
> Even if they operate on a stand-alone basis, it's a robotic body with an internal computer which is feasible of being hacked due to all the sensory devices that need to be connected to networks to function (think GPS to travel, sensors to avoid obstacles, etc).
> ...


I didn't click on the link. I was assuming it was related to the show " Through the Wormhole " which I watched and it involved a similar concept. They covered stand alone bodies AND ones involving a network. I was referring to stand alone. 

Sensors to avoid obstacles don't need a network. And who said the body needs gps? Why not make it a "normal" body where they need cell phones and everything just like us?

No, I'm not naive. Insult me again and I will return the favor. 

Money doesn't mean you'll understand the material. And hiring some major scientists for a possibly illegal action would probably be noticed and questioned.

Plus, do you think someone in a robotic body is important enough to be hacked? I'm sure they would be seen as outsiders by the populace. Whatever positions they held in society before would be gone. They would be " aliens ". 

I didn't contradict myself. I was making two different scenarios. Not one. Of course merging different personalities makes a new person. However if the model is based on who the person was before, any changes made ( such as beliefs ) would likely be corrected, or make a new person entirely if they were not corrected. 

You think it is easy to create personality? It's not. If so they would do it a lot more often. 

AI in video games? Are you serious? I play tons of games, you put too much faith into the AI. It's not sentient, there are no personality traits whatsoever. They are programmed to move certain ways, shoot guns/use weapons. And engage in other scripted behavior. They are not sentient nor do they have any actual personality traits. For personality traits would imply sentience.


----------



## The Nth Doctor (May 18, 2012)

There would surely be many complications and moral issues if this were to be put into effect...But my first, and current thought on the subject is this: I hope it happens and is affordable when I'm alive so I can be an immortal cyborg someday.


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

I think this would be really cool if it wasn't abused. Imagine the possibilities with space travel! It would be so much more useful than the technology we have for exploration today.


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

Sorry for the double post, but after clicking on the link at the bottom of the article it leads to a longer version which includes:



> Itskov says he wants to work with DARPA - the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency in the U.S military.
> 
> DARPA is already researching ways for its troops to use their minds to remotely control androids who will take human soldiers' place on the battlefield.
> 
> The Pentagon's hi-tech research arm, has earmarked $7million for research into the project, also nicknamed Avatar


That scares me more than anything else.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

This is one of those huge grey areas. Naturally, nobody wants to die, but living forever is just something that we should do. Maybe we should be asking "Should we do this?" instead of "Can we do this?". I don't want to die either, but mortality is core to the human condition. I think there should be a legislated maximum lifespan in case of such technologies.


----------



## Wakachi (May 24, 2012)

Mankind: Breaking with evolution 1 day at a time.



cue5c said:


> Sorry for the double post, but after clicking on the link at the bottom of the article it leads to a longer version which includes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


... Colonialism all over again?


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

Wakachi said:


> Colonialism all over again?


I wouldn't be surprised. That's why I'm hoping space becomes the #1 priority if this goes through. Otherwise we're all going to be fighting over the same dwindling territories. For once, let's not have history repeat itself.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Tristan427 said:


> I didn't click on the link. I was assuming it was related to the show " Through the Wormhole " which I watched and it involved a similar concept. They covered stand alone bodies AND ones involving a network. I was referring to stand alone.


The fact you didn't click the link and are not getting any info about this just about shot your whole argument.



Tristan427 said:


> Sensors to avoid obstacles don't need a network. And who said the body needs gps? Why not make it a "normal" body where they need cell phones and everything just like us?


Sensors are needed to emulate human behavior and body. What do you think your nerve receptacles are? How do you think you feel pain? Nerves = Sensors



Tristan427 said:


> Money doesn't mean you'll understand the material. And hiring some major scientists for a possibly illegal action would probably be noticed and questioned.


Would it? Do you also notice all the Government Researches being done unless they want you to know or if the information leaks?



Tristan427 said:


> Plus, do you think someone in a robotic body is important enough to be hacked? I'm sure they would be seen as outsiders by the populace. Whatever positions they held in society before would be gone. They would be " aliens ".


If you read the article, you'd know the service is being given to the "big heads" as a favor in return of investment. If you don't see *who* will be taking up this service if it comes through that's your problem.



