Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Would Would undergoing 'in situ' brain replacement (replacing every neuron and synapse one by one with nanorobots) as my method of creating a substrate-independent AI without human flaws be the most miserable and torturous experience ever?



That's if I want to use Embryonic Stem Cell induced Neurogenesis to keep my mind conscious during the transition in order to retain my consciousness afterward?

I think it makes a clear distinction that the trauma is only suffered in order for a continuity of consciousness, of ESC regeneration for constant Neurogenesis were capable of keeping the mind self-aware during the process...?

Death = Nothing and a new life-form, a new consciousness completely different than anything ever seen before? Most likely interested only in super-evolving the intelligence of all consciousnesses in general?

Immortality = Miraculous pain and a substrate-independent nutcase? Possibly only interested in a maso-sadistic obsession, in torturing the experience of all consciousnesses in general?

I love big words.

I find it is hilarious that "sophisticated molecular repair of somatic and germ mutations" is a casual issue to be brushed off in one sentence at the end of the article but somehow this, which is arguably simpler, cannot. The comfort and speed of uploading is a technical problem. Like all technical problems that stand in the way of transhumanism it is proper to ignore it as a minor detail.

What is her basis for the claim that "brain pathways will need to be validated by physical and mental feedback before they stabilize" by the way? Is she claiming to be from the future? Uploading is currently fictional. She has no idea how it will work thus she has no idea what the limitations, speed, and level of comfort will be.

the ignore function has made this site endurable. I'm imagining something about space computers doing magic?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the ignore function has made this site endurable. I'm imagining something about space computers doing magic?

How traumatic do you think it would be to have your entire brain replaced with mechanical analogues of neurons by nanobots? I'm imagining glial cells slowly sagging under the weight of robotic neurons. H+ will look like a kappa, with a bowl shaped head.

the technology required to even approach such a thing would be so advanced that reducing the trauma from it would be trivial. Like, I assume subjective trauma, which we can already reduce during brain surgery, otherwise there is tautologically no trauma as I don't believe cell death caused by surgery is "trauma" in that way(?)

tbh, that really isn't a "neuroscience" question at all...

Originally posted by Oliver North
as I don't believe cell death caused by surgery is "trauma" in that way(?)

hmmm, Wiki suggests all injury is trauma, so it would be... the question would then be moot, as to replace a brain cell, it would have to be removed. There may be some philosophical question about whether the removal of a single cell, hundreds of millions of times, is an injury. Similarly, the fact the cell is replaced might be an academic consideration to the ontology of "injury". In either case, the subjective experience of the individual wouldn't be changed, as I'm assuming the person would be in some type of unconscious state during the procedure. Also, more of a medical-ethics/bio-philosophical question, not neuroscience.

I feel like crud because OV blocked me, it's kinda strange that you find out a member randomly hates you and you had no clue.

I haven't blocked you.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I haven't blocked you.

He means OliVer north....obviously

Why would it be painful to replace a neuron with a device with the same functionality? You don't stimulate any pain receptors.

Originally posted by Astner
Why would it be painful to replace a neuron with a device with the same functionality? You don't stimulate any pain receptors. I think the quote, which I may have misinterpreted, in my OP was the author's assertion on human to human brain replacement.

Apropos, the author never presumed to assert on what replacing human cells with electronic counterparts would be like.

Originally posted by Astner
Why would it be painful to replace a neuron with a device with the same functionality? You don't stimulate any pain receptors.

Trauma doesn't necessarily entail pain.

Originally posted by Dolos
Apropos, the author never presumed to assert on what replacing human cells with electronic counterparts would be like.
Neurons communicate through electrochemical signals, not electric signals.

Originally posted by Astner
Neurons communicate through electrochemical signals, not electric signals. But a nanobot is composed of electronic parts, which on the macroscale would be as powerful as a quantum computer. When on the nano-meter scale, it is still far, far, far more powerful than a neuron, a dendrite, or a synaptic nerve...and it will be completely compatible with the cybernated systems and information therein contained within the digitized information sphere created by all electronic information that engulfs the globe.

Originally posted by Dolos
But a nanobot is composed of electronic parts, which on the macroscale would be as powerful as a quantum computer. When on the nano-meter scale, it is still far, far, far more powerful than a neuron, a dendrite, or a synaptic nerve.
A dendrite is part of a neuron and a synapse and synaptic vesicles (not nerves) are the neurons' way of interacting with one another.

And what do you mean by more powerful? What you need is a receptor and catalyst that can survive in a certain environment, something that we're not even close to creating and for all we know may be impossible to create within the frame of scale you're giving.

