Mind Uploading

Mind uploading is defined by Wikipedia as “the hypothetical process of scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail and copying its state into a computer system or another computational device.” The Society of Neural Prosthetics and Whole Brain Emulation Science defines a neural prosthetic as a “replacement for or augmentation of a function or component of the nervous system in general, and of the human brain in particular.” This definition would then also include already existing technology, such as cochlear implants. Randal A. Koene from this society describe the process of mind uploading as involving “freezing a brain, slicing it up, examining the slices under a microscope, and reconstructing the neurons, synapses and most of the major components that would be deemed functionally imperative.” This explanation makes the entire concept seems within an arm’s reach. They also compare the complexity of this process to that of mapping the human genome, which also makes it seem very feasible (since mapping the human genome was already accomplished). I think that, in reality, this technology is still in the distant future. Still, there is so much interest and ongoing research!

While reading some forums on KurzweilAI.net, I came across a downloadable program with the following description: "Human moves mouse to control real time generated music which artificial intelligence (AI) changes to try to control Human's hand on mouse. AI translates music problems to programming problems, organizing Humans unconsciously through internet to build AI." The program tries to control your mouse movements. It seems to work, but it is difficult to distinguish if it is truly working, or if I think it is working because I know what the program is trying to accomplish. It would be an interesting experiment to try this program on a few people who don’t know what the program is supposed to do. Still, it is an interesting concept that relies on the very basis of human nature and its predictability.

Zogby International polled 10,000 US adults on the following question: "How likely would you be to implant a device into your brain that enabled you to use your mind to access the internet if it could be done safely?" To my surprise, 11% of respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to do so. That is 1,100 people who are willing to allow access to their brain in return for instant information! The debate with “mind upload” lies in the fact that if you can access information or upload information with your mind, what keeps others from being able to access or even alter your mind at the same time. This could turn into the future of identity theft. Even now, we have not been able to stop identity theft. In the future, identity theft could become an even more dangerous issue.

Another issue with mind uploading becomes whether or not we could then “run” more than one copy of a brain at the same time. Perhaps it would be possible to experience two different things at once, and then upload that information back to the original mind. This would bring about an entirely different issue of alternate realities and the possibility of being able to clone your brain to be in two places at once.

The feasibility of such technologies is still in question. It is interesting to read other people's perspective on the issue. One post says that we are about 20 years away from having the ability to upload to or download from a human brain, but in his opinion ethical and legal concerns will push it back much further. However, technological progress in this area is advancing quickly. Adam Wilson, a University of Wisconsin-Madison biomedical engineering doctoral student, used an electroencephalogram with an on screen keyboard to translate human thoughts into Twitter posts. The device requires the person to look at the keyboard that is on screen, and it goes through each key and is able to recognize when the person selects a certain key. While this research is still a long way from “mind uploading,” it does give feasibility to idea of controlling a computer with inputs from our minds.

In May 2005, the Brain and Mind Institute of the École Polytechnique in Lausanne, Switzerland founded The Blue Brain Project. The purpose of this project is to study the mammalian brain's architectural and functional principles down to the molecular level in an attempt to shed light on the issue of consciousness. Their long term goal is to build a functional simulation of the physiological processes of the brain. The director of the project, Henry Markram, says: "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years... If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."

"Human"

Before we can explore our coexistence with machine or the pending singularity, it seems we must first differentiate humanity from machine. What does it mean to be human? As robots become more and more “human,” how will we distinguish them once we approach this singularity? This definition of what it means to be human may evolve as quickly as the developments in artificial intelligence. As robots come closer and closer to becoming “human,” will these definitions also shift?

A panel of scientists discussed the definition of humanity at the World Science Festival last year. While many answers clearly separate humans from all other life forms, few distinguish human from human-like machine. Let’s discuss a few of these answers in light of this:

Daniel Dennett, cognitive scientist: We are the first species that represents our reasons, and can reason with each other. "The planet has grown a nervous system," he said.

That thought reminds me of the movie Avatar. The extreme popularity of this movie across the globe emphasizes the universality of this concept. Although I must ask, is it that humanity has indeed “grown” a nervous system, or is it that we continuously aim toward this goal as a race? Although it is probably true that we are the first species to achieve this, artificial intelligence may also be able to achieve this. Although in terms of reasoning with each other, it seems that robots would have to have unique programming with differing views in order to have the necessity to reason with each other. If artificial intelligence is based on fact rather than emotion, there may not be a need to “reason” with each other if the programming behind the artificial intelligence cause these human-like beings to always agree.

Renee Reijo Pera, embryologist: We’re uniquely human from the moment that egg and sperm fuse. A "human program" begins before the brain even begins to form.

It seems that this definition of being human can very easily translate into the definition of a human robot. The idea of a “human program” is the very essence of what bionics and artificial intelligence attempt to recreate. This also ties into the previous definition. If artificial intelligence requires a sort of intelligent programming, how will diversity from one being to another arise? Many of the most human elements may disappear if artificial intelliegence aims at creating a world based solely on black and white fact.

Patricia Churchland, neuroethicist: The structure of how the human brain is arranged intrigues me. Are there unique brain structures? As far as we can understand, it’s our size that is unique. What we don’t find are other unique structures. There may be certain types of human-specific cells — but as for what that means, we don’t know. It’s important not only to focus on us, to compare our biology and behavior to other animals.

Again, this definition focuses on distinguishing humans from other animals. In her analysis, it seems that the main difference between humans and other animals is not the structure of the brain, but instead the size of the brain. In this light, artificial intelligence could take this distinction to the next level in creating “super” humans, with a virtually unlimited capacity for intelligence and development.

Jim Gates, physicist: We are blessed with the ability to know our mother. We are conscious of more than our selves. And just as a child sees a mother, the species’ vision clears and sees mother universe. We are getting glimmers of how we are related to space and time. We can ask, what am I? What is this place? And how am I related to it?

This definition is perhaps the most relevant in our discussion of humanity in light of artificial intelligence and bionics. These questions and this sense of curiosity is one that may always set us apart from human-like robots. Will robots ever be able to question their purpose or their methods, even if these things are programmed into them? It seems that the ability to evolve and deviate from a preprogrammed “fate” may be one of the things that will remain unique to humans.

Antonio Damasio, neuroscientist: The critical unique factor is language. Creativity. The religious and scientific impulse. And our social organization, which has developed to a prodigious degree. We have a record of history, moral behavior, economics, political and social institutions. We’re probably unique in our ability to investigate the future, imagine outcomes, and display images in our minds. I like to think of a generator of diversity in the frontal lobe
– and those initials are G-O-D.

This definition is a good continuation of the definition given by Jim Gates. I think these two definitions arrive at a big part of what will remain uniquely human, even with artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence. This definition also touches again on the subject of diversity. This seems to be a major factor in distinguishing humanity. Its innate diversity from being to being is something that may not be accomplished in even the most advanced developments in artificial intelligence.

In conclusion, perhaps the very desire to devise a definition for our existence is what makes us human. The yearning to connect with our past, belong to community in our present, and be remembered in the future. I believe that this, along with curiosity, diversity, and an evolving moral judgement and self consciousness, are what will always separate man from machine.

Full article can be found here:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/what-does-it-me/#ixzz0fp7DMoly