/lit/ - Literature

>>3934469
>the BRAIN Initiative
"The initiative has been projected to cost more than $300 million per year for ten years."

What a total fucking waste of money.

>Kurzweil
>Philosophy of Mind

>software replication of the brain
>brain-tech

Why have America started doing this when Europe are doing the exact same thing with the Human Brain Project? Is this like the next space race, the first one to have an artificial brain?

Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function by Rao
Dynamical Cognitive Science by Ward
Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing by Manning

Not philosophy of mind, but cogsci will help supplement your research.

>>3934508
>an artificial brain?
*an artificial mind.

And yes, if Europe are making steps to do it, of course America wants to jump in and get there first. It has the potential to be weaponised.

>>3934508
>Is this like the next space race, the first one to have an artificial brain?
>>>/x/
>>>/sci/
>>>/b/

>>3934512
Cheers, I'll check these out.

>>3934508
I didn't know about the human brain project, thanks.

It says "The Human Brain Project (HBP), is a research project which aims to simulate the human brain with supercomputers." Yeah, that sounds right. I don't know why the US are doing it too then, especially as it takes billions of dollars and thousands of scientists.

>>3934521
Do you really think an artificial mind could be weaponised? Wouldn't it be self-aware and able to make decisions like a human?

>>3934535
>Cheers, I'll check these out.

I think they're all on libgen, FYI.

>>3934535
>Do you really think an artificial mind could be weaponised?
Undoubtedly. There are a lot of very nasty things that could arise from this project if it's successful. Fortunately we have 10 years left before it's done, and probably another 10 before anything major starts happening.

>Wouldn't it be self-aware and able to make decisions like a human?
Potentially. If the materialist view of the brain is correct, and there is no dualism or anything fancy, then a software model that can fully replicate neural action could function the same as a human brain.

It would be 'blank' though. They would have to replicate someone's existing brain, or find some way of conditioning/teaching it. It would be interesting to see what a replication of a living person did - if it behaves the same, becomes convinced that it is the real person and argues that it is alive.

I don't know anything about this shit, but could a brain theoretically be reverse engineered through cloning? Let's say they get to a point where they can control all variables in a clone, couldn't they just make a completely stripped down "brain", study how that functions, and slowly build it up as they make more copies?

>>3934577
You mean a physical brain? I'm not quite sure what you're imagining. Like growing a brain in vitro? Maybe one day, but they haven't even perfected basic muscle tissue yet. A software simulation is so much easier.

>>3934561
>It would be interesting to see what a replication of a living person did

In forty years everyone will have one. If you have a desk job, you'll be able to make it work for you while you sit at home leading the literary life.

You said the mind, then you said the brain.

>Two different things.

Look up the holographic universe theory.

>>3935576
Check your biological privilege.

Why would you be granted sovereignty over another mind? It will be a separate being in it's own right and entitled to individual rights.

>>3935581
If everything was replicated, from the central sulcus down to every individual oligodendrocyte and axon, there is no reason why they couldn't have mind.

carl jung

>>3934508
BRAIN Initiative (USA) vs Human Brain Project (EU)

My money is on Europe to win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QLDKlpdtek

>the singularity will save us
>Robojesus is coming
>We can all upload our minds and be immortal
>I can be a robot who merges with one mass consciousness

This is what liberal atheist feminists actually believe

>>3934469
Here are a handful of introductory textbooks related to what you're talking about. There'll be some philosophy in them, but not a massive amount, but it's probably closer to what you want. I personally think that the whole "what if I were swamp thing" thought experiments are one of the worst things to come out of analytic philosophy, and that seems to be what you're talking about.

>>3935763
Ignore the top one.

>>3935759
>implying I'm not a Russian cosmist
we'll have new bodies in ten years I'm sure of it

someone should've mentioned Godel Escher and Bach
it's pop-sci but it's good pop-sci, better than Kurzweil

>>3935775
>Implying Kurzweil's wrong.

>>3935838
i liked the part, when we created artificial worm and bacteria

>>3935844
>>3935844
It's equivalent computing power, not an artificial worm.

Look at the trend, we'll hit human around 2013-2020. Guess when these brain simulations will be complete and running? Guess when Intels new neuromorphic chipsets will be integrated into supercomputers with accurate models?

Kurzweil's been attacked since the 70's, yet his predictions have remained accurate all this time. Decades of ridicule, and now it looks like he was right all along. The naysayers will soon be claiming they always supported him.

>>3935861
so what? equivalent computing power didnt unlock artificial worm intelligence. so these "predictions" dont mean anything.
its like comparing the energy of nuclear bombs to the energy of a tornado and using it as a metric for our meteorology skills. it's a faulty syllogism.

>>3935883
There is no use reasoning with these people, they're stuck in their ideology because they want to be.

>>3935883
>so what? equivalent computing power didnt unlock artificial worm intelligence.
Can you point to where he said we will "unlock artificial worm intelligence?" He said we will have the equivalent computing power.

>its like comparing the energy of nuclear bombs to the energy of a tornado and using it as a metric for our meteorology skills.
No, it's like predicting that humans will make an atomic bomb, and predicting it's explosive power against natural events when all you have is a thimble of gunpowder (and even that is a shitty comparison as the growth in every area of technology has been a progressive exponential increase and not obscure isolated events), but now the plans for the atomic bomb have been drawn, and manufacture is in progress.

Kurzweil applied Moores law to every area; the processing power of CPU's, RAM cache, Bits per dollar ratio, pixels per dollar ratio, transistor price; he predicted a relative exponential drop in price, and an exponential rise in power, was laughed at for years, and has now been proven correct.

His singularity is a separate idea, and only achievable once computing power reaches a threshold point. We are heading to that point, and have been for a long time.

You'd know more about the effect of technology on the mind being a 4chan user, rather than some PHD fuckwit

>>3935889
Why do you refuse to accept evidence? Is your dogmatic scepticism really so important to you that you'll stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to face reality?

>>3935584
>Check your biological privilege.
>entitled to individual rights.

I don't think so at all. Remember that a digital mind doesn't have any biological axons connected to it, so it will feel no physical pain (unless you actively fed in signal). Also, unless you are copying a brain directly and using it like that, the structure can be fully programmed with memories, experiences, somatic markers, and affective conditioning to be whatever the programmer/artist wants.

Potentially certain replications may be given 'rights', but there is no imperative to do so. Not at first anyway.

is there any hope of immortality or uploading a mind?

>>3936379
No. What? No.
Stop.

>>3936379
>is there any hope of immortality
Yes, but probably not for our generation

>or uploading a mind?
There could be, but again, probably not for our generation. The first major problem is the 'start trek teleporter problem'. You will be able to 'copy' your mind, but the initial you will remain. If that's not a problem for you, then you're fine. If your wife was cloned like that, you couldn't tell the difference between the original and the cloned, but the problem comes in the fact that two exist simultaneously.

>>3936393
Great post. Top notch. Excellent work. Thick, solid, tight.

>>3936411
Could that be solved by keeping some kind of link or connection between the two as you destroy one of them?

Everyone should read Kurzweil today. Even the most speculative (in the sense of reflecting on itself) philosophy has to rely on a set of automatic presuppositions, like a philosopher simply presupposes in his or her very approach to nature a set of implications of how the nature functions, what's the causality in nature and so on and so on. Kurzweil teaches us what we have to know without knowing it in order to function, even in philosophy - the silent presuppositions.

I claim that what is happening, for example, in technology in the last 100 of years, these things which are so daring, incredible, that we cannot include into our conscious view of reality - that Hegel’s philosophy, with all it’s dialectical paradoxes, can be of some help here. I claim that reading Kurzweil through Hegel and vice versa is very productive.

>>3936411
>The first major problem is the 'start trek teleporter problem'.
Solved by the one consciousness philosophy.

>>3937139
Not that guy, but really? I'm pretty sure they're considered separate entities.

Consider Scotty beaming someone up, only there are two tele-porters on the enterprise. Mr. Spock's body gets broken down, ported, and replicated as two Spock's on the ship. They are two distinct physical beings, with separate conscious minds, that happen to have the same memories. And both of them are an imitation of the original.

