Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Buddy' date=' a "Move" operation is just a "Copy" operation with a following "Delete" operation on the source. All you're doing is making a clone and killing yourself. And who wants to inflict that pain on their clone?[/quote']

 

This is why most teleportation technology bugs the hell out of me. I'd only use it if a portal were being opened / space was being folded.

 

Transmit passenger? NO THANKS!

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

As for moving my memories into a computer - Buddy' date=' a "Move" operation is just a "Copy" operation with a following "Delete" operation on the source. All you're doing is making a clone and killing yourself. And who wants to inflict that pain on their clone?[/quote']

Which is why you don't do it all at once. Start with off-site redundancy for new mwmories, copy the older ones as they are accessed, add a math coprocessor, real time facial recognition, copy and annotate the farley file, run parallel processors to multitask. Start by using the organic brain for 95% of what you are doing, the percentage its handling drops as time goes by, so when it finally does crash it's an inconvience.

 

This is why most teleportation technology bugs the hell out of me. I'd only use it if a portal were being opened / space was being folded.

 

Transmit passenger? NO THANKS!

Perhapse this is where being a Buddhist helps. We believe that there is no Self, and at the same time we believe in reincarnation. So if my on-line copy, my clone or the duplicate on the other end to the teleport shares my memories and perceptions enough to perceive the illusion of "self," I have been reincarnated in that form. Which is the original and which is the copy matters not when both are One with the Universe.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Perhapse this is where being a Buddhist helps. We believe that there is no Self' date=' and at the same time we believe in reincarnation. So if my on-line copy, my clone or the duplicate on the other end to the teleport shares my memories and perceptions enough to perceive the illusion of "self," I have been reincarnated in that form. Which is the original and which is the copy matters not when both are One with the Universe.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, I don't follow that philosophy.

[Vondy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Without several theoretical technological hurdles computers will not rival the brain in terms of the relationship of mass to computing power or density of information storage. This does not take in the sophistication of the mechanism. I am not saying its impossible, but unless we overcome several successive theoretical hurdles we will not be able to push the Bekenstein bound that far. On the other hand, computers several orders of magnitude larger than a human being might be able mimic human intelligence. As for the sophistication, however, material engineering may never be able to pull that off. In fact, I don't think it will. To really match the human brain on a pound for pound level, let alone match the sophistication of the brain, we'll have to either be able to manipulate information on the proton level in light-based computers, or engineer bio-computers with denser cell structures than our own brains (interconnected super-brains in a vat!). But that won't happen if we're researching computers. It will only happen if we research our brains. Because we don't really understand what makes them such a powerful and unique tool. Only when we understand the brain can we really determine whether we can duplicate or improve upon it.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

To really match the human brain on a pound for pound level, let alone match the sophistication of the brain, we'll have to either be able to manipulate information on the proton level in light-based computers, or engineer bio-computers with denser cell structures than our own brains (interconnected super-brains in a vat!).

 

So . . . in order to equal the human brain, we'll need to build something far, far better than the human brain?

 

I agree that we'll need to understand the mechanics of thinking a lot better than we do now, but as I can see it, a neuron isn't that complicated. If we can build something which performs the logical functions of a neuron, and is smaller than a neuron, isn't that enough? Does the artificial neuron really need to manipulate single protons at light speed to keep up with something that operates using floods of complex molecules?

 

There's also another question that frequently gets overlooked: does an "AI" necessarily HAVE TO think the same way we do? I don't just mean, "does it have to have the same opinions and priorities that we do", either. We know that the human brain is a proven way to get intelligent thought, and it makes sense to look at it for inspiration, but do we have any reason to believe it's the only possible way to do it?

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence - This may provide helpful information.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

So . . . in order to equal the human brain' date=' we'll need to build something far, far [i']better[/i] than the human brain?

 

I agree that we'll need to understand the mechanics of thinking a lot better than we do now, but as I can see it, a neuron isn't that complicated. If we can build something which performs the logical functions of a neuron, and is smaller than a neuron, isn't that enough? Does the artificial neuron really need to manipulate single protons at light speed to keep up with something that operates using floods of complex molecules?

