4 ms·

An efficient brain-computer interface would require a good understanding of the inner-workings of the brain. So any effort in building such interface would mot

An efficient brain-computer interface would require a good understanding of the inner-workings of the brain. So any effort in building such interface would motivate neurobiological research to get such understanding. I personally believe that once we have an accurate model of the brain, that is one that explains how thoughts, memory, emotions, consciousness and so on arise from brain activity, we're literally done. Once we reach this point, I think humans will eventually replace their brains with artificial ones, either gradually (Moravec transfer), or in one-go. There will be various motivations : immortality, mind-performance improvements, etc. The end-result will be the same : we will turn into machines. It won't be a merger, it'll be a plain replacement. The scenario where AI robots kill us all will only be different from a subjective point of view.

namlem 10y ago
I'm not convinced that's true. There are countless innovations that we were able to get to work despite having little understanding of the underlying theory. Given how adaptable both biological and artificial neural networks are, I'd say that the hardware is far and away the primary limiting factor, not our theoretical understanding. Once we get a safe and reliable connection between brain and computer, we can figure out the rest through trial and error.
Balgair 10y ago
The thing that gets me about this is that we all think that the brain is an understandable object in the end. This may not be the case at all. There are things that we have in our world that are going to stay fundamentally mysterious. Strictly, they will always have 'edge cases' that are logically considered to be paradoxes, yet exist all the same (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). These things are Hurricanes, where we will only ever really be able to give probabilities of paths or the stock market, where if you canfigure it out you'll have killed the whole thing. Most importantly, the idea that we can understand the human brain and then manipulate it must be false from our everyday experience. Simply put, if we can understand our brains, then we can understand women, something we all know to be forever impossible.

namlem 10y ago

I'm not convinced that's true. There are countless innovations that we were able to get to work despite having little understanding of the underlying theory. Given how adaptable both biological and artificial neural networks are, I'd say that the hardware is far and away the primary limiting factor, not our theoretical understanding. Once we get a safe and reliable connection between brain and computer, we can figure out the rest through trial and error.

Balgair 10y ago

The thing that gets me about this is that we all think that the brain is an understandable object in the end. This may not be the case at all. There are things that we have in our world that are going to stay fundamentally mysterious. Strictly, they will always have 'edge cases' that are logically considered to be paradoxes, yet exist all the same (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). These things are Hurricanes, where we will only ever really be able to give probabilities of paths or the stock market, where if you canfigure it out you'll have killed the whole thing. Most importantly, the idea that we can understand the human brain and then manipulate it must be false from our everyday experience. Simply put, if we can understand our brains, then we can understand women, something we all know to be forever impossible.