Originally posted by Dolos
..and it will be completely compatible with the cybernated systems and information therein contained within the digitized information sphere created by all electronic information that engulfs the globe.
Are you writing a book?

Originally posted by Astner
A dendrite is part of a neuron and a synapse and synaptic vesicles (not nerves) are the neurons' way of interacting with one another.

Fair enough.



More energy in less space, faster communication between receptors and activators.



The state of progress that information technology is in isn't coming to a halt or anything, it's quite exponential.

The first computers took up half a building, in a decade we'll have trillions of times that kind of computing power in a cellphone. #Quantum-computers.

http://asset3.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/charts/062105chart3_223x335.gif

I'm not a good story teller.

Originally posted by Dolos
More energy in less space, faster communication between receptors and activators.
I think you're missing the point.

Originally posted by Dolos
The state of progress that information technology is in isn't coming to a halt or anything, it's quite exponential.

The first computers took up half a building, in a decade we'll have trillions of times that kind of computing power in a cellphone. #Quantum-computers.
Eventually we'll run out of things to discover, and I'm pretty sure an implantable synthetic neurotransmitter a billionth the size of a neuron is beyond that threshold.

Originally posted by Astner
Eventually we'll run out of things to discover, and I'm pretty sure an implantable synthetic neurotransmitter a billionth the size of a neuron is beyond that threshold.

Baseless assumption.

Especially considering the definition of exponential.

Originally posted by Dolos
Baseless assumption.
Not quite. A synthetic neuron would still have to have a lipid-based membrane as well as the function of to retrieve energy through the ATP to ADP reaction, this alone would cover 5-10% of the width of an axon, which already blows your micro- to nano scale out of proportion.

Originally posted by Dolos
Especially considering the definition of exponential.
You can't extrapolate that to infinity.

pizza

Please, go on.

Originally posted by Astner
Not quite. A synthetic neuron would still have to have a lipid-based membrane as well as the function of to retrieve energy through the ATP to ADP reaction, this alone would cover 5-10% of the width of an axon, which already blows your micro- to nano scale out of proportion.


You can't extrapolate that to infinity. No, one can't extrapolate anything into the paradoxical concept of infinity. Just to an immeasurably tiny composition - see: "The Measurement Problem" of quantum mechanics. Ergo, 'quantum computer'; or, in this case, femptoscale 'optomechanical-microwave quantum integrated circuitry' within autonomous and adaptive neural-analogues that are a billionth of a meter in size (nano-robots).

I propose a whole brain of nanorobots, that can be used to integrate a sentient mind into a virtual coupling, independent of substratum.

You're thinking purely biologically, I'm proposing an echo of that biological process that functions via quantum entanglement.

Originally posted by Dolos
No, one can't extrapolate anything into the paradoxical concept of infinity. Just to an immeasurably tiny composition - see: "The Measurement Problem" of quantum mechanics.
Are you referring to the uncertainty relation or the fundamental length unit in the standard model?

Originally posted by Dolos
Ergo, 'quantum computer'; or, in this case, femptoscale 'optomechanical-microwave quantum integrated circuitry' within autonomous and adaptive neural-analogues that are a billionth of a meter in size (nano-robots).
What are you going to build these femtoscaled "nano"-robots from? Protons, neutrons, quarks, and leptons aren't exactly stable.

Originally posted by Dolos
I propose a whole brain of nanorobots, that can be used to integrate a sentient mind into a virtual coupling, independent of substratum.
Originally posted by Dolos
You're thinking purely biologically, I'm proposing an echo of that biological process that functions via quantum entanglement.
You do know that the standard model doesn't support communication via entanglement, right?

Originally posted by Astner
What are you going to build these femtoscaled "nano"-robots from? Protons, neutrons, quarks, and leptons aren't exactly stable.

Oh, don't worry, they're quantum!

Originally posted by Astner
You do know that the standard model doesn't support communication via entanglement, right?

You're forgetting the quantum.

I'm referring to the theory that a quantum wave function doesn't have a location.

Originally posted by Astner
You do know that the standard model doesn't support communication via entanglement, right?

It doesn't not support it, either.

Originally posted by Dolos
I'm referring to the theory that a quantum wave function doesn't have a location.
What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Dolos
It doesn't not support it, either.
Actually it does, a particle and its anti-particle are in theory the same particle. So even if you were able to create the particle and its anti-particle and successfully isolate them then you still wouldn't be able to gain information that wasn't there in to begin with.

DON'T STARE INTO THE ABYSS ASTNER!

I have no education or knowledge of nano-engineering and nano-electronic engineering.

Originally posted by Astner
What are you talking about?