 

There's also another question that frequently gets overlooked: does an "AI" necessarily HAVE TO think the same way we do? I don't just mean, "does it have to have the same opinions and priorities that we do", either. We know that the human brain is a proven way to get intelligent thought, and it makes sense to look at it for inspiration, but do we have any reason to believe it's the only possible way to do it?

I agree that being less like our brain is the better way for Aritficial Intelligence. It consumes way to much energy and takes up way to much mass that is never used.

 

One mayor problem that the brain is a classical example of over-centralisation:

Motoric, Speach, Perception, Memory, Thinking - all focussed in a single system. At least some lesser funtions are "outsourced" to the Autonomic nervous system, but there is still to much in a single system to be perfect for all of it's roles.

 

For example, our ability to communicate is limited by our ability to percieve and transmit informations. If you de-couple Thinking and Speach/Perception and add a few additional Speach/Perception centers, you might easily get the ability to do one conversation with each set of interface hardware simultaniously.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Of course, there are some potentially disturbing implications to being able to thoroughly map out the human brain, especially if we posit dramatic advances in bio-tech. Suppose you could re-engineer a human clone, "grow" it to adulthood, and genetically remap the brain to create something that could be "programmed" to perform specified functions, but which lacked true human "free will", at least as we've come to understand the term(i.e., a "drone" worker)? What if this process was comparable in expense, or even less expensive, than the creation of a comparable cybernetic equivalent(i.e., an android laborer)? What if the use of such artificial labor became prevalent, and the quality of life(free time, income, social/family and sex life) of all or most "real people" improved dramatically as a result?

Now, the above scenario is technically impossible with today's science, but might not be completely impossible theoretically. There's no doubt in my minds that corporations, as non-persons focused entirely on the "bottom line", would happily "employ" such non-volitional-labor for most purposes. But would society accept it? Would there be groups opposed to it, and wanting to ban it on a state and/or federal level? Would there be occasional "anomalies" that resulted in "free thinking" droids and drones? Would there be laws enacted protecting their rights? Would they band together and revolt? Would some people seamlessly integrate NV laborers into their lifestyles? Etc. Lots of fodder for near-future sci-fi(and my campaign setting )

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Suppose you could re-engineer a human clone' date=' "grow" it to adulthood, and genetically remap the brain to create something that could be "programmed" to perform specified functions, but which lacked true human "free will", at least as we've come to understand the term(i.e., a "drone" worker)? What if this process was comparable in expense, or even less expensive, than the creation of a comparable cybernetic equivalent(i.e., an android laborer)?[/quote']

I doubt it can be cheaper - even if it is chaper in the creation, it is more expensive in the upkeep.

When we hit that level, we could make Robots with self-regeneration tissues on the wear parts and so get one of the mayor issues out of the design (of course the same thing can be made with Nanites and even cheaper).

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I doubt it can be cheaper - even if it is chaper in the creation, it is more expensive in the upkeep.

When we hit that level, we could make Robots with self-regeneration tissues on the wear parts and so get one of the mayor issues out of the design (of course the same thing can be made with Nanites and even cheaper).

 

I dunno. A "drone" could be fed some kind of cheap, nutritious gruel for a dollar or two a day, sleep on a cheap cot in a large room with other drones, and receive an inexpensive periodic medical checkup. A "droid" would require battery recharging, a storage facility for down time and periodic tech checkups. It's not self-evident to me that one would be considerably cheaper than another--especially considering real-world electronics often require the use of expensive rare-earth components, and usually wear out in less than one generation(uusually much less time than that).

[Steve]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I'm not sure than an artificial analog of the human brain is something technology can achieve. There is so much we don't know about thought and cognition. One of those is the capacity of the brain to self-repair and recover lost memories. I've been hearing about researchers studying incidents where portions of the brain are lost to injury or disease, and the brain recovers lost memories from... somewhere.