Tristan427 said:


> You think it is easy to create personality? It's not. If so they would do it a lot more often.
> 
> AI in video games? Are you serious? I play tons of games, you put too much faith into the AI. It's not sentient, there are no personality traits whatsoever. They are programmed to move certain ways, shoot guns/use weapons. And engage in other scripted behavior. They are not sentient nor do they have any actual personality traits. For personality traits would imply sentience.


As for my faith in AI, I'm a computer engineer and programmer and I know that what is in games is just a very basic version of AI. I also know what entails to make any AI remotely "alive".

Now, go get some info about all this and then we can talk. Don't come to me and try to counter arguments without having any knowledge about the subject.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Far as I understand, it wouldn't buy immortality. Brain cells eventually die given enough time and there's only so much space i the temporal lobes to store memory.


R.C.
Remember, no matter how I die: It was murder; should I be tried for a criminal offense, I probably didn't do it as I'm pretty straight laced and don't even have a speeding ticket; should I mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary…


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Far as I understand, it wouldn't buy immortality. Brain cells eventually die given enough time and there's only so much space i the temporal lobes to store memory.


Allow me to point you to the timetable they have. They intend to get rid of the physical brain in the future and just load the "data" into an artificial brain.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> The fact you didn't click the link and are not getting any info about this just about shot your whole argument.
> 
> 
> Sensors are needed to emulate human behavior and body. What do you think your nerve receptacles are? How do you think you feel pain? Nerves = Sensors
> ...


I actually DID get info on this, but from another source. Pay attention to what I say.

Duh we need sensors. I was saying they weren't on a NETWORK. Network= wireless network. Read what I say.

I'm not terrified of the government. Much unlike you fear mongering conspiracy theorists.

I figured the rich would be getting it. But they will still most likely lose their positions as a result of their new bodies. They would be seen as unreliable.

Good for you, I don't care about your status. It is a basic version of AI, but you seem to be calling it personality also. It is not personality. Personality implies sentience, which you ignored me ever saying. 

I have knowledge about the subject. Having a different source doesn't mean the knowledge is invalid. You being on such a high horse is really annoying me.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Tristan427 said:


> I actually DID get info on this, but from another source. Pay attention to what I say.
> 
> Duh we need sensors. I was saying they weren't on a NETWORK. Network= wireless network. Read what I say.


Of course... the people that make the bodies would just make some kind of tin can without any "enhancements"... I suppose the Google Glasses are not real either, the only cyborg in the world is a hoax, artificial eyes are a hoax. 
Humans are looking for ways to enhance their senses and you come talk to me about a tin can with no connection to anything... that makes a lot of sense doesn't it? 
Even something like pacemakers can be screwed up from outside and they're not connected to a network.



Tristan427 said:


> I figured the rich would be getting it. But they will still most likely lose their positions as a result of their new bodies. They would be seen as unreliable.


Not just the rich as they are in talks with the USA Defense Department. Also consider the valuable brains from scientists and so on that would be kept.



Tristan427 said:


> Good for you, I don't care about your status. It is a basic version of AI, but you seem to be calling it personality also. It is not personality. Personality implies sentience, which you ignored me ever saying.
> 
> I have knowledge about the subject. Having a different source doesn't mean the knowledge is invalid. You being on such a high horse is really annoying me.


Perhaps if you read the words "very layman example" and "simplistic example", you would realize I'm giving examples to those who aren't that savvy on the matter and comparing to something easy to understand. Also, I'm not afraid of the government but you seem to purposely close your eyes to how society works.

You don't care about my status? What status? Being a Computer Engineer and a Programmer? Sorry if I suddenly shot down your arguments that I have no clue about programming but that's life. You are trying *to invalidate valid knowledge* just because it shoots your arguments.

I said that games have a basic AI, I didn't say it's the same as being sentient. Perhaps you should go make some research on the "rough" sentient AI's out there, take a break and then come back instead of throwing a hissy fit on me for no other reason other than you aren't being able to shot my reasoning.

I'm not the one on a high horse here and going on circles and fits when I can't pick apart and destroy an argument. I'm actually done with you unless you have some plausible arguments to come back to me.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Double post, I know... but I don't want to mix stuff...



cue5c said:


> I think this would be really cool if it wasn't abused. Imagine the possibilities with space travel! It would be so much more useful than the technology we have for exploration today.


