The point with a collection 1's and 0's in a computer is that the pattern can mean anything.

The memory capacity of a human brain can easily be accommodated by TODAY's electronic computers — universeness

The dynamic brain capacity is about 10exp(10ex20), a 1 followed by 10exp20 zeroes. Instead of the maximum for computer chips, a 1 followed by about 10exp2, i.e., 100 zeroes, the number of particles in the observable universe.

Draw your conclusion...

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

Interesting computers might be, especially the quantum ones, they reflect a way of thinking, not a process which reflects, or can reflect, consciousness. Like all technique, for that matter.

The most probable future scenario will be that people start realizing, after failed attempts to program consciousness. — Haglund

What do you mean by 'to program consciousness?'

which is bound to non-programmed natural processes — Haglund

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?

I am all for protecting the Earth and all the flora and fauna on it but I dont think that bans the human race from making technological progress. What it should ban is nefarious b******** who nurture profit, influence and power above all else.

The atomic age, the computer age, the space age, the steam engine era, the radio- era, etc. — Haglund

What would you prefer the dark ages? the stone age? the age of kings? the age of empires? the age of stagnation?

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

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.

The dynamic brain capacity is about 10exp(10ex20), a 1 followed by 10exp20 zeroes — Haglund

Human brain storage capacity has been estimated by neuroscience at around 2.5 petabytes.
A single solid state drive can be bought for around £50 and can hold 1 terrabyte. 1024 of them is a petabyte. So 2560 current solid state drives connected together would have the same memory storage capacity as a human brain.

What do you mean by 'to program consciousness?' — univ [quote][/quote]

To make consciousness appear by programming a computer.

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

I'm not describing a transhuman system. I'm describing the impossibility of these. Transhuman creatures can not be made by man. The emergence of conscious creatures is a slow process taking place in the course of evolution. Its not a programmed process, a process driven by a stored program driving the material in a programmed way. A natural process unraveling, developing, is just different from a programmed process. There is no program executed after start button in the brain is pressed. You can't turn the brain on and off. Well, lots of off buttons actually... But you can't turn it on again...

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

Of course lots of questions can be answered. We can ask nature and she answers. A lot of these answers are given in artificial experiments. Which by the way exactly is the reason I consider science an art! Look at these beautiful experiments done! Einstein-Bose condensates, muon g2 experiments, the discovery of DNA (Watson and Crick didn't mention the female share!), all kinds of models of the unvisible world, the Webb telescope, the upcoming Roman, the parity violation experiment, etcetera, etcetera. An ode to human intelligence and invention. At the same time we know so little of the whole. I mentioned isolated succeses, of which there are plenty, but the natural processes can't be known by definition. 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.

Human brain storage capacity has been estimated by neuroscience at around 2.5 petabytes. — universeness

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.

@Universeness

And still, your future view is a nice one. Fusion energy, space travel, new worlds to discover. Living 300 years, no diseases, new inventions, hyper computers, new technologies, new synthesizer drugs to experiment with the mind, clean cars, etcetera, you name it. But can we do that at the expense of nature. Isn't it better to cultivate the inner world, instead of stuffing up the world outside with our inventions? To be happy with paradise as it is, instead of trying to establish an artificial impoverished copy version?

God is dead but the gods live!

:up:

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

Tell them, Haglund.

To make consciousness appear by programming a computer — 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).

Transhuman creatures can not be made by man. — Haglund

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.

A natural process unraveling, developing, is just different from a programmed process. — 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.

We can ask nature and she answers — Haglund

I don't anthropomorphise nature in this way.

Which by the way exactly is the reason I consider science an art! — Haglund

Science is not an art, such statements are just fanciful.

but the natural processes can't be known by definition — 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!

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

Again you role-play with the god posit.

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

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.

But can we do that at the expense of nature — Haglund

No, but we can achieve a better future in harmony with that which you label 'nature.'

God is dead but the gods live! — Haglund

A = dead and A= alive ???

That is a very simple sentence and does not reflect the complexity involved. — 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.

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

With transhuman I don't mean people with pacemakers. I mean life made by man and superseding man.

So how does genetic engineering fit in with your view above? Id genetic engineering not a case of 'editing the program — universeness

DNA contains no program. Only the code or proteins the organism uses.

I don't anthropomorphise nature in this way. — universeness

Me neither. But if we ask her in math she'll answer in math, or whatever language we ask.

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

Yes, but we don't know if the DNA has or hasn't been influenced by the organisms themselves or accidentally. It's just a DOGMA that DNA mutates by chance.

Science is not an art, such statements are just fanciful. — universeness

Science is an art.

Again you role-play with the god posit. — universeness

Again, it's no role play. That's what you want it to be. Where is the evidence?

A = dead and A= alive ??? — universeness

Yes. The God as you envision is dead. That omni super powerful moral superior being. The gods, on the other hand, live.

Your play.

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

Yes you can overwrite. But then the other memory is gone. Memories in the brain work differently. By connection strengths. One bit in a memory chip is involved in one memory only. One neuron in the brain is involved in innumerous many memories. One bit can be involved in more memories too, but they are unrelated, serial.

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

You type as if you understand the full workings of the human brain and no one currently does.

With transhuman I don't mean people with pacemakers. I mean life made by man and superseding man. — Haglund

People with pacemakers is a beginning. You are just saying you don't think a transhuman that equals and even supersedes the capabilities of today's individual human beings is or ever will be possible.
I think you are wrong. I have found your arguments against to be very unconvincing. I am sure you will say the same of my arguments. We can continue the dance but I think progress is highly unlikely.

Yes you can overwrite. But then the other memory is gone. — Haglund

It doesn't have to be, you can save it in backup archival, external electronic memory if you want to.
You can make as many backup copies as you like before you overwrite. Electronic memory can in fact be eidetic.
Human memory is also overwritten, with no backups possible. Eidetic/photographic memory in humans is not scientifically proven. Every tested case has failed.

You type as if you understand the full workings of the human brain and no one currently does. — universeness

I know how memory works. By reading, introspection, etc. you can get to know a lot! I just had an example. I forgot a word and was looking for it. 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.

If a memory forms, the width of neurotransmitter channels in synapses changes. Repeat something 100 times and that pattern is engraved in the strengths between neurons. The same neuron can be involved in more memories. At the same time.

So when you recognize something... click!... the scene "falls" in the trace.

It doesn't have to be, you can save it in backup archival, external electronic memory if you want to. — universeness

Yes, that's true. But then you shift the problem to the backup chip.

Eidetic/photographic memory in humans is not scientifically proven. Every tested case has failed — universeness

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.

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

:up:

Eidetic/photographic memory in humans is not scientifically proven. Every tested case has failed. — universeness

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel-and-adventure/2017/11/incredible-british-artist-can-draw-whole-city-memory

It's said that he draws cityscapes after a brief glance, accurate down to the number of windows in buildings. Has that case failed?

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.

Yes, that's true. But then you shift the problem to the backup chip. — Haglund

What problem?

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

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.

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

Equally not impressed for the same reason as above.

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

To answer with a little more detail. This is not evidence of an eidetic/photographic memory.
Perhaps he has a snapshot capability at best. Espionage agents are put through training to be able to recall a description of up to 30 random items scattered out on a table from a box for 20 or 30 seconds only. Some people can get very very good at honing some impressive recall skills or mathematical skill.
Some autistic individuals also demonstrate 'focussed,' brain ability.
So yes the artist you cite would fail a test for eidetic memory.

Why is that not evidence of a photographic memory? Nothing you've said helps answer that question.

Why is that not evidence of a photographic memory? Nothing you've said helps answer that question. — Daemon

My point is that it is not evidence of an eidetic memory. I don't accept that it's evidence of photographic memory either as the two terms are traditionally synonymous. 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.
If they don't then they have something less than a photographic memory. They have a memory that can very quickly store the detail of a single, eye-inputted snapshot. You can train your brain to do that or you may indeed have a 'focussed,' ability but it is a quite limited ability that is not that impressive if you ask me. It's akin to advanced acrobatics or physical or mental olympic level ability.
Genius or individual unusual ability is just so, it is always unwise to suggest it should be projected into the supernatural. The natural is super enough we don't need the BS projections.

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

Why?

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

What I mean is, that it was on the bottom of my visual field already when it popped up. So my brain saw it.

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

The details all fitted.

I knew someone with such a memory. During my study, once in a while I studied together with a girl. You only had to show her a page for a small time and she could tell you what's on it. But apart from that, memory of a computer is a very different one. The brain reconstructs scenes without them being stored. That's the difference. There is no direct image of a scene stored. You reconstruct and that's the memory.

Why? — Daemon

It a matter of the context in which you use the terms. No human can recall all sensory input they have received since birth. That's the fact that I am content with. Any ability short of that is interesting but meh!
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: https://www.newscientist.com/definition/photographic-memory/#:~:text=Photographic%20memory%20is%20the%20ability%20to%20recall%20a,people%20do%20have%20better%20visual%20memory%20than%20others.?msclkid=8004b108c18d11ec9c8257ece85ee5a3

All of your life is engraved in your brain. The brain memory capacity is near infinite (not to be taken literally...).

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

That system is bound by the number of particles in the universe. The brain contains a whole life of memory. What more do you need? You can use a computer for external static memory.

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

So you have good peripheral vision, you were not 'unconscious,' perhaps your 'awareness,' functionality was not paying adequate attention to the results of processing the sensory input from your eyes.
Always read the small print! Especially in adverts!

The details all fitted — Haglund

Yeah, was it as detailed as a photograph would be? were the textures the same was every glint the same as in the photograph? Getting the number of windows correct is not that impressive. Are you sure he had no familiarity with the area? If you know how many windows are on one floor and you know how many floors the building has then.....or yeah he might have good instantaneous recall but ask him to do the painting a month or even a week later.

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

So what? It's understanding that counts. Not if you can into detail remember. What you put into a computer's memory is just a static view from a certain angle.

Yeah, was it as detailed as a photograph would be — universeness

As detailed as you see it.