 

Perhaps there is more going on with thought and memory than can be explained by physical processes as we understand them.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I've been hearing about researchers studying incidents where portions of the brain are lost to injury or disease, and the brain recovers lost memories from... somewhere.

 

Perhaps there is more going on with thought and memory than can be explained by physical processes as we understand them.

That is simple, redundant saving with a long time for the rebuild. Nothign more complex than a simple Raid 5 for Magnetic Disks, or the redundant saving on CD's (about 1/4 of the writeable surface is used only to not loose data - not to actually store data, only to be able to restore it if it get's lost/unreadable at it's original place).

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I wonder what the heat distribution would be like.

[Steve]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

That is simple' date=' redundant saving with a long time for the rebuild. Nothign more complex than a simple Raid 5 for Magnetic Disks, or the redundant saving on CD's (about 1/4 of the writeable surface is used only to not loose data - not to actually store data, only to be able to restore it if it get's lost/unreadable at it's original place).[/quote']

 

I'm not sure about that analogy. People have lost significant portions of areas of the brain that do with motor control and speech but then had those abilities come back as other regions of the brain learned to do them.

 

Any neurology experts in the forum?

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I'm not sure about that analogy. People have lost significant portions of areas of the brain that do with motor control and speech but then had those abilities come back as other regions of the brain learned to do them.

I know enough about Neurology to say this:

Forget the "there are no new Braincells" stuff, you might have learned in school and Brain researchers have clung to for over 100 Years. It never was true. It is true that Brain Cells have no core and thus cannot divide (like all other body cells). But they don't need to: Our brain has built in Stem Cells, whose sole purpose is to create new brain cells.

When they settle in an area where they are put to good use, they stay. If not, they just die.

 

Refference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Okay, this thread is really starting to disturb me. I mean, the idea that humans are obsolete like pieces of software is really really really really disturbing and verging, on some, for suicide worthy.

 

I didn't realize the scope of what I was creating at the time of inception.

[Vondy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

So . . . in order to equal the human brain' date=' we'll need to build something far, far [i']better[/i] than the human brain?

 

Yes.

 

I agree that we'll need to understand the mechanics of thinking a lot better than we do now' date=' but as I can see it, a neuron isn't that complicated. If we can build something which performs the logical functions of a neuron, and is smaller than a neuron, isn't that enough? Does the artificial neuron [i']really[/i] need to manipulate single protons at light speed to keep up with something that operates using floods of complex molecules?

 

You miss the entire point of the bekenstein bound. Using material engineering physics, your something that performs the functions of a neuron that is smaller than a neuron doesn't exist. Based on mass to size level for information storage you have numerous theoretical leaps to jump through to get where you need to be and we don't even know if some of them are possible.. This is the entire reason theoretical computer engineering models so frequently depart from traditional computer material engineering models and look at other mediums, like biological computers or light based computers manipulating protons. In the case of the latter there is a great deal of money being spent because it is - in theory - radically more efficient, significantly faster, and doesn't require as many mcguffin leaps of science to accomplish. It relies on accepted theories we would have to apply. And, a light based computer could, based on size to mass, process and store information faster and with greater quantity than the human brain.

 

There's also another question that frequently gets overlooked: does an "AI" necessarily HAVE TO think the same way we do? I don't just mean' date=' "does it have to have the same opinions and priorities that we do", either. We know that the human brain is a proven way to get intelligent thought, and it makes sense to look at it for inspiration, but do we have any reason to believe it's the only possible way to do it?[/quote']

 

Nowhere did I suggest it was.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

That's because transistors only do one thing well: AND/NOT gates.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I'm not really sure how the Bekenstein Bound comes into this discussion, unless you're conflating the amount of information needed to completely describe an object with the object's information storage and computation capacity. 1.5 kg of pressed ham would have about the same value for the Bekenstein Bound as a human brain, but substantially less computing power, for instance. The bound is an absolute upper limit, not a reasonable estimate.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

You want to build something better than the human brain?

