"What if you replaced your neurons one by one with neuron-sized and shaped substitutes made of silicon chips that perfectly mimicked the chemical and electric functions of the originals?
If you just replaced one single neuron, surely you'd feel the same. As you proceed, as more and more neurons are replaced, you'd stay conscious. Why wouldn't you still be conscious at the end of the process, when you'd reside in a brain-shaped glob of silicon?"



This sounds fine to me.
Many people are already using prosthetic limbs, cochlear ear implants and artificial eyes that send information directly to the brain. They are sill conscious and human, even though that have a part of their body replaced with a machine.
No-one could possibly think that once a single neuron is replaced that the person ceases to be conscious.

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 , 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 192, 16386, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608, 16777216, 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073761824, 214748648, 4292967296, 8589934592, 17179869784, 34359738368, 68719476736, 137438953472. *phew* That's over a trillion neurons replaced. It is estimated that the human brain contains 50-100 billion neurons, so we have replaced them all by now.



At which point in this process did the person cease to exist?
Do they still exist now?
As an awareness, a conscious being, that is being maintained by a silicon computer.



Now, what if every time you plucked a neuron out of your brain you put in a radio transceiver that talked to a nearby computer that is running neuron simulations. When enough neurons had been transferred to software they could start talking to each other directly in the computer and you could start throwing away the radio links. When you're done your brain would be entirely on the computer.

This thought experiment shows that consciousness is not confined the skull, and that the physical matter, either meat or silicon, is not important. The pattern of energy/information/electricity is what creates consciousness. The meat/silicon is the tool used to build and maintain the higher level function that is awareness.



Now what would happen if your neuron simulation (your awareness) was copied and fed simulated input, existing entirely in the computer.
Where would *you* be?

one day, I think

You would be in Zero One.

I wouldnt be me without the ability to spontaneously create new neural pathways.

i think this is a very important point that i would not have caught had it not been pointed out.

part of thinking is thinking in new ways. remember that no computer yet designed can do that. once you transferred your "conciousness" to this computer, it would be stuck in its current state. perhaps only able to repeat the current thought, perhaps able to rethink past thoughts, but never able to forge ahead into new thoughts.

*

Tell that to the writers of Stargate.

you cannot create more neurons, at least not naturally. you get a fixed allocation over your lifespan, if you kill 'em, they are gone. thats why people with advanced alcoholism or people who have been hit too many times (like Muhammad ali) tend do act or move oddly.

what gets created and/or destroyed are the connections between the neurons, and those are whats important, really.

Probably at the end of a first year cogsci course.

I've often pondered that exact notion.

Rob.

It sounds like a more elaborate variation of the an analogy I've seen used involving an axe, and replacing the handle and the head over a protracted time-line to then ask is it still the same axe.

I think our individual minds and consciousness are simply a pattern, and programmed instructions etc. There seems to be no reason why this could not be replicated rather exactly with advanced machinery. Then add in the memories, and you would have an exact clone. As much as I can accept that, I think it would creep just a bit to have an exact copy of me thinking different thoughts. me but not me.....

This might be stupid, but why would you ask questions of a moderately uninteresting inanimate object?

:)

The fact that this is about people's intentionality makes this completely different and impossible to resolve, silly.

Don't call me silly, sweetie; the usual analogue to the axe example was a person at various stages of their life.

Should I instead be asking what would happen to this digital doppelganger if it were 'given' amnesia?

I think a more fruitful angle of enquiry would be to ask the same questions of progressively more complex (by whatever measure) living things. If you say yes to an ape and no to a human you're probably wrong.

You will get the answers " call tech support " or " is it still in warranty ".

If the transfer was done correctly, surely it would be a non-issue? Machineyou would not remember specific memories, but would still have the same personality and core facts...same as human amnesia patients? Assuming the machine version of amnesia was the same as it's biological counterpart....

Memory isnt linear. So they say. So.... the synth version of you would prob fail.

It would prob be parallel.

Why would memory have to be linear?

Ahem. http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/08/18/7-sc...h-neurogenesis/

Note the date. I've found stuff dating to 12 years before that, even.

I think that the example given will, in some respects, actually happen, already we are experimenting with nanotechnology that can create pathways in the brain, it will begin with the more static aspects of thought, facts, math, logic......

However, a cybernetic brain replacement? I doubt, the only percieved benefit to mankind from such an event would be longevity of life, if not immortality, as for "will you cease to be concious" no, however will you cease to be you? Eventually, it would be impossible to have an alteration of that magnitude and not have it change your life, because even if you weren't aware of the fact it had happned, people weren't meant to live forever.