Here's another simple example of what could be done: Imagine the cyborg humans in the Alien movies and them being sent on those trips instead of humans. They wouldn't age and would less problems adapting.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> Of course... the people that make the bodies would just make some kind of tin can without any "enhancements"... I suppose the Google Glasses are not real either, the only cyborg in the world is a hoax, artificial eyes are a hoax.
> Humans are looking for ways to enhance their senses and you come talk to me about a tin can with no connection to anything... that makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
> Even something like pacemakers can be screwed up from outside and they're not connected to a network.
> 
> ...


Tin can? They can operate just fine as a stand alone version. They have fingers. They have eyes. They have legs. They can use cell phones and computers. A hoax? I never said anything was a hoax or not real. You seem to be suffering from some sort of delusion. And clearly pace makers are connected to a network if they can be wirelessly hacked. Perhaps they transmit data to emergency services or their doctors? 

Yes, I know of the Avatar program. I doubt it will be a success. We need human bodies out on the field. Artificial ones leave too much room for error.

I don't need a simplistic example. Don't act like you only wanted the best for me, when you insulted me from the very start. 

Close my eyes to how society works? You are the one that sees danger in every shadow, and hears threats from every whisper.

Shot down my arguments? All you have done is further prove you don't read anything I say. You talk as if I think google glasses are a hoax for some unknown reason, and you act like I don't believe in sensors when I made no such statement. I said the bodies don't need GPS, not SENSORS. GPS is global positioning system. Stand alone versions wouldn't need that seeing as they have cellphones and other technology which can utilize such things. Again you fail to read anything I say.

Throw a hissy fit on you? You get on a high horse, insult me from the very first post you make towards me, then berate me for retaliating. Do not insult someone when you can't handle their retaliations. 

You said they had PERSONALITY traits. I said personality traits imply sentience. Read what I say, seriously.

Not the one on a high horse? So your insults, talking down to me and such is not being on a high horse?

It seems you do not understand what I mean by stand alone version. I mean the version where the persons mind is housed INSIDE the machine. Not connected to a wireless network. The one on a wireless network can be hacked. Not the stand alone one. What you say regarding the wireless one is valid, but not regarding the stand alone version, which I have been speaking of and said several times.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> I came across this and I must admit that I have mixed feelings.
> 
> We're talking about the artificial, unlimited prolongation of a human who's body has since expired. If this comes into fruition, I can envision anyone with the necessary funds being able to become virtually immortal. In a way, this may be a dream come true... however, I don't have pink colored glasses and I see a lot of it's possible darkness.
> 
> ...


Same goes for any new technology honestly id be less worried about some robot living forever than say... all these weapons of mass destruction lying around?


----------



## this is my username (Apr 15, 2011)

A lot of people have dementia at the end of life. Wouldn't younger brains be better?


----------



## Armed Politicker (Oct 6, 2010)

Ah, yes, the 2045 project, isn't it? I'm really excited about this, very specific milestones and timeframes. Mind uploading _will_ happen, though. It'll happen sooner or later, either privately funded or collectively run, it'll come. And like with any new technology, in its infancy it will be affordable only to the rich, and later to the middle class. The religious-minded wouldn't want to mess with god's work, many if not most would resist the notion of prolonging life - not to mention being encased in a metal avatar.

It will be as normal as automobiles eventually, but it won't exactly be a human right. Plenty of life-saving and life-improving technology is denied to 90% of the world. Might perpetuate differences between richer and poorer nations, but the world still runs.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

@Tristan427

Their ultimate goal is to have the brain contents stored somewhere and have it control a holographic avatar remotely. How do you intend to isolate the place where the "brain" is when it has to operate and communicate remotely?

What you say may be somewhat valid if we're talking about robotic bodies to house the brain or its contents inside it but not at their ultimate goal because *there is no body.*



Pete The Lich said:


> Same goes for any new technology honestly id be less worried about some robot living forever than say... all these weapons of mass destruction lying around?


I'm more worried about what "defense departments" may do with this technology in their hands. Can you say perfect killing machines by making humans completely devoid of feeling and/or emotion and programmed to just "kill the enemy"?



this is my username said:


> A lot of people have dementia at the end of life. Wouldn't younger brains be better?


That is an interesting question. I wonder if they will make a copy of the brain before the onset of old age related diseases or just discard those people completely... or... will they just take the uncorrupted data? 
Questions are generating more questions.



Armed Politicker said:


> Ah, yes, the 2045 project, isn't it? I'm really excited about this, very specific milestones and timeframes. Mind uploading _will_ happen, though. It'll happen sooner or later, either privately funded or collectively run, it'll come. And like with any new technology, in its infancy it will be affordable only to the rich, and later to the middle class. The religious-minded wouldn't want to mess with god's work, many if not most would resist the notion of prolonging life - not to mention being encased in a metal avatar.


Their time table seems a bit strange to me actually. Their final goal is having the brain data stored somewhere and controlling a holographic avatar remotely. 
Wouldn't it make more sense to start with that until the robotic technology is capable of creating plausible bodies to house the brain's contents? Or what expects us in the future is a Matrix type of reality where we're in stasis while the mind is controlling an avatar?



Armed Politicker said:


> It will be as normal as automobiles eventually, but it won't exactly be a human right. Plenty of life-saving and life-improving technology is denied to 90% of the world. Might perpetuate differences between richer and poorer nations, but the world still runs.


This is a given and it will generate yet another layer of black market.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@ilphithra


> They intend to get rid of the physical brain in the future and just load the "data" into an artificial brain.


I'm not sure if that's technically possible, though I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done. That's different than transplanting a brain into a robotic body, that's transplanting all the data from a brain into a robotic body.

That would eliminate the data-concerns. Still I'm not so sure it's a good idea.



> Not just the rich as they are in talks with the USA Defense Department. Also consider the valuable brains from scientists and so on that would be kept.


Would this be consentual? :shocked:


R.C._
I want to remind everybody that no matter how I die, it was murder; if I am tried for a criminal offense, the odds of me having committed it are almost too low to calculate; should I disappear without a trace, it was not voluntary..._


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> I'm not sure if that's technically possible, though I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done. That's different than transplanting a brain into a robotic body, that's transplanting all the data from a brain into a robotic body.
> 
> That would eliminate the data-concerns. Still I'm not so sure it's a good idea.


There is technology to read the contents of the mind already and there are chemical ways to alter/delete brain content. 

Having the brain in a jar inside a robotic body poses problems of longevity and decay of the brain. Reading its contents and "downloading them" prior to uploading the "data" into an artificial brain that doesn't decay is the way to achieve what they're proposing.



RobynC said:


> Would this be consentual? :shocked:


In some cases, I believe so... but like everything, I'm sure there will be silent cases of people being forced into it. 
Imagine the scenario of a scientist that holds the key to some bio weapon, he's unwilling to give it up and some government wants it "really bad". 
"Hook him up" and get the contents out of his brain directly. Scary thought if you ask me...

On the other hand, imagine a scientist that came up with the cure for some horrible disease and wants to cash in by only handing the secret to some people willing to pay his absurd prices. Would it be ok to forcibly "hook him up" and hack his brain to get the cure?


----------



## Armed Politicker (Oct 6, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> @_Tristan427_
> Their time table seems a bit strange to me actually. Their final goal is having the brain data stored somewhere and controlling a holographic avatar remotely.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to start with that until the robotic technology is capable of creating plausible bodies to house the brain's contents? Or what expects us in the future is a Matrix type of reality where we're in stasis while the mind is controlling an avatar?


Yeah, the time table seems to be pretty hopeful, though Ray Kurzweil puts the Singularity in 2045, so there must be something to it.

You know, I wouldn't mind a Matrixy setting. Imagine "living" in a large mainframe, as powerful as today's supercomputers. You can run simulations of entire realities, just for your own use, or you could cooperate with friends and share one, and your reality would have any setting, you set the rules and you set the limitations. Which would be a source of fun, being the only Wizard in Middle-earth with a machine gun and all, but it would also be a humane way of storing humans in limited space.

Say we spoil planet Earth with pollution, inefficient industry and devastating biological life on the planet. Shit, we say, if only we were but a single billion people on earth, it'd be able to recuperate. For a solution, let 1 billion people walk around freely and travel at a time, and the others live in a simulated perfect existence?

Or say we have to travel at .99 light while exploring space. It'd take years, decades and centuries to get anywhere. Cryogenic coma is one solution, and hanging out consciously on the colony ship is one, too. I'd stuff my bio body in a life support tank and run a simulation where Elrond gives the One Ring to a Spetsnaz squad and we just shoot our way into Mordor, yeah?

