5 ms·

It seems, as with many other things, everyone wants to see this as a black-and-white issue: "Are they one people or two people? They can share thoughts!" We're

It seems, as with many other things, everyone wants to see this as a black-and-white issue: "Are they one people or two people? They can share thoughts!" We're of course not used to it, but the fact is there's a continuum here. They are more linked than any other two people, but they do have separate brains, with separate connections. This is an example of an issue where you just can't pigeonhole them into one or the other.

jerf 16y ago
Another thing is that we can't help but imagine what it would be like if we ourselves were today suddenly stuck with someone else like that, but that's not how they will experience life; they will be growing up like that, with no experience of any other life.
- liuhenry 16y ago
  That's an interesting point. I'm reminded of the way we perceive colors. We may see completely different things as "green", but because they've been given that linguistic label, we can identify them as the same. However, if I see red when you see green, it's fundamentally impossible to explain or imagine that. This being Hacker News, however, I think there are broader implications. Understanding what Tatiana and Krista experience may prove invaluable if we develop some sort of direct neural interface. It's already been shown that we can adapt to synthetic limbs or additional sensory inputs. (Interesting experiments done with magnetometer sensing http://feelspace.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/en/index.html http://feelspace.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/en/index.html) However, I feel like this could prove it possible to directly inject data into the brain, since everything we experience is from sensory input. Basically, is telepathy fundamentally possible? Or would the raw neural data be incompatible across brains? I think these twins could explain a lot about that.
  - jerf 16y ago
    Unfortunately, these twins can't answer the question of neural data incompatibility, because, again, they grew up together. My guess is that when we start inserting info directly into the brain, the most immediately successful way will be to hijack existing inputs directly (vision, audio, etc), and the most successful long-term approach will simply be to just lob the data in in some suitable encoding with some suitable high-quality feedback and let the neurons do the hard work.
    - liuhenry 16y ago
      Using existing inputs makes sense, but what format are the neurons in? Would it be possible to convert a digital signal to whatever our brain uses - how would you encode it?
      - ay 16y ago
        Probably by "cutting" the input path and trying to mimic it ? The mathematical model for a spiking neuron is reasonably well understood, as far as I know: http://izhikevich.org/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm http://izhikevich.org/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm I did take the code he mentions and play with it. Is behaviour is fascinating. I hope to be still alive when we have enough computing power for simulating a single brain, and to be able to directly cross-connect it to mine.
        a-priori 16y ago
        Last spring I wrote an implementation of the Hindmarsh-Rose model in C++ with ZeroMQ and GSL, which you may find interesting: https://github.com/michaelmelanson/neuron-playground https://github.com/michaelmelanson/neuron-playground The guy you linked to is using a simpler two-variable model with correspondingly lower fidelity. The goal of the Blue Brain Project, which this guy seems to think he has bested, is to model all of the features of a biological neuron and, more importantly, how they wire together.
        tocomment 16y ago
        That's awesome. Where did you find this algortihm to implement? How do they know if it is biologically accurate?
        a-priori 16y ago
        I pulled the equations from Parameter estimation in hindmarsh-rose neurons (Steur, 2006), equation 4.1. The Hindmarsh-Rose, Hodgkin–Huxley, and other mathematical models are phenomenological models. They are meant to reproduce the observable characteristics, like the peak potential, bursting behaviour, refractory period, things like that. They can reproduce the traces of biological neurons with good accuracy (like the link in the GP), and the papers describing the model mention ion channels and whatnot, but they're very abstract. They're not made to reproduce the biology.
  - extension 16y ago
    That's an interesting point. I'm reminded of the way we perceive colors. We may see completely different things as "green", but because they've been given that linguistic label, we can identify them as the same. However, if I see red when you see green, it's fundamentally impossible to explain or imagine that. I hear this analogy all the time but it makes no sense to me. A color is either physical light or the idea in your head of a particular color. If we agree on both of those, what is left that could be meaningfully compared to decide if we are "experiencing" it as the same or different? Could I be experiencing a poodle as a banana, even though I think it's called a poodle and it actually is a poodle?
    - nollidge 16y ago
      Describe the color green.
      - LurkingGrue 16y ago
        #00FF00
      - extension 16y ago
        Green is the feeling of EM radiation with wavelength between 520-570nm hitting your retina.
        a-priori 16y ago
        Yes, and how do you know that we experience the same 'feeling'? That's what the philosophers are talking about.
        Jach 16y ago
        Because to assume that each individual's brain is so different would go against all other evidence we have to the contrary.
        joeyo 16y ago
        I can also cause you to experience green by electrically stimulating your visual cortex, so ~500nm light need not be involved, nor your retina even. What is green now?
scott_s 16y ago
Agreed. I immediately thought of Eliezer's "How An Algorithm Feels From the Inside": http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid...
garply 16y ago
I've always imagined that in the future humans will have some form of telepathy through neural implants. This sounds almost exactly like how I envision the experience of well-implemented telepathic communication.
- hvs 16y ago
  Hopefully with better reception than my cellphone.
- th0ma5 16y ago
  could be possible that these two may lead to insights into how something like that may be possible
csomar 16y ago
but they do have separate brains, with separate connections They do have separate brains, but what about the Thalamus bridge? That may leak some info. I'm curious to see a radiography on this, anyone has more links about it?
cma 16y ago
"Are they one people or two people?" "you just can't pigeonhole them [emphasis added]" Stealth pigeonhole?