Ofcourse, these synthetic neurons act exactly like organic ones, and therefore it's possible that they could also degrade at the same rate that organic ones do, but then what would be the point?

So in a purely theoretical and philosophical sense, were this process to happen, the person would not cease to be concious or even themselves, however on a practical level, this would not be the case.

The notion of a brain being transplanted, neuron by neuron with a synthetic material replacement also brings into question the effect of outside physical forces, such as radiation, the brain is radioactive, and unless the materials used were of an exact material replacement the effects of this internally emmitted radiation would be drastically different.

The argument against determinism states that since the radioactive qualities of uranium ~a naturally occuring element~ cannot be exactly determined, and also can create cancer in humans, that there is an uncertainty in the reactions caused by that radiation.

Medically speaking however, an exact material replacement of a brains neurons would not be the same as a synthetic one, also, it would not fit the requirements of the question at hand.

In relation to physics however, since radiation affects materials on an atomic level, replacing a brain, neuron by neuron with anything, organic or synthetic, would infact have a change on the effects of the radiation given out.

There are a lot of similarities between this situation and the one posed in the "brain in a vat" philosophical discussion of the 80's, where if a brain were kept alive and fed information (matrix style) would that person still be themselves, or a product of the information fed to them, despite the intentions of those who designed the informational feed.

It is actually a belief of modern society that we are the product of a computer simulation that is comprised of both organic and synthetically concious beings, that in a future we can percieve ourselves but may have already realised that in order to stave the negative effects of overpopulation that consciousnesses were transferred into this massive computer in order to save the collective consciousness of our race.

Science recently found that the planck length ~the theoretically smallest universal measurement of space~ is infact smaller than what we have so far to be the smallest measurement of space, and that it is possible to prove from this information the the universe is infact a massive computer simulation.

In order to determine such theories, Descartes, a long dead philosopher without the knoweledge of the abilities of such creations as computers, attempted to devine if such a notion was true; "I shall suppose... that some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to decieve me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely delusions of delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement"

The true answer to such a question as this, is, despite any variable imaginable, "I think, therefore I am"

So if you successfully performed a full operation to replace all neurons, you could download all information available to you?

I wonder if you would need a memory upgrade? :P

I think the real question here is - can we overclock it?

:P

YES!!!

I saw this documentary about it once. Some retard got taught to be smart by a computer, but he got TOO smart and his consciousness entered the computer!!!!

I think it was called Lawnmower Man or something...

I've never seen Lawnmower man..thanks for reminding me.

Due to the shear absurd level of connections to each synth neuron, in order to replicate bio; you would end up with EM corruption issues on the pathways. (?)

I don't see why. If the technology is that advanced to do what is being suggested, then it will be able to account for such things.

nm. I forgot this about that the dl'd version.

how about. the sotfware version would be unstable if every object and class could write to memory at will.

and btw, you "tech advanced" argue makes all argue moot.

p.s. "at will" ~giggle

The "tech advanced" argument doesn't make anything moot..it's perfectly reasonable.

It's like saying if/when we have the technology to make quick trips to the moon and back, it's a given we will have a way to power the vehicles sufficiently. If we can duplicate a consciousness with machines, it is logical to infer we will have a way to check for errors after the fact.

Likewise, the software for any consciousness would be assumed to be appropriately written, with safeguards in place. To assume otherwise would make the argument moot, and is akin to asking how will we travel to the moon at fast speeds if the software can't deal with pressure changes or something.

The hardware you would need would be....umm.. the exact same as the "bio" version then. wouldnt it ? only diff would be the psu, dsplay and imput... and even then not much different at all.

and again, you solve all problems by typing things would be "appropiately" writen.

you will travel to the moon at a fast speed if the software wont handle the change, you just wont live very long.

I agree, the hardware would probably have to be very close to the biological version in design.

I am not solving problem by saying that things would be appropriate written...it is a necessary assumption. What is the point in talking about a theoretical idea if we get sidetracked by all the possible problems? The place for that is in the actual research, not a discussion about the implications.

All implications will be taken care of by the appropriate person.

:D


i think the faulty premise here is that the neurons themselves equate to the process. if my aunty had balls she would not be my uncle. no, she would be a strange woman with extraneous testicles. the mere presence of perfectly synthesised male gonads would not synthesise the totality of biological maleness.

my guess is its extremely likely that the neural mechanisms integral to the process of sentience, are but one part of it. and i will not be surprised AT ALL if in some way the whole process fundamentally depends on living tissue. if so, we will need to be able to reproduce life artificially, once we can even define what it is, of course.

good luck with that anyway, Panther Moderns...

