The memory capacity of a human brain can easily be accommodated by TODAY's electronic computers — universeness
Object-oriented programming and heuristic programming are probably small increments on the correct path but as I have already stated, electronic two-state computing is not ever going to be able to download a human consciousness so you are correct in that but few people have ever suggested that it ever could but those who say it could NEVER be done despite the tiny green shoots popping through from developments in quantum and biological computing — universeness
What do you mean by 'to program consciousness?'The most probable future scenario will be that people start realizing, after failed attempts to program consciousness. — Haglund
which is bound to non-programmed natural processes — Haglund
The atomic age, the computer age, the space age, the steam engine era, the radio- era, etc. — Haglund
Saying everything will be accomplished and known in the future, as you do, is the easy way out and will lead to a self-fulfilling disaster. — Haglund
Human brain storage capacity has been estimated by neuroscience at around 2.5 petabytes.The dynamic brain capacity is about 10exp(10ex20), a 1 followed by 10exp20 zeroes — Haglund
What do you mean by 'to program consciousness?' — univ [quote][/quote]
Perhaps you could give an example of this future 'transhuman' system you are trying to describe here?
Start with a human close to death. What transhuman scenario do you think would not be possible based on your vague description above? — universeness
The situation you describe above is possible imo but will most likely take the lifespan of the Universe to achieve. I have only ever suggested a future situation when all questions have been answered as a comparator with the god omnis or an emergent panpsychism. — universeness
Human brain storage capacity has been estimated by neuroscience at around 2.5 petabytes. — universeness
Tell them, Haglund.Science needs to be put in it's rightful place. As one culture amongst many. It should absolutely not be given political power as it has nowadays. It's fun to do science but it has it's limits and certainly not the answer to all questions. — Haglund
That is a very simple sentence and does not reflect the complexity involved. Its as simplistic and vague and meaningless as god made Adam from the dust and then breathed life into him (no halitosis involved I hope).To make consciousness appear by programming a computer — Haglund
Transhuman creatures can not be made by man. — Haglund
So how does genetic engineering fit in with your view above? Is genetic engineering not a case of 'editing the program.' If we can edit existing 'natural programs' and we know the code of the human genome, I would not be so sure, if I were you, that given enough time and scientists in the field, that we will never be able to write our own emulations of 'natural programming.A natural process unraveling, developing, is just different from a programmed process. — Haglund
I don't anthropomorphise nature in this way.We can ask nature and she answers — Haglund
Science is not an art, such statements are just fanciful.Which by the way exactly is the reason I consider science an art! — Haglund
Yet we know the full human gnome! and we have cloned sheep and cattle and have genetically modified crops. We could not have such technologies if your statement above was accurate. You cant edit a process you don't know!but the natural processes can't be known by definition — Haglund
The gods are no generally no help in getting to know what they created, but they give a reason science can't provide, and actually, thinking about it, if you know the gods you know the lives they made. And my cosmology is even inspired by them. One big bang is not enough for them. — Haglund
Yes, that's true. But I mean the dynamic memory. The memory in the brain is not a static one, like on chips. By the Bekenstein limit, every volume of space can only contain a maximum of information. But the brain can harbor as many processes as there are in the universe. Implicitely. You can engrave zillions of patterns in it and each neuron is involved in all of them. — Haglund
No, but we can achieve a better future in harmony with that which you label 'nature.'But can we do that at the expense of nature — Haglund
A = dead and A= alive ???God is dead but the gods live! — Haglund
That is a very simple sentence and does not reflect the complexity involved. — universeness
So I take it that you think a human, alive today, that is 100% dependent on a heart pacemaker for their 'alive' status could not be labeled 'transhuman,' I think that is NOT an unreasonable label to apply in my opinion in such a case. They are at least more than the 'traditional' human. — universeness
So how does genetic engineering fit in with your view above? Id genetic engineering not a case of 'editing the program — universeness
I don't anthropomorphise nature in this way. — universeness
Yet we know the full human gnome! and we have cloned sheep and cattle and have genetically modified crops. We could not have such technologies if your statement above was accurate. You cant edit a process you don't know! — universeness
Science is not an art, such statements are just fanciful. — universeness
Again you role-play with the god posit. — universeness
A = dead and A= alive ??? — universeness
You can overwrite the contents of electronic storage devices. ROM chips are static memory RAM chips are dynamic. The concept that a single neuron can be involved in more than one memory does not mean it can be involved in an infinite number of memories or else a brain would only need one neuron.
Superposition exists in science but that does not mean that the Universe is only made up of one fundamental unit in an infinity of superpositions and states. — universeness
It reflects what is tried to be done. Consciously, explicitly designing a program according to which a flow of current or no current is forced to behave, which is different from the processes in a brain attached to a body walking around in a world and resonating with that world, a process which developed freely, unforced by a program. — Haglund
With transhuman I don't mean people with pacemakers. I mean life made by man and superseding man. — Haglund
Yes you can overwrite. But then the other memory is gone. — Haglund
You type as if you understand the full workings of the human brain and no one currently does. — universeness
It doesn't have to be, you can save it in backup archival, external electronic memory if you want to. — universeness
Eidetic/photographic memory in humans is not scientifically proven. Every tested case has failed — universeness
:up:It is ridiculous to think that our minds can be uploaded to computers, since they cannot even be "uploaded" to our brains, which are much more sophisticated systems than computers. — Alkis Piskas
Eidetic/photographic memory in humans is not scientifically proven. Every tested case has failed. — universeness
On a page with text, the word popped up. It was written low on the page. Before I consciously read it. An example how the unconsciousness works. — Haglund
What problem?Yes, that's true. But then you shift the problem to the backup chip. — Haglund
Not impressed, If he flew over a thousand towns, over a thousand days and could then draw the one he saw based on my random number choice between 1 and 1000 then I might be more impressed as long as it was scientifically controlled and he was not secretly accessing a photo taken on the day.Well, I saw a kid flying in a helicopter over a town. When back on the ground he drew the the helicopter sight in minitious detail — Haglund
It's said that he draws cityscapes after a brief glance, accurate down to the number of windows in buildings. Has that case failed? — Daemon
It's said that he draws cityscapes after a brief glance, accurate down to the number of windows in buildings. Has that case failed? — Daemon
Why is that not evidence of a photographic memory? Nothing you've said helps answer that question. — Daemon
Someone with a photographic memory has to have full detailed recall of every 'snapshot' their eyes have taken in since the day they were born. — universeness
On a page with text, the word popped up. It was written low on the page. Before I consciously read it. An example how the unconsciousness works.
— Haglund
Yeah :roll: and if you were thinking of a song and it suddenly comes on the radio then that's the gods, servicing your consciousness or perhaps not. — universeness
Not impressed, If he flew over a thousand towns, over a thousand days and could then draw the one he saw based on my random number choice between 1 and 1000 then I might be more impressed as long as it was scientifically controlled and he was not secretly accessing a photo taken on the day. — universeness
Why? — Daemon
A way distant, future transhuman system may have such ability.
the two terms are calmly and very briefly dealt with by a new scientist article at: — universeness
What I mean is, that it was on the bottom of my visual field already when it popped up. So my brain saw it. — Haglund
The details all fitted — Haglund
A way distant, future transhuman system may have such ability.
the two terms are calmly and very briefly dealt with by a new scientist article at: — universeness
Yeah, was it as detailed as a photograph would be — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.