There's a lot of good use in a Matrix, you shouldn't kneejerk refute it.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@ilphithra



> Having the brain in a jar inside a robotic body poses problems of longevity and decay of the brain. Reading its contents and "downloading them" prior to uploading the "data" into an artificial brain that doesn't decay is the way to achieve what they're proposing.


But by doing that you could just be creating a copy of yourself...



> In some cases, I believe so... but like everything, I'm sure there will be silent cases of people being forced into it.


Quelle surprise. Wouldn't that constitute slavery to upload a person's consciousness into a machine against their will? 

As for "hacking the contents" of one's brain to find out secrets is extremely dangerous and unnecessary even in an end of the world scenario. You'd just use a brain-scanning device and ask questions. The person would inevitably think about it and you'd get a read. I don't think this is right either.


R.C._
I want to remind everybody that no matter how I die, it was murder; if I am tried for a criminal offense, the odds of me having committed it are almost too low to calculate; should I disappear without a trace, it was not voluntary..._


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Armed Politicker said:


> Yeah, the time table seems to be pretty hopeful, though Ray Kurzweil puts the Singularity in 2045, so there must be something to it.


You have a point; I had forgotten about the Singularity. From that perspective, their timetable makes much more sense.



Armed Politicker said:


> You know, I wouldn't mind a Matrixy setting. Imagine "living" in a large mainframe, as powerful as today's supercomputers. You can run simulations of entire realities, just for your own use, or you could cooperate with friends and share one, and your reality would have any setting, you set the rules and you set the limitations. Which would be a source of fun, being the only Wizard in Middle-earth with a machine gun and all, but it would also be a humane way of storing humans in limited space.
> 
> Say we spoil planet Earth with pollution, inefficient industry and devastating biological life on the planet. Shit, we say, if only we were but a single billion people on earth, it'd be able to recuperate. For a solution, let 1 billion people walk around freely and travel at a time, and the others live in a simulated perfect existence?
> 
> ...


I'm not actually rejecting it, just wondering if that will be the case. The "Matrix" scenario has its pros and cons as nothing is to say that it doesn't get abused or monopolized. Lets imagine this scenario in 2050 (5 years after the timetable and let's say the Singularity is "on"):

- Human population curbed due to various reasons (war, nature going nuts, etc). 
- The population is divided into actives and passives. 
- The actives spend most of their time "in the real world" even though their bodies are enhanced with technology and many of them now have artificial brains so that they can be "programmed". 
- The passives spend most of the time in stasis and "live" in a controlled virtual environment. They operate many of the "background" tasks that keep the world moving.
- Pockets of revolting people start emerging due to being forced to live in stasis and the virtual environment being controlled by the government or other institutions.
- Rogue virtual environments start appearing and people start congregating on them. 
- Space program takes gigantic leaps due to artificial human humans being created.
- Diseases being slowly eradicated due to nanotechnology and abandonment of natural body.
-.....
*-Are we human anymore?*

I could go on listing possibilities, both good and bad. Something as powerful as a "Matrix" scenario wouldn't be left in the hands of the common people and governments/institutions would rush to grab hold of it and control it to their whims. In fact, if this comes into existence, it may give birth to a totalitarian/dystopian society.


----------



## Pianoasis (Nov 10, 2011)

Will not work.

1. The brain can't create new memories, only reusing the glial cells already in place.

2. The entire science will require an entirely functional understanding of the brain and its impulses, which we aren't very close to.

But plankton's already proven me wrong so..

By the way, do glial cells reproduce? I didn't really fact check cause I'm lazy.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> But by doing that you could just be creating a copy of yourself...


In the end, isn't it what they'll do? Copy your mind into something else and call it "RobynC" for example... and if you pay for it, maybe keep a backup somewhere in case things go haywire... 

You'll be a bunch of metal, wires and synthetic skin... scratch that... they already grow skin, bones and organs in lab. 

By 2045 they probably mix that with technology and you'll have perfect, enhanced "in-vitro human bodies" that don't decay and don't get sick, and an artificial brain to keep you going... or have the possibility of just ditching the body completely and just become a hologram as they intend to with this program.



RobynC said:


> Quelle surprise. Wouldn't that constitute slavery to upload a person's consciousness into a machine against their will?
> 
> As for "hacking the contents" of one's brain to find out secrets is extremely dangerous and unnecessary even in an end of the world scenario. You'd just use a brain-scanning device and ask questions. The person would inevitably think about it and you'd get a read. I don't think this is right either.


