Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Skydiver Passes Out At 13,000 Feet, Plummets To Ground In Terrifying…
Backing up your brain is becoming a reality
New Scientist is running a story this morning about immortality -- not the physiological, philosopher's stone variety, though: digital immortality. What if, rather than dying, you could live on... inside a computer?Physically we might die, but if an accurate representation of our brain and all of its associated memories can be recreated inside a digital computer, stored in digital memory, can we live forever?
In theory it's simple enough, argue a variety of 'real avatar' research groups. If you answer thousands of questions and submit millions of photos, a believable model can be created. But it isn't a quick process: "If you spent an hour a day answering questions, it would take five years to complete them all," says a representative of CyBeRev, a 'personal cyberconsciousness' project.
The better solution is lifecasting, or 'lifelogging'. Strap an always-on camera to your head. Give some mind profiling software access to your blog, your Facebook page, your Twitter account. Over time, an accurate representation of your mind could be generated (unless you tweet bullshit, of course!) Ultimately, we'll simply sit down, plug in and have our brains and psyches scanned by a computer, a la Dollhouse -- but sadly that's still some way off.
Imagine the implications of digital immortality, though: Imagine having a digital avatar that could share its wisdom with your great-great-great grandchildren! Imagine having an enigmatic, digital Steve Jobs acting as CEO for every company!
Better yet, imagine having a personal clone of yourself that thinks and acts just like you. You could task him or her (or it?) to manage your online presence, leaving you free to do interact in the real world. Heck, why stop at one digital clone? I want an army of Sebastians...
Comments
23
Subscribe to commentsKururugiJun 7th 2010 3:11PM
"If you answer thousands of questions and submit millions of photos, a believable model can be created"
Unless you like, change your mind. These things are possible to get a snapshot of your identity on one occasion but people grow, they change and they adapt. Things a computer representation would never do. You also have the problem of the fact that people can't tell what they would do in any particular situation. I might say that if a burglar broke into my house I would fend him off, but would I really?
The lifelogging also doesn't work as the way you behave would be altered by the fact you and everyone around you knows you are making a video.
ErebosJun 7th 2010 4:16PM
I agree.
What CyBeRev suggests is just combining a more detailed Facebook profile with some psychology tests. That's not by any means Digital Immortality...
Sebastian AnthonyJun 8th 2010 8:49AM
Hehe, well, it depends where you draw the line on intelligence, wisdom, etc.
Is it purely represented by connections in your brain? Is there spirituality involved?
If you believe that everything you do and say is simply the result of cranial computation, then you could in theory model a human in a computer.
Given enough inputs 'burglar breaks in', 'having a bad day', 'gun in the drawer', 'burglar is black', you can divine the output.
But yes, you need a lot of detail to approach accuracy -- and right now, they're nowhere near accurate :)
jimmiesmith1947Jun 13th 2010 4:58PM
Yes you are right but what choice do you have?
Atanas BoevJun 7th 2010 4:05PM
Who owns the digital rights of my brain copy when I die, then?
KING MICHAELJun 7th 2010 4:15PM
i backed up your mom
pedromileskiJun 7th 2010 4:22PM
No, I don't want to be cloned. You're getting into a very strange area where we're trying to play God and we will never be able to be equal to Him. I really have strong views against this sort of thing. This is why cloning a human is illegal and should stay that way. I don't want my mind backed up or put into the hands of someone else. There are things that are best left alone and this is one of them.
John (PSN|Steam: Peakage)Jun 7th 2010 4:48PM
You know what one of the reasons is for the stereotype that Christians are crazy fools who never miss an opportunity to spout rhetoric on subjects only tangentially related? It's because of shit like this.
AnthonyJun 7th 2010 11:14PM
I would actually be afraid of someone coming along and altering these data to suit his/her needs. Their would be nothing worse than some person or group finding the data and essentially changing history.
kojo87Jun 8th 2010 12:32AM
the way i see it, if God (should he exist) really did not want us to "play God" with cloning and things like this, he would not have made us intelligent enough to do so. you have to remember that the Church rejected the idea of a heliocentric system at one time too. as we become more educated about our own universe, religions start to seem less and less relevant.
i am a confirmed Catholic and went to a Catholic high school. i could talk for hours about this kind of stuff and not get bored. i find it fascinating.
