Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Mithfindel on 19 Nov 2010, 01:00
-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/sumc-nim111510.php
tl;dr: Research indicates that nerve cell synapses, previously thought to be only relaying signals between different cells, do actually contain such things as memory and computational capabilities. Which, potentially, increases the theoretical capabilities of the human brain by several orders of magnitude.
"In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth."
-
A tremor in the force...like a million transhumanists suddenly cried out in terror.
-
Best part about the brain is its plasticity.
-
Good lawd. :eek:
-
Best part about the brain is its plasticity.
Best part about the brain is its taste... om nom nom!
Really interesting article!
-
A tremor in the force...like a million transhumanists suddenly cried out in terror.
Terror? No. I eagerly await the construction of mind-machine interfaces. Oh, and uploading. Do want.
-
A tremor in the force...like a million transhumanists suddenly cried out in terror.
you realize this is effectively proof that molecular scale switches can be made or grown? This is awesome.
-
I was mostly talking about the uploading fantasy. Don't you think this makes simulating the human brain for such purposes a mite more complicated?
Not seeing how this helps or hinders DNI, and given that we already know particle switches are possible, I'm not impressed in that respect.
-
I was mostly talking about the uploading fantasy. Don't you think this makes simulating the human brain for such purposes a mite more complicated?
No. The problem before we make these discoveries is that we don't know how it works. Once we do know (not that this is the final step in that, by any means), we can understand it. If we can understand it, we can create it. We are already learning how to integrate nerve commands into machinery, eventually, we will be able to recreate the brain itself.
-
So the discovery that what we thought was one kind of synapse is actually several won't require additional resources to simulate in a hypothetical uploaded brain?
As for integrating nerve impulses into machinery, that doesn't help at all. It's the meat that's doing all the heavy lifting in that arrangement; the converse requires entirely different engineering.
-
So the discovery that what we thought was one kind of synapse is actually several won't require additional resources to simulate in a hypothetical uploaded brain?
As for integrating nerve impulses into machinery, that doesn't help at all. It's the meat that's doing all the heavy lifting in that arrangement; the converse requires entirely different engineering.
Not to derail but are you a doc in RL
-
Uh. No?
-
You're well versed in talking about brain structure. Anyway.
Anything that leads humanity to a longer life span and further ability, keep on researching.
-
So the discovery that what we thought was one kind of synapse is actually several won't require additional resources to simulate in a hypothetical uploaded brain?
I think we have a different way of thinking about things. To me, it isn't a setback, because we were wrong before, and now that we have discovered differently, are closer to aligning our understanding with the objective reality that exists whether we understand it or not.
As for integrating nerve impulses into machinery, that doesn't help at all. It's the meat that's doing all the heavy lifting in that arrangement; the converse requires entirely different engineering.
A hundred years ago, people regularly died from what we would call a minor infection today, because they didn't have antibiotics. Fifty years ago, people considered color television sets the size of a small car the height of technology. I think I have reason for optimism.
-
A hundred years ago, people regularly died from what we would call a minor infection today, because they didn't have antibiotics. Fifty years ago, people considered color television sets the size of a small car the height of technology. I think I have reason for optimism.
A hundred years ago, the thought of a global war was incomprehensible, and the prospect of eradicating an entire city in atomic fire relegated to pulp sci-fi comics. Thirty years after that, we managed to kill off about a hundred million of ourselves. Any optimism with respect to the human race should be counter-balanced with a healthy fear of ourselves. For every great inventor that revolutionizes society with a new invention, there are ten generals looking to weaponize said invention, a hundred spies trying to steal it, and a thousand soldiers itching to drop it on the savage enemy.
-
I have optimism about our ability to invent, not about our uses of invention. I'm hoping that we can change the nature of humanity itself, however, with suitably advanced technology, and by such, perhaps reduce the reasons for pessimism. It's a long shot, of course.
-
A hundred years ago, people regularly died from what we would call a minor infection today, because they didn't have antibiotics. Fifty years ago, people considered color television sets the size of a small car the height of technology. I think I have reason for optimism.
A hundred years ago, the thought of a global war was incomprehensible, and the prospect of eradicating an entire city in atomic fire relegated to pulp sci-fi comics. Thirty years after that, we managed to kill off about a hundred million of ourselves. Any optimism with respect to the human race should be counter-balanced with a healthy fear of ourselves. For every great inventor that revolutionizes society with a new invention, there are ten generals looking to weaponize said invention, a hundred spies trying to steal it, and a thousand soldiers itching to drop it on the savage enemy.
There are more humans alive today, than have died during our existence on earth.
The only natural enemy a human has is another human.
Humanity's rise coincides with the latest mass extinction event.
And lastly.
From a scientific view humanity is a young species, our modern science and culture not even that.
Seeing whether we'll survive our success, is going to be a blast.
-
So the discovery that what we thought was one kind of synapse is actually several won't require additional resources to simulate in a hypothetical uploaded brain?
I think we have a different way of thinking about things. To me, it isn't a setback, because we were wrong before, and now that we have discovered differently, are closer to aligning our understanding with the objective reality that exists whether we understand it or not.
Well, not so much thinking about them differently, but we're definitely saying different things. You're saying it's closer than it actually was. Absolutely true. I'm saying it's further than the fanboys (a group which does not necessarily include any of the transhumanists here) thought it was.
As for integrating nerve impulses into machinery, that doesn't help at all. It's the meat that's doing all the heavy lifting in that arrangement; the converse requires entirely different engineering.
A hundred years ago, people regularly died from what we would call a minor infection today, because they didn't have antibiotics. Fifty years ago, people considered color television sets the size of a small car the height of technology. I think I have reason for optimism.
[/quote]
The point wasn't about progress in general. I was only saying that shoving electrodes in someone's skull and having them move a robot arm around doesn't get us any closer to replicating the function of the brain.
-
tl;dr - the human body is an awesomely complex computer. Not surprised, at all.
-
So what if there are people on earth that don't use it. :roll: