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. — Haglund

I have met similar people. How big was the page, how much writing was on it? etc.
And even if she could memorise a standard sized book page of text quickly, could she still recal it an hour, day, week, year later and if she could then is that the end of the party trick? can she do it with two pages, a chapter, the whole book?

All of your life is engraved in your brain. — Haglund

Does that include your time asleep?

So you have good peripheral vision — universeness

The point is, I didn't see it consciously.

Does that include your time asleep? — universeness

No. Dreams are not remembered easily. They are just replays of memories, fantasies, etc. Even gods talking to you... Sometimes though you remember every night you dream. Sometimes no at all. Luckily maybe...

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. — Haglund

Understanding is not objective it is subjective. An observer may see a particle's properties based on their reference frame and another observer will report a completely different set of results based on their reference frame. They may not even detect the particle.

As detailed as you see it. — Haglund

Each observer reports a different emphasis for the exact same visual scene. Ask a policemen who asks honest observers, 'so what happened here then?'

I have met similar people. How big was the page, how much writing was on it? etc. — universeness

A whole page in a physics book. By reconstruction. That's not how a computer memory works. That being said, her understanding of physics was great also. Which need not be the case if you can just replicate formulae.

Each observer reports a different emphasis for the exact same visual scene. — universeness

And a computer chip?

No. Dreams are not remembered easily. They are just replays of memories, fantasies, etc. Even gods talking to you... Sometimes though you remember every night you dream. Sometimes no at all. Luckily maybe.. — Haglund

So do you now withdraw your suggestion that 'all of your life is engraved on your brain?'

So do you now withdraw your suggestion that 'all of your life is engraved on your brain?' — universeness

Okay. Your awake life.

And a computer chip? — Haglund

Two transhumans would hopefully be as diverse in observation as humans are.
Its hard to know for sure UNTIL THEY EXIST.
I take it you are typing about a memory chip as opposed to a processor chip when you type 'computer chip.' A computer memory chip today is an electronic storage device, nothing more.
Comparing how an electronic memory chip stores data and how a human brain stores memories is a trivial comparison. We know all about the former and very little about the latter.
Such a comparison is of little value to future musings regarding transhumanism.

Comparing how an electronic memory chip stores data and how a human brain stores memories is a trivial comparison. We know all about the former and very little about the latter. — universeness

Which makes the comparison very non-trivial. In assigning a number to brain capacity, the usual definitions of information are used. But you can't use that as the brain memory functions differently. How did Wiki got that number of a pentabyte (bit) information? By counting static units.

The point is, I didn't see it consciously — Haglund

But your sensor system did, it just took a while for your processors to confirm the data input.
Some people don't always say ouch or scream out, the instant they get stabbed. The shock value can interrupt the pain delivery messages.

Such a comparison is of little value to future musings regarding transhumanism. — universeness

Exactly. So the fact that computer memory exceeds an artificial number of brain capacity is useless.

But your sensor system did, it just took a while for your processors to confirm the data input. — universeness

Yes. But unconsciously. It made me remember the name. Only when reading the page I saw it mentioned below. So I was informed unconsciously.

Which makes the comparison very non-trivial. In assigning a number to brain capacity, the usual definitions of information are used. But you can't use that as the brain memory functions differently. How did Wiki got that number of a pentabyte (bit) information? By counting static units. — Haglund

2.5 petabytes is a guesstimate based on input from neuroscientists.
People ask hard questions, others do their best to answer them.
Your comparison of future transhumanism with today's electronic, two-state, mostly still serial computer system remains absolutely trivial.

Yes, but it's still all computer generators have. All computing is done with 0 and 1. Even quantum computing. And whatever it's based on it stays computing by program, which ain't going on in the brain. Even not when you think up a program.

Exactly. So the fact that computer memory exceeds an artificial number of brain capacity is useless — Haglund

No because it provides a current guesstimated answer to the trivial question 'can the memory capacity of a computer equal that of a human brain?' that people will ask no matter how trivial you say it currently is.
It's a far superior guestimated response to a difficult question compared to:

Difficult question: What is the origin story of the universe?
Guestimated answer: Gods

Yes, but it's still all computer generators have. All computing is done with 0 and 1. Even quantum computing. And whatever it's based on it stays computing by program, which ain't going on in the brain. Even not when you think up a program. — Haglund

Yet you dismiss transhumanism based on such an elementary current technological level in computing science and you ignore the tiny green shoots of quantum and biological computing.
Biological computing is doing leading-edge research on being able to identify two or more states which happen within proteins that are stable and reliable enough to represent data states. If they find them, then the biological computer can begin to have traction. Proteins are not the only candidates.
Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison.

No because it provides a current guesstimated answer to the trivial question 'can the memory capacity of a computer equal that of a human brain?' that people will ask no matter how trivial you say it currently is. — universeness

The guestimate is nonsense. I can give you the Bekenstein fir all computers. But as said, it's static.

It's a far superior guestimated response to a difficult question compared to:

Difficult question: What is the origin story of the universe?
Guestimated answer: Gods — universeness

The origin of the current universe is simple. Together with a mirror universe it inflated into existence on a higher dimensional (4d actually being 7d) wormhole. One on each side. This has happened since the dawn of time and will happen in the future many times. The gods were very wise!

Proteins are not the only candidates.
Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison. — universeness

Again you delegate your vain hope into the future. Once upon a time in a future far far away. We dont know if we dont try, true. But we can contemplate the future to be on possibility. You assign way too much creation power to humans. We can't even create one neuron in a lab!

Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison. — universeness

It will pale in comparison with a natural brain. Where is the computing or program in a brain?

You offer me nothing new to discuss. You just reheat and repackage trivia.

Exactly. So the fact that computer memory exceeds an artificial number of brain capacity is useless
— Haglund

No because it provides a current guesstimated answer to the trivial question 'can the memory capacity of a computer equal that of a human brain?' that people will ask no matter how trivial you say it currently is. — universeness

How can it be useful if a brain memory is not based on static information as in the static maximum information content in a volume of space, the maximum content being the number of planckian areas on that surface? That number holds for memory chips but not for brains.

Biological computing is doing leading-edge research on being able to identify two or more states which happen within proteins that are stable and reliable enough to represent data states. If they find them, then the biological computer can begin to have traction. Proteins are not the only candidates. — universeness

I'm not disputing the wonderful new developments in computing. It's the idea that by computing consciousness can be created that's a fantasy.

Have you viewed any of the videos on YouTube featuring people who hear and/or see the world around them for the first time? Here is one of those videos:



My point is that what was once considered absolutely impossible, is emerging in today's world. Across the board, this is true. So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies.

This is especially true of transhuman technologies, which include whole brain emulation; as well as other high tech goals, such as super-longevity, super-wellness and super-intelligence. These innovations are the tools for our human transcendence.

My point is that what was once considered absolutely impossible, is emerging in today's world. Across the board, this is true. So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies. — Bret Bernhoft

It has nothing to do possible or impossible. You're still not getting the point. To this day, what have been made possible by science have always been grounded in material reality. The DNA structure was once unimaginable. But now we do have the structure. But only because it is grounded in physicality.

How can it be useful if a brain memory is not based on static information as in the static maximum information content in a volume of space, the maximum content being the number of planckian areas on that surface? That number holds for memory chips but not for brains — Haglund

You just repackage the same points again and again. The brain contains static data at any time instant. static just means unchanged (yet). Based on that you can estimate brain capacity at 2.5 petabytes.
You attempt to conflate that with the proposal that a neuron can be involved with more than one memory.
and you 'throw in,' static memory media as another distraction and try to use that as evidence that the contents of computer memory cannot be changed. Computer memory IS NOT BASED ON STATIC INFORMATION. SDD's are dynamic. RAM is dynamic the full name of RAM is DRAMM (Dynamic Random Access Memory Module) an SDD and RAM space are the two main memory workhorses inside home computers. There are permanent programs such as the bios (basic input/output system) and the bootstrap loader etc held in ROM (read only memory) this is static memory in the same way that the brain used a static process on how it fires a neuron or communicates with your visual input sensor (eyes). The instructions involved are static.