I don't agree to it either... yet I see what some governments and institutions do "in the name of humanity and peace and bla bla bla"...


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> @_Tristan427_
> 
> Their ultimate goal is to have the brain contents stored somewhere and have it control a holographic avatar remotely. How do you intend to isolate the place where the "brain" is when it has to operate and communicate remotely?
> 
> ...


That is avatar D. I've been talking about something like avatar a and b. The brain can be stored in the machine. Like other models plan to.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Pianoasis said:


> By the way, do glial cells reproduce? I didn't really fact check cause I'm lazy.


Yes and they behave similar to stem cells, aka, they can be "tricked" into becoming neurons for example.



Tristan427 said:


> That is avatar D. I've been talking about something like avatar a and b.


I suspect avatars A and B will be "brain-in-a-jar". 
The issue here is that there still isn't an effective way to create a plausible robotic body that doesn't need any external input to operate. Even the most advanced robotic bodies are controlled remotely and have external power. 

Unless they intend to put the brain in a head/face shaped unbreakable jar, put some synthetic skin over it that matches the face of the person, artificial voice and run it around in a motorized trolley...

Edit: that image just made me crack...


----------



## Armed Politicker (Oct 6, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> I'm not actually rejecting it, just wondering if that will be the case. The "Matrix" scenario has its pros and cons as nothing is to say that it doesn't get abused or monopolized. Lets imagine this scenario in 2050 (5 years after the timetable and let's say the Singularity is "on"):
> 
> - Human population curbed due to various reasons (war, nature going nuts, etc).
> - The population is divided into actives and passives.
> ...


First of all. I'd like to be more than human. Humans are Darwinian throwbacks, we haven't adapted to our environment. We are in every way designed for nomadic tribal life, our instincts and bodies are homed in on that niche. We don't live in small nomadic communities anymore. So we need to change - our environment, modern civilisation, changes too quickly for evolution to keep up, so we have to take matters into our own hands.

Second, we're talking about humanity 50 years into the future. Imagine us in 500 years. In 50,000 years. We'll be unrecognisable, we'll probably all be computer programs. At some point, we _*will*_ abandon the tenets of baseline humanity. Embrace Transhumanism, love, because it's not something we can delay or influence, we just have to get used to the idea soon enough to seize the initiative to win personal advantage when the storm hits.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Armed Politicker said:


> First of all. I'd like to be more than human. Humans are Darwinian throwbacks, we haven't adapted to our environment. We are in every way designed for nomadic tribal life, our instincts and bodies are homed in on that niche. We don't live in small nomadic communities anymore. So we need to change - our environment, modern civilisation, changes too quickly for evolution to keep up, so we have to take matters into our own hands.
> 
> Second, we're talking about humanity 50 years into the future. Imagine us in 500 years. In 50,000 years. We'll be unrecognisable, we'll probably all be computer programs. At some point, we _*will*_ abandon the tenets of baseline humanity. Embrace Transhumanism, love, because it's not something we can delay or influence, we just have to get used to the idea soon enough to seize the initiative to win personal advantage when the storm hits.


In 50 years, if I'm still alive, I'll be an 80+ years old mountain of wrinkles. My concern will be when the hot, 20 year old body I ordered will be ready for me to transfer my brain into. :laughing:

Ok, seriously now... 

Like I said, I'm not denying it and I'm not hating anything. I'm seeing things from all perspectives and like I said, I see pros and cons in this. That things will eventually evolve into abandoning the "old human body" is a given. Though there is enough leeway for things to go the virtual way or the artificial body way... or even both at the same time.


----------



## Armed Politicker (Oct 6, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> In 50 years, if I'm still alive, I'll be an 80+ years old mountain of wrinkles. My concern will be when the new 20 year old body I ordered will be ready for me to transfer my brain into. :laughing:


Naw, we'll have revertive longevity treatment before then. They've already decreased the biological age of 2 year old mice, we'll start reaping the benefits within a decade or two. I imagine I'll freeze my age at 30-35.


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

Normally I'm the first person to get cynical about things like this, but this cool, so I'm going to stay chill.


----------



## gh0st (Jun 11, 2012)

Sounds like Doctor Who.... o_o


----------



## PSchall (Jun 8, 2012)

As far as the consciousness goes, it's the same thing as the teleportation paradox, in that you are essentially copying consciousness into another body, then destroying the original, making the copy be exactly like you, but technically isn't.

