5 ms·

That is an interesting perspective. I actually think that a gradual shift to an emulated brain would keep you more “you” than replacing neurons in place with no

That is an interesting perspective. I actually think that a gradual shift to an emulated brain would keep you more “you” than replacing neurons in place with non-biological neurons. The reason is the emulation and is why I used the watch analogy, which was not about duplication vs transferring, but was about how emulation of physical objects and the connections between them is the same, for all intents and purposes, as the “real” version. In your 3 neuron brain analogy, the emulated neuron would not be receiving external signals. It’s physical properties would be emulated in software so the neuron would function i.e. behave the same way, as the original. Much the same way that an emulated mechanical watch mainspring will tension when you “wind” it and release that energy to “power” the watch the same as the watch it was emulating. Of course the winding, tension, etc. aren’t really happening. They are software running in a computer, but the key is they are behaving in the same way as a real watch component. Back to our emulated third neuron, it would not really be going through the electrochemical process of changing its action potential based on the chemical signal received from one of the other two neurons. What it would be doing is emulating that process in software in the same way as the biological one it replaced. It is not “receiving external signals” in that it is not a computer serving as a neuron, or like plugging your brain into a computer so you can directly interface with it. It is a computer running software and that software is running a physics engine of a neuron and the only external signals transmitted to that neuron running in software is an emulated duplicate of the signal sent from one of the other two neurons. However the neuron responds based on the rules of the physics engine, which again is built so that the neuron will behave the same as its biological model, would be converted to a real signal sent back to the other two neurons. So, nothing would fundamentally change for the other neurons to adapt to. Now, lets look at the non-biological silicon (or whatever material) brain. A silicon neuron would not behave the same as a biological one because it is made of totally different materials, likely chosen to act faster, more efficiently, more accurately, etc. In that case, the new neuron would not respond in the same as the biological one it replaced. I would say that would alter the functioning of the brain much more drastically.

kadushka 2y ago
I'm having trouble understanding, or perhaps, accepting, your point of view. When you say "It’s physical properties would be emulated in software", what really happens is still electrical signals flowing between transistors. "Software" is a concept - it does not exist in a physical world - it's our interpretation of the physical processes that happen when we apply voltage to transistors. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that consciousness might similarly be a concept - "our" interpretation of what is going on between our biological neurons. Note I put "our" in quotes, because it's self-referential here, and that's why I'm not 100% sure. But if we get back to my 3 neuron scenario, the third neuron which is emulated by the external system has not disappeared into the "software". It's still a physical device, which functions in a physical world, and is part of the original brain, despite the fact that it is now physically different from the original biological neuron it has replaced. It still produces (relays) the same signals towards the original two neurons, but it does not compute those signals. Both the inputs and outputs of this new proxy neuron are different, because it has to communicate with the external system. The two original neurons still communicate with a physical device, not with some abstract software entity. However, if we look at consciousness differently - as something that is purely in the signals and not in the physical devices carrying the signals, then it changes the perspective. In that case it's harder for me to imagine the effect of extending computational signals into the cloud, because I'm not sure if the external signals become an extension of the original consciousness, or if they become more like sensory inputs to the local brain - but then the local brain becomes smaller? It's hard for me to comprehend this perspective.
- 542354234235 2y ago
  >"Software" is a concept - it does not exist in a physical world - it's our interpretation of the physical processes that happen when we apply voltage to transistors. Not exactly. Software is still a physical thing, in that it is a specific configuration of transistors, or disk magnetization, etc. An emulation is a specific configuration of those transistors to replicate how the original object behaves according to physics. > Both the inputs and outputs of this new proxy neuron are different, because it has to communicate with the external system. The two original neurons still communicate with a physical device, not with some abstract software entity. They do only interact with the software indirectly, but if it is properly emulated, it will behave in the exact same way. To simplify even more than a 3 neuron system, I want to talk about logic gates. As I’m sure you know, logic gates are the basic building block of a computer that perform simple operations like AND, NOT, OR. Well, you can build mechanical version, like this [1] one with marbles. So you can build a super simple computer using marbles and physical gates. Now what if you build a machine that would input and output marbles according to software emulation of a physical gate and a falling marble? Even though the physical logic gates connected to it would be interacting with a complex physical computer, not the abstract software entity, the results would be identical. If you built a computer with half physical logic gates and half marble input/output machines controlled by abstracted emulated logic gates, the computer would still function the same. I think that if you did it with neurons, the brain would function the same. It seems to me that neurons are biological variations of logic gates. They receive electrochemical input based on a limited number of options, and based on physical differences in how the neuron is wired and what input it receives, the neuron produces and output based on a limited number of options. We have seen through many medical cases that every part of your personality can be changed by physical changes to your brain, either injury, disease, or surgery. There is no core “you” separate from the interaction of 100 billion neurons. So to me, if half those neurons are actually a software “abstraction”, I don’t see why my subjective experience would be any different. [1] https://www.nathanielbrookes.com/articles/marble-logic-gate/ https://www.nathanielbrookes.com/articles/marble-logic-gate/