Take the human brain and cut out the redundancy. Redundancy is allways inefficiency. For me efficiency just means: I don't think I need it to be robust/easy in that direction, so I make it less robust/more complex for a lower prize or better prize/performance cost so I need less of it.

99.99% of all humans don't need the ability to recover memories when half then brain was destroyed. But 100% of all humans have that capacity. Memory capacity that could be used be way better for something different, if it wasn't used for a repair abillity that hardly ever comes into play.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Okay, this thread is really starting to disturb me. I mean, the idea that humans are obsolete like pieces of software is really really really really disturbing and verging, on some, for suicide worthy.

 

I didn't realize the scope of what I was creating at the time of inception.

 

Well, considering 1) the fastest computers are still 20 years short of matching a typical human brain, and probably 30 years from having the software to really emulate one, and 2) humans themselves will be the ones making the decisions about whether to augment, what to improve, etc., I'd say we're pretty far from becoming superfluous.

I'd also note that we already "upgrade" ourselves routinely--cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, organ transplants(natural and artificial), immunization programs(polio, smallpox, mumps, measles, etc.), diet/nutrition/exercise, academic study and training, and so forth. The line between "natural" augmentation and "artificial" augmentation can be a little blurry, imo.

That said, I am much more receptive to the idea of "evolving naturally" via bioengineering than I am to implanting random bits of circuitry in my body.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

99.99% of all humans don't need the ability to recover memories when half then brain was destroyed. But 100% of all humans have that capacity. Memory capacity that could be used be way better for something different' date=' if it wasn't used for a repair abillity that hardly ever comes into play.[/quote']

 

You're assuming that recovering memories is the intent of whatever this ability is, instead of a beneficial side effect.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

You want to build something better than the human brain?

Take the human brain and cut out the redundancy. Redundancy is allways inefficiency. For me efficiency just means: I don't think I need it to be robust/easy in that direction, so I make it less robust/more complex for a lower prize or better prize/performance cost so I need less of it.

99.99% of all humans don't need the ability to recover memories when half then brain was destroyed. But 100% of all humans have that capacity. Memory capacity that could be used be way better for something different, if it wasn't used for a repair abillity that hardly ever comes into play.

 

Redundancy is only inefficiency if you can reasonably sure that you are never going to need it. I work in a hospital lab and we have two (or more) of all our important instruments. This way when one of our instruments goes on the fritz, which happens frequently, we have a back-up in place and ready to go. This way when surgeon calls wanting CBC results on patients going south on the table, we don't ever have to say, "Sorry, can't help you man. Our CBC analyzer is down."

[Tasha]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I dunno. A "drone" could be fed some kind of cheap' date=' nutritious gruel for a dollar or two a day, sleep on a cheap cot in a large room with other drones, and receive an inexpensive periodic medical checkup. A "droid" would require battery recharging, a storage facility for down time and periodic tech checkups. It's not self-evident to me that one would be considerably cheaper than another--especially considering real-world electronics often require the use of expensive rare-earth components, and usually wear out in less than one generation(uusually much less time than that).[/quote']

 

Actually most ELECTRONICS Don't wear out. What tends to die are the mechanical Hard Drives, the Powersupplies. The motherboards of 90% of computers in landfill work just fine. You do have minor issues with cheap Capacitors blowing out, but that can be an easy fix. Also good quality electronics use Higher quality capacitors that don't tend to fail in the way cheap ones do. People tend to throw away computers when they don't run the software that people want. Heck, I did IT for an elementary school that was using 10+ old computers and doing just fine.

 

As for the Rare earth minerals used in tech. Eventually there will come a time when it's cheaper to recycle old electronics for these minerals. We aren't there yet, but we eventually will get to that point.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Actually most ELECTRONICS Don't wear out.

That is unfortunately not entirely true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration

 

We know of it for over 100 Years, but it only got relevant with the ever decreasign size of circuits. So ironnically the heat might not be what kills your overclocked processor, but the higher current could be.