Needs more LEDs IMO.

One good question raised is at what level does consciousness sit.

Is it at the scale of the quantum world?
This I doubt because of the sheer randomness and uncertainty involved.

The level of atoms and molecules?
This I doubt too, because at this level everything is working like cogs in a wrist watch. There is no overall co-operation and organization.

Does it exist on the scale of neurons?
I don't think so. If you take a single neuron and look at it, will you find consciousness inside?

Does awareness exist at the level of billions and billions of electrical signals buzzing around, forming a pattern of energy which creates and maintains awareness?
Hmmmm, this sounds right.

So the matter itself is not important. It is only a tool used to create the higher level function of awareness.
This means, that the electricity is not important either.
It is only used to move information from one neuron to the next.

We have now arrived at a beautiful conclusion.
Consciousness is the movement of information...

Doesn't that sound a lot like computers...

EDIT: btw, did anyone get my thread title or is it a bit too abstract?

"Displaced awareness" + random binary numbers?

This discussion is based of one major (and flawed) assumption. That thought is exclusivly under the control of the brain.

People react to things without brain interferance, at the very least our five senses have memory outside our brains, shifting just our brain into a computer would be messed up.

Also silicon could not perfectly replicate the reactions 'meaty' neurons have, simply because they are a differnt material. they use silicon gel to make bodies for tasting gun shot wounds, testing acid burns on the other hand they most likly use pig skin, silicon is not carbon based it will never react to chemicals the same way.

You make a completly electronic brain, no chemicals would have an effect sure you would instantly cure all addictions but you would also block adreniline and all hormones.

You would also severly limit learning from experience, people wouldn't be conditioned to avoid things people wouldn't have dislikes or aversions to foods.

No dopamine uptake means nobody could feel happy, how many mental diseases are associated with a lack of a certain hormone?

I would think that if you could ever do such a transplant you would create people that are only able to have completly unemotional thought, they would take rational thought to the extreme in a mannor that is completly devoid of morals and is portrayed in almost every AI personality in cinema.

Thought is exclusively under the control of the brain.

...

Do you have any evidence of that extraodinary claim? Anything at all?

drago13666 - you are missing the point.
Dopamine doesn't make people happy.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter.
It is used to activate the dopamine receptors which then send signals that they have been activated.

"Dopaminergic neurons form a neurotransmitter system which originates in substantia nigra pars compacta, ventral tegmental area (VTA), and hypothalamus. These project axons to large areas of the brain through four major pathways:

* Mesocortical pathway
* Mesolimbic pathway
* Nigrostriatal pathway
* Tuberoinfundibular pathway

This innervation explains many of the effects of activating this dopamine system. For instance, the mesolimbic pathway connects the VTA and nucleus accumbens; both are central to the brain reward system."
Dopamine
See how the dopamine receptors are connected to the brain reward system. It's not the dopamine that makes us feel good, it's the activation of the brain reward system.
See how things operate on a level that is higher up than atoms and molecules and chemistry.

Since dopamine activates the brain reward system, dopamine indirectly makes up feel good?

Yes, and if you artificially activated the dopamine receptors you would feel the same pleasure. The dopamine is just the information carrier, like individual neurons are. When talking about concepts such as feelings and emotions, we need to be looking at the higher level processes. Like brain reward systems which cause us to feel good.

I guess this synth brain is going to need some DRM then. Cant have it rewarding itself willy nilly.

i worded it badly and i was tired it had been a long day at uni i was combining what i knew about sensory memory (which is very different and seperate from working and long term memory) and reflex action (for instance how the body moves away from pain befor the brain registers that anything has happened) I think i also had in the back of my mind the whole thing were people can be blind but still able to identify which direction something moves in.

And skulptur dopamine was just an example (i also mentioned adrenimline) i could have mentioned more but i couldn't think of them at the time. I'm sure you could find more brain-chemical reactions if you wanted to.

However Thesecret and lo-fi version both picked up one what i was trying to say. Even if its indirect there is still a relationship. Youd have to artificially create sensors to measure all chemicals and hormons that interact with the brain, you probably have to artifically create production factories of those chemicals too because the brain doesn't just recieve them it makes a variety too.

There are also quite a large number of medicines that we don't understand how they work (we just know that they do) how do you artificially similate something you dont' understand?

Drago, it's a thought experiment man.
Don't nit pick :P

I'd like to go back to Nich's analogy of the axe.
This thought experiment for me isn't about at what point do we stop being human and become machine (if at all).
It's about can consciousness reside outside of the host that it controls.