I'm not disputing the wonderful new developments in computing. It's the idea that by computing consciousness can be created that's a fantasy. — Haglund

Creating a new consciousness or self-aware android is not fantasy as it is projected from real empirical evidence, unlike your polytheism.
The concept of extending human lifespan by placing the human brain in a new 'container' (such as a cloned or cybernetic body) after death or just before and the very distant future concept of 'downloading a human consciousness/wetware,' into a hardware emulation/replication of the human brain will never be possible unless we gain a full understanding of the workings of the human brain. If that is achieved then it will become possible to replicate it.
You think like a person of your time as do others, you lack the pioneer spirit. Thankfully for the sake of the survival and progress of the human race, many humans do and will boldly go into the future while others regress back toward the caves or stagnate where they are.

So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies.

This is especially true of transhuman technologies, which include whole brain emulation; as well as other high tech goals, such as super-longevity, super-wellness and super-intelligence. These innovations are the tools for our human transcendence. — Bret Bernhoft

Well said! :clap:

You're still not getting the point. To this day, what have been made possible by science have always been grounded in material reality. The DNA structure was once unimaginable. But now we do have the structure. But only because it is grounded in physicality. — L'éléphant

The future projections of transhumanism are grounded in material reality. Your comment on DNA is valid but there were many before DNA and RNA were discovered, who stated that it was folly to try to understand the fundamental structure of the human genome and that it would never and could never be done, as only god can know such things. How is that viewpoint any different from those who claim that we can never know the full workings of the human brain or how consciousness is created and therefore be able to replicate it.
In my opinion, the majority of science dissenters do harbor theistic, theosophist or metaphysical belief tendencies.
Having typed that, I do also recognise that such 'generalisations,' are flawed but I don't feel compelled to delete the sentence for now.

You just repackage the same points again and again. The brain contains static data at any time instant. static just means unchanged (yet). Based on that you can estimate brain capacity at 2.5 petabytes. — universeness

Of course the brain contains every instant of time an information content. Like I said, it contains a maximum of the the number of Planck areas on the body, if we look at the whole body-brain integrated structure. That's about maximum 10exp66 bits, if we crammed the mass of a black hole with a Schwarzschild area comparable to the body's area, in the volume occupied by the body. Which obviously isn't reached. And neither is it in a computer. You should use each preon for a zero or one for that.

But that number is not what counts for consciousness or true intelligence. It's the way the matter is organized. In a computer the currents are pushed along by an external program running at clock speed. Every tick of the clock, a pattern of voltages is pushed to the next configuration on a linea recta grid on the micro chip. A zillion times per second. And you may have a zillion 1 or 0 voltages, changing a zillion times per second because an external program pushes them along, this is not what happens in a brain.

The brain is an unprogrammed freely unfolding process on the lighting shaped neural network, which has a history containing the whole universe. The computer has no start at the big bang, like bodies and brains, but it's start is a certain way of thinking (programmatic) and the human hand.

Show me where the program in the brain is located.

Creating a new consciousness or self-aware android is not fantasy as it is projected from real empirical evidence, unlike your polytheism. — universeness

Nonsense. It's a fantasy which it will always stay. Can we construct a brain in a lab? No. The gods are far more real.

What's the empirical evidence? A piece of mechanical construct, operating at a hyperspeedy clock, wearing the mask of a japanese girl, artificially giving programmed advice or answering questions? Fake consciousness... What's the obsession with technology? Why not being satisfied with natural evolved consciousness? The only consciousness. AS... artificial stupidity....