Android underlingJun 8th 2010 1:57AM
Kojo87,
As we become more and educated about our universe, God actually seems to become more relevant. When you truly see how insanely complex things really are, it really gets you thinking.
And yes, you bring up a very good point. The bible says God is "logos" or logic. Being that we are created in his image, we have the desire to also study and achieve great thigns. It says time and time again that we are to use our minds. The bible never called for blind faith, but instead states many times that we are to use logic.
Science is good and a very Christian principle, no matter what some ignorant Catholic priest says.
Android underlingJun 8th 2010 2:00AM
I apologize for my spelling above.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 8th 2010 8:47AM
Ach, theology!
My only request, if we're going to discuss religion here, is to give equal credence to any and all religions.
They are either all real, or false. We either live in a spiritual universe, or we do not.
You can find the idea of backing up your brain offensive _to spirituality_, but it's not specifically offensive to Christians (or any other religion).
The whole idea of robotic self-awareness is a hot topic for me. In theory, one day, we'll be able to create a perfect clone of a human. At what stage do we gain self-awareness? At which stage do we stop being a robot and become HUMAN?
If we have souls, at which stage are we 'given' a soul? The human brain is just a computer. If we can recreate it artificially -- in a jar? -- would it have a soul?
Is a _physical_ brain, interconnections between neurons, necessary for a soul to arise? Can a piece of computer memory have a soul...?
Doo doo doo...
kojo87Jun 8th 2010 7:21PM
Android underling,
i should have been more specific. the organized religion becomes less relevant. the idea of God does indeed become more relevant. i entirely agree with you there. when we live in a universe that seemingly came out of nothing and 70% of it is made of dark energy that science simply can't explain (for now anyway), you have to at least acknowledge the idea of a higher power.
Sebastian,
sounds fair to me. after all, most every belief system teaches the same guidelines for morality and how to live a good life.
as for the topic of souls, i have never been able to wrap my brain around the idea of a soul. i think i get the concept but at the same time it makes no logical sense to me. the idea "robot souls" i most likely going to bounce around my brain all night resulting in much sleep loss.
ScootahJun 7th 2010 9:21PM
I reccomend anyone who's interested in this sort of technology - at least on a conceptual level, check out Peter F Hamilton's Misspent Youth / Commonwealth Saga and Void Trilogy - one of the bigger themes is how a human society with this sort of mental backup would function. I think his model is probably a very good reflection of the real challenges to ethics and morality around this sort of human immortality.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 8th 2010 8:39AM
I'll add it to my Goodreads 'to read' list... it's getting a bit long, though...
klevine4Jun 8th 2010 7:26PM
This is interesting stuff. In addition to the Caprica reference, there's another good analogy for this. Richard K. Morgan's books are about a society where individuals' consciousness is kept on a "stack" in the spine at the base of the brain. So when people die, they can be "resleeved" (put in another body, or a clone of their former body, if they can afford it). The books take place hundreds of years from now, so the methodology of the creation of this "immortality" isn't really addressed. But a lot of the debate above is.
In addition to Scootah's recommendation, I'd highly recommend Morgan's books. I've just been sucked into the world, and can't seem to put the books down.
ScootahJun 8th 2010 10:21PM
I love Richard Morgan - but his view of the universe is VERY dystopian. To quote him - "Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses."
Morgan's view of the world and the ethical challenges with immortality can be briefly summed up as 'Ethics are for suckers, why would the super rich share immortality?' - Hamilton's writing has a very different tone but I think it's much closer to the reality of technological progression. At least in terms of how he views memory backups and continuous existance through clones or digital realities.
Karate TortoiseJun 8th 2010 2:22AM
if this can be perfected, along with artifical brain cells. brain damage could technically be treated and reversed. that is probably years away from reality thugh.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 8th 2010 8:37AM
Ya! You saw the news that we created artificial cells?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm