4 ms·

Not with our current technology, I agree But saying the problem can't be solved ever seems dead wrong to me. We humans excel at understanding and replicating

by guylhem 14y ago

Not with our current technology, I agree But saying the problem can't be solved ever seems dead wrong to me. We humans excel at understanding and replicating what nature did - then at improving it. Once we clearly understand how memories are stored, if they can be read and written that'll be half of the problem : accessing the data. If the theory about memory being encoded in the microtubules is right, imagine some nanomachines that could read it from a "live" human - by broadcasting radio waves, or emitting photons (we started doing that for proteins with antibodies glued to radioactive markets, then we improved and glued them luciferase, now we do multiple colors and IIRC it's being experimented for DNA), whatever. Now imagine other nanomachines that could rearrange the microtubules to match that - voila, you've got Matrix-style "uploading" of knowledge once we understand how the memory bits interact with eachother, how they can be accessed by the subject. Maybe it's like a SQL database fk/pk - we don't know. But something must exist to allow it. When we figure it out, there is no reason why it couldn't be done too. My own predictions : after we confirm how memories are stored, if we have nanotechnologies to create nanomachines, we will start reading memories just like we did with DNA and proteins. It will take a while, we will only have a read-only access at first- and with many bugs just like how introns and TATA boxes could be mysterious initially - but we will understand in the end, and that will be half of the problem solved. Downloading will require additional advances in computer technology (at least faster cpus, in 3d instead of 2d to get more interconnections and raw computing power, and maybe some integration of processing and memory to match how neurons work), but it does not seem far-fetched to me.

kybernetikos 14y ago
Computability in this case is a theoretical term and doesn't really relate to levels of technology. Whether or not all physical processes are computable in the sense that they can be simulated by a turing machine is an open question, although my impression is that most folk who care to express an opinion think that they can. There's a little bit more on the Wikipedia article on the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing%E2%80%93Deutsch_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing%E2%80%93D...
- guylhem 14y ago
  Regarding computability, I wouldn't dare giving any opinion on that, and hopefully didn't in my original post. All I'm saying that once we figure how information is stored and processed, with enough technology we could replicate the process. It's not about computability- if you are making a biological duplicate I'd expect it to work the same way. Some might say this is not the "singularity", but it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Also, it would help creating silicon equivalent. Imagine we have something just as small (or smaller) than a biological neuron, which can interface and work in the very same way. Computability or not, if it works in exactly the same way, I'd guess it could work the same on a higher level too - like, in a brain, especially if we have figured how to extract the stored information and if we can feed it back. (unless there are emergent properties we missed in the first place, but then if they can be identified, maybe they can be replicated too?) That would allow an iterative trial/error (ex: if it doesn't work - why?) which might not resolve the computability question, but bring even more interesting issues about why it might not possible - something we can learn only from an experimental approach.
  - kybernetikos 14y ago
    As far as I can tell, there's a hidden (but not unreasonable) assumption in what you're saying; that it is possible to simulate what is going on. There are many things that cannot be computed, e.g. the Busy Beaver sequence, and it's quite possible that a simulation of true physics also involves noncomputable problems which would mean that it's not possible for a turing machine to simulate it. I like this blog's http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chur... take on it: "Yet our ease with the CTD Principle is an ease brought by familiarity. One hundred years ago the statement would have been far more surprising, and, I suggest, even shocking to many people. Viewed from the right angle, the CTD Principle still is shocking. All we have to do is look at it anew. How odd that there is a single physical system – albeit, an idealized system, with unbounded memory – which can be used to simulate any other system in the Universe!" You say "once we figure how information is stored and processed", but how do you know that what is going on in the brain is just a matter of storing and processing information in a way that can be mimicked by a turing machine?
jpwagner 14y ago
"We humans excel at understanding and replicating what nature did - then at improving it." Do we?
- guylhem 14y ago
  Look no further than the food we eat. First we scouted the earth to find the best stuff, then did selective breeding, now with GM the changes are directly at the genetic level. We have food optimized for tastiness. (I must say I'm waiting for food optimized for health benefits, but still we did improve it) So yes we do.

by guylhem 14y ago

kybernetikos 14y ago

Computability in this case is a theoretical term and doesn't really relate to levels of technology. Whether or not all physical processes are computable in the sense that they can be simulated by a turing machine is an open question, although my impression is that most folk who care to express an opinion think that they can. There's a little bit more on the Wikipedia article on the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing%E2%80%93Deutsch_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing%E2%80%93D...

guylhem 14y ago
Regarding computability, I wouldn't dare giving any opinion on that, and hopefully didn't in my original post. All I'm saying that once we figure how information is stored and processed, with enough technology we could replicate the process. It's not about computability- if you are making a biological duplicate I'd expect it to work the same way. Some might say this is not the "singularity", but it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Also, it would help creating silicon equivalent. Imagine we have something just as small (or smaller) than a biological neuron, which can interface and work in the very same way. Computability or not, if it works in exactly the same way, I'd guess it could work the same on a higher level too - like, in a brain, especially if we have figured how to extract the stored information and if we can feed it back. (unless there are emergent properties we missed in the first place, but then if they can be identified, maybe they can be replicated too?) That would allow an iterative trial/error (ex: if it doesn't work - why?) which might not resolve the computability question, but bring even more interesting issues about why it might not possible - something we can learn only from an experimental approach.
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  As far as I can tell, there's a hidden (but not unreasonable) assumption in what you're saying; that it is possible to simulate what is going on. There are many things that cannot be computed, e.g. the Busy Beaver sequence, and it's quite possible that a simulation of true physics also involves noncomputable problems which would mean that it's not possible for a turing machine to simulate it. I like this blog's http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chur... take on it: "Yet our ease with the CTD Principle is an ease brought by familiarity. One hundred years ago the statement would have been far more surprising, and, I suggest, even shocking to many people. Viewed from the right angle, the CTD Principle still is shocking. All we have to do is look at it anew. How odd that there is a single physical system – albeit, an idealized system, with unbounded memory – which can be used to simulate any other system in the Universe!" You say "once we figure how information is stored and processed", but how do you know that what is going on in the brain is just a matter of storing and processing information in a way that can be mimicked by a turing machine?

jpwagner 14y ago

"We humans excel at understanding and replicating what nature did - then at improving it." Do we?

guylhem 14y ago
Look no further than the food we eat. First we scouted the earth to find the best stuff, then did selective breeding, now with GM the changes are directly at the genetic level. We have food optimized for tastiness. (I must say I'm waiting for food optimized for health benefits, but still we did improve it) So yes we do.