jerf 16y ago

Another thing is that we can't help but imagine what it would be like if we ourselves were today suddenly stuck with someone else like that, but that's not how they will experience life; they will be growing up like that, with no experience of any other life.

liuhenry 16y ago
That's an interesting point. I'm reminded of the way we perceive colors. We may see completely different things as "green", but because they've been given that linguistic label, we can identify them as the same. However, if I see red when you see green, it's fundamentally impossible to explain or imagine that. This being Hacker News, however, I think there are broader implications. Understanding what Tatiana and Krista experience may prove invaluable if we develop some sort of direct neural interface. It's already been shown that we can adapt to synthetic limbs or additional sensory inputs. (Interesting experiments done with magnetometer sensing http://feelspace.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/en/index.html http://feelspace.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/en/index.html) However, I feel like this could prove it possible to directly inject data into the brain, since everything we experience is from sensory input. Basically, is telepathy fundamentally possible? Or would the raw neural data be incompatible across brains? I think these twins could explain a lot about that.
- jerf 16y ago
  Unfortunately, these twins can't answer the question of neural data incompatibility, because, again, they grew up together. My guess is that when we start inserting info directly into the brain, the most immediately successful way will be to hijack existing inputs directly (vision, audio, etc), and the most successful long-term approach will simply be to just lob the data in in some suitable encoding with some suitable high-quality feedback and let the neurons do the hard work.
  - liuhenry 16y ago
    Using existing inputs makes sense, but what format are the neurons in? Would it be possible to convert a digital signal to whatever our brain uses - how would you encode it?
    - ay 16y ago
      Probably by "cutting" the input path and trying to mimic it ? The mathematical model for a spiking neuron is reasonably well understood, as far as I know: http://izhikevich.org/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm http://izhikevich.org/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm I did take the code he mentions and play with it. Is behaviour is fascinating. I hope to be still alive when we have enough computing power for simulating a single brain, and to be able to directly cross-connect it to mine.
      - a-priori 16y ago
        Last spring I wrote an implementation of the Hindmarsh-Rose model in C++ with ZeroMQ and GSL, which you may find interesting: https://github.com/michaelmelanson/neuron-playground https://github.com/michaelmelanson/neuron-playground The guy you linked to is using a simpler two-variable model with correspondingly lower fidelity. The goal of the Blue Brain Project, which this guy seems to think he has bested, is to model all of the features of a biological neuron and, more importantly, how they wire together.
        tocomment 16y ago
        That's awesome. Where did you find this algortihm to implement? How do they know if it is biologically accurate?
        a-priori 16y ago
        I pulled the equations from Parameter estimation in hindmarsh-rose neurons (Steur, 2006), equation 4.1. The Hindmarsh-Rose, Hodgkin–Huxley, and other mathematical models are phenomenological models. They are meant to reproduce the observable characteristics, like the peak potential, bursting behaviour, refractory period, things like that. They can reproduce the traces of biological neurons with good accuracy (like the link in the GP), and the papers describing the model mention ion channels and whatnot, but they're very abstract. They're not made to reproduce the biology.
- extension 16y ago
  That's an interesting point. I'm reminded of the way we perceive colors. We may see completely different things as "green", but because they've been given that linguistic label, we can identify them as the same. However, if I see red when you see green, it's fundamentally impossible to explain or imagine that. I hear this analogy all the time but it makes no sense to me. A color is either physical light or the idea in your head of a particular color. If we agree on both of those, what is left that could be meaningfully compared to decide if we are "experiencing" it as the same or different? Could I be experiencing a poodle as a banana, even though I think it's called a poodle and it actually is a poodle?
  - nollidge 16y ago
    Describe the color green.
    - LurkingGrue 16y ago
      #00FF00
    - extension 16y ago
      Green is the feeling of EM radiation with wavelength between 520-570nm hitting your retina.
      - a-priori 16y ago
        Yes, and how do you know that we experience the same 'feeling'? That's what the philosophers are talking about.
        Jach 16y ago
        Because to assume that each individual's brain is so different would go against all other evidence we have to the contrary.
      - joeyo 16y ago
        I can also cause you to experience green by electrically stimulating your visual cortex, so ~500nm light need not be involved, nor your retina even. What is green now?

scott_s 16y ago

Agreed. I immediately thought of Eliezer's "How An Algorithm Feels From the Inside": http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid...

garply 16y ago

I've always imagined that in the future humans will have some form of telepathy through neural implants. This sounds almost exactly like how I envision the experience of well-implemented telepathic communication.

hvs 16y ago
Hopefully with better reception than my cellphone.
th0ma5 16y ago
could be possible that these two may lead to insights into how something like that may be possible

csomar 16y ago

but they do have separate brains, with separate connections They do have separate brains, but what about the Thalamus bridge? That may leak some info. I'm curious to see a radiography on this, anyone has more links about it?

cma 16y ago

"Are they one people or two people?" "you just can't pigeonhole them [emphasis added]" Stealth pigeonhole?