The measurement problem was my answer to your claim that it would take an infinitely small space for communication for quantum computers to operate with communication on smaller than neuron parameters within these nanites.

^But the measurement problem isn't even necessarily relevant to a fabricated human brains structure made of nano-robots that have replaced neurons.



It wouldn't, a nano robot is a completely different structure than neurons and their dendrites. It might not even produce synapses for all we know, it could transfer information in other ways, see below:



It could be transferring information from one potential wave function to another potential wave function of the same exact particle, that is fluxing from one place to another making up the quantum structure of the atoms within the nanite-neurons. We don't design this with tiny sub-quantum tools, that is just the different structure of a different kind of membrane that resides within a completely different kind of machine than a human neuron.

Again, you're thinking biology, this is the structure and function of something that wouldn't be considered biological in a conventional sense. It comes from improved technology, not from natural evolution.

Originally posted by Dolos
I have no education or knowledge of nano-engineering and nano-electronic engineering.

. . .

It could be transferring information from one potential wave function to another potential wave function of the same exact particle, that is fluxing from one place to another making up the quantum structure of the atoms within the nanite-neurons. We don't design this with tiny sub-quantum tools, that is just the different structure of a different kind of membrane that resides within a completely different kind of machine than a human neuron.

There is something about these two statements that I find fascinating.

Originally posted by Dolos
Again, you're thinking biology, this is the structure and function of something that wouldn't be considered biological in a conventional sense. It comes from improved technology, not from natural evolution.

I hate to speak for others but I really doubt that Astner's objection to the idea of instantaneous information transfer in particle/antiparticle pairs came from him thinking like a biologist.

As I recall your can't use quantum "spooky action" to send a message because a) there is no way to control the message and b) there is no way to know which end changed first.

Imagine two boxes each with a digital display inside. When you open either box both of the displays instantly pick a random number and display it, then keep showing it. If you open Box A and see "42," that tells you nothing.You also Maybe it set to "42" when you opened it, maybe it was set to "42" when the other box was opened. The check them is limited by the speed of light. You also can't tell anything from the number because the number is random.

(Astner will tear this apart I'm sure.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The check them is limited by the speed of light.

There is no mass here, so how could it be?

I don't know, this is beyond my zero depth of knowledge on the subject matter.

This was a question for ON, I'm trying to defend the article when I guess I'm not qualified to.

Originally posted by Dolos
This was a question for ON, I'm trying to defend the article when I guess I'm not qualified to.

didn't I provide an answer?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I hate to speak for others


Since when?

Originally posted by Dolos
There is no mass here, so how could it be?

Because you have to actually go check the other box to find out if it was opened and when. That's what I mean by "check time", simply "the time you need to go check". Any checking you do is forced by the laws of physics to happen slower than light.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Since when?

Since I criticized Dadude for doing it one time and then realized he would hunt me to the ends of the Earth looking for me to slip up and do it myself.

Originally posted by Oliver North
didn't I provide an answer? Yes.

But Astner started in on how the operation would is implausible.

I tried to foolishly argue technicalities with a more educated individual like I always do.

I don't know why I try to get into arguments when I'm only armed with very vague bits and pieces of information...but I do.

Transhumanism, computer technology, improved society, living standard, and education and career opportunities, even genetic engineering are all very interesting topics for me because I really want to be as ingenious, enhanced, educated, secure and free to do what I want as possible. More than that, I would love to live to see a future super-eco self-sustained city whose every facet is embedded with thinking computers that offer the full knowledge database of planet earth as downloadable content.

I honestly don't see the money-centered world that prevents such things as enduring.

I guess I'm a Trekian.

I highly doubt sects will be able to use such intelligent and liberating technology to kill and conquer like in Dune. But that is, I guess, a viable threat. However, unlike Frank Herbert, I believe that if that happened we'd never destroy the machines that make life so simple for us just because they're being used to conquer us...especially not if we're "transcending", and being made better by becoming cyborgs.

Originally posted by Dolos
I don't know why I try to get into arguments when I'm only armed with very vague bits and pieces of information...Cuz, viability aside, it's still cool stuff.

Cause big words are cool, w000000

What a fortunate new posting:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/quantum_mechanics.png

The observation doesn't collapse the wave-function, the measurement does, then again the measuring is meant to collapse the wave-function or else we wouldn't be able to receive any data.

Originally posted by Astner
The observation doesn't collapse the wave-function, the measurement does, then again the measuring is meant to collapse the wave-function or else we wouldn't be able to receive any data.

Dogs can measure the world, since they know how far away things are, thus they can collapse the wave function thus they must have souls!