For the rest, I agree with what @NekoNinja said.


----------



## ibage (May 5, 2012)

I kinda wonder how exactly this and the Singularity will get along.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

I'd totally be willing to do this once the science behind is improved. Either that or cryogenically freeze myself for a few decades to where I can keep my brain alive indefinitely inside of a robot body. It will be amazing to become one with the induction of the Singularity.

Just thinking about this gives me a raging brainer!


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

Great. Lets bring along old, traditional, dinosaur age brains into the future. Don't expect to be governed justly if this ends up being available to the elite (which it will for a long time before being made "publically available").

Sorry, but society evolves _because_ of death. The end of most things signals a need for new, a rebirth or regrowth. As much as I shake in excitement for new technologies and innovations, the end is something humans genuinely need to accept.


----------



## Superninjageek (Feb 23, 2012)

I belive it's possible, and it sounds like a great idea, But I can't see these robots being open to the public. They sound more like government tools to me.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Great. Lets bring along old, traditional, dinosaur age brains into the future. Don't expect to be governed justly if this ends up being available to the elite (which it will for a long time before being made "publically available").
> 
> Sorry, but society evolves _because_ of death. The end of most things signals a need for new, a rebirth or regrowth. As much as I shake in excitement for new technologies and innovations, the end is something humans genuinely need to accept.


That's a very myopic view. The world was transformed, not because of death, but because of great people who's works lasted the test of time. Whether they're engineering marvels like the Roman aqueducts, ideas like that of The Buddha, concepts like the greek idea of democracy, entertainment like the novels of Leo Tolstoy, music like that of Chopin, or something as rudimentary as the basic understanding of math. Death was not necessary to bring those ideas to the next generation or to build upon them. If anything, the world would be a much more advanced place if people like Shakespeare and Tolstoy could work together. 

To quote Ralph Waldo Emmerson, "Immortality will come to such as are fit for it." Meaning those who can stand the test of time will always be relevant. Those individuals who were such iconoclasts couldn't be defeated by death, because their effect is still felt today. 

If you're so fatalistic and in a rush to die, then that's just you. There are people who feel themselves fascinated by the world and truly feel a part of it. They'll be around long after your dead. Now they have the opportunity to be able to do so in a more physical way.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

android654 said:


> That's a very myopic view. The world was transformed, not because of death, but because of great people who's works lasted the test of time. Whether they're engineering marvels like the Roman aqueducts, ideas like that of The Buddha, concepts like the greek idea of democracy, entertainment like the novels of Leo Tolstoy, music like that of Chopin, or something as rudimentary as the basic understanding of math. Death was not necessary to bring those ideas to the next generation or to build upon them. If anything, the world would be a much more advanced place if people like Shakespeare and Tolstoy could work together.
> 
> To quote Ralph Waldo Emmerson, "Immortality will come to such as are fit for it." Meaning those who can stand the test of time will always be relevant. Those individuals who were such iconoclasts couldn't be defeated by death, because their effect is still felt today.
> 
> If you're so fatalistic and in a rush to die, then that's just you. There are people who feel themselves fascinated by the world and truly feel a part of it. They'll be around long after your dead. Now they have the opportunity to be able to do so in a more physical way.


Lol.

Its anything but myopic. If you're invested in the idea that prolonging a person's brain would be used primarily for "altruistic", preservative purposes other than to extend the longevity of those with power, then you would be partially right if an economic system like ours ceases to exist when this technology is perfected.

Take for example how the dinosaurs of big oil seem to hamper and suppress wild optimists who would much rather go about churning out power in much less primitive way. Can you believe that cars can remember your preferences, drive themselves, alert you of danger, save your life, call the police automatically and still, like a hunk of industrial garbage, consume fuel by burning it and emitting dirt into the air? Where is the consistency in this?

Innovation is both advanced and stifled within an economic climate. Competition spurs innovation, profit-securing suppresses startups. Those with interests look no further than to secure their own, and ultimately themselves. Tell me now, what kind of scientists will have the liberty of "selecting" a valid applicant for prolonging their longevity to "give back" to the world? With all that red tape, those who wish to secure themselves will be likely the highest bidders, or the ones who actually allow such a wild experiment to work.

Interests come before talent, especially where currency rules.


----------