kadushka 2y ago

I'm having trouble understanding, or perhaps, accepting, your point of view. When you say "It’s physical properties would be emulated in software", what really happens is still electrical signals flowing between transistors. "Software" is a concept - it does not exist in a physical world - it's our interpretation of the physical processes that happen when we apply voltage to transistors. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that consciousness might similarly be a concept - "our" interpretation of what is going on between our biological neurons. Note I put "our" in quotes, because it's self-referential here, and that's why I'm not 100% sure. But if we get back to my 3 neuron scenario, the third neuron which is emulated by the external system has not disappeared into the "software". It's still a physical device, which functions in a physical world, and is part of the original brain, despite the fact that it is now physically different from the original biological neuron it has replaced. It still produces (relays) the same signals towards the original two neurons, but it does not compute those signals. Both the inputs and outputs of this new proxy neuron are different, because it has to communicate with the external system. The two original neurons still communicate with a physical device, not with some abstract software entity. However, if we look at consciousness differently - as something that is purely in the signals and not in the physical devices carrying the signals, then it changes the perspective. In that case it's harder for me to imagine the effect of extending computational signals into the cloud, because I'm not sure if the external signals become an extension of the original consciousness, or if they become more like sensory inputs to the local brain - but then the local brain becomes smaller? It's hard for me to comprehend this perspective.

542354234235 2y ago
>"Software" is a concept - it does not exist in a physical world - it's our interpretation of the physical processes that happen when we apply voltage to transistors. Not exactly. Software is still a physical thing, in that it is a specific configuration of transistors, or disk magnetization, etc. An emulation is a specific configuration of those transistors to replicate how the original object behaves according to physics. > Both the inputs and outputs of this new proxy neuron are different, because it has to communicate with the external system. The two original neurons still communicate with a physical device, not with some abstract software entity. They do only interact with the software indirectly, but if it is properly emulated, it will behave in the exact same way. To simplify even more than a 3 neuron system, I want to talk about logic gates. As I’m sure you know, logic gates are the basic building block of a computer that perform simple operations like AND, NOT, OR. Well, you can build mechanical version, like this [1] one with marbles. So you can build a super simple computer using marbles and physical gates. Now what if you build a machine that would input and output marbles according to software emulation of a physical gate and a falling marble? Even though the physical logic gates connected to it would be interacting with a complex physical computer, not the abstract software entity, the results would be identical. If you built a computer with half physical logic gates and half marble input/output machines controlled by abstracted emulated logic gates, the computer would still function the same. I think that if you did it with neurons, the brain would function the same. It seems to me that neurons are biological variations of logic gates. They receive electrochemical input based on a limited number of options, and based on physical differences in how the neuron is wired and what input it receives, the neuron produces and output based on a limited number of options. We have seen through many medical cases that every part of your personality can be changed by physical changes to your brain, either injury, disease, or surgery. There is no core “you” separate from the interaction of 100 billion neurons. So to me, if half those neurons are actually a software “abstraction”, I don’t see why my subjective experience would be any different. [1] https://www.nathanielbrookes.com/articles/marble-logic-gate/ https://www.nathanielbrookes.com/articles/marble-logic-gate/