>>3937164
>separate conscious minds
Here's the thing: they wouldn't be. Matter does not exist as static points with coordinates, it exists as patterns that define past and future.

When there's two patterns that are the same, the universe sees it as one pattern existing in two places at once.

>>3937510
>Matter does not exist as static points with coordinates, it exists as patterns that define past and future
what do you mean by patterns? Are you saying quarks and atoms are illusory, and there is a deterministic pattern field that gives us the appearance of material things?

>When there's two patterns that are the same, the universe sees it as one pattern existing in two places at once.
Can you give me a demonstration of this?

It seems like you are using pattern to mean a celestial blueprint, or coding behind the physical. Would the pattern for the porcelain mug I'm drinking coffee from ever be the same as a mug found in Sri Lanka?

>>3934535
A natural mind is capable of being militarized. Why not an artificial one?

>>3934469
What's gonna happen? Nothing. Machines have no desires, no biological bodies, no hormones. All necessary things for the human mind to exist.

>>3935576
You will make it work for you while you have a second job lol

Having someone that can do the same stuff you do is an excellent excuse to cut your wage by half.

>>3934469
>I'm interested in finding out what's going to happen with the BRAIN Initiative when they finish making a full software replication of the human brain, and the potential implications for brain-tech interaction.
Why say "philosophy of mind" if you mean pop neuroscience?

>>3940279
>What's gonna happen?
They are going to create a simulated copy of a living human brain over a ten year period, ensuring that every aspect of the brain, from each motorneuron to each dendrite is accounted for.

>Machines have no desires,
This is one of the interesting questions that it will raise. If a simulation of the brain of John Smith responds to stimuli in the same way as John Smith, why wouldn't it's desires be real?

>no biological bodies,
Not required for a mind

>no hormones.
Hormonal levels, neurotransmitter levels, everything from norepinephrine to melatonin is being accounted for. That's why this is costing billions - it's not some kid making a C++ program on his macbook.

>All necessary things for the human mind to exist.
What have they overlooked? Even Searle didn't see this coming.

>>3940290
I think he wants to know if it will 'be' a mind. And don't use 'pop' as a derogatory.

>>3940290
There's some overlap between the two. They're not mutually exclusive. Anyway, pop science and philosophy are important. They make topics that can, to the layperson, be both boring and difficult to grasp more digestible. My interest in physics began with Feynman's pop science books, and now I'm a physics grad.

not strictly a philosopher but uncanny accurate in predicting technology
Mystery of the Chinese Room - Stanislaw Lem

>>3940297
Let's assume the simulation is successful. Then John smith will basically wake up and find himself in a computer with a minimum of external simulation, no body to account for and the knowledge that he is gonna shut off. It's enough for a mental breakdown. And he certainly won't desire anything, at best he will desire to die.

What they are overseeing us two things:
1) our mind is as much in our head as much it is our body and our world. It is a being and not a simple computational center.
2) the functioning if our mind is strongly dependent on our self-image. We are self-conscious beings thus our mind has necessarily knowledge of our body and is adapted to deal with its necessities.

And that's if you copy a mind already formed. If you try from blank slate at best you will have to devise a way for it to interact. So much of what make our processes human comes from our interaction with others. We are self-conscious because we mirror ourselves in others. Even a deep understanding of language, not like Siri but like a real person, needs a shared community.

At best you will obtain through this way functionally autistic subjects. Something more akin to the rain man than to a functioning human being.

>>3940330
>Something more akin to the rain man than to a functioning human being.

You are thinking of a single model. I agree a 'blank slate' with some attempt at a lifetime of environmental conditioning in a few months is going to produce something horrendous. But when they have John Smith's model, and David Steven's, and a few hundred other people, they can begin a more rigid trait selection. The problem, as you realised, comes from memory, and the need to give the simulation artificial, or spliced together human memories

I don't see the body issue as a problem. touch sensation is transported via myelinated axons (essentially very long, thin neurons) and this could be replicated very easily with a basic PCB and copper thread. Sensory input isn't hard either; you know how microphones and speakers work, and there are photo-receptive diodes already being implanted into the retinas of blind people right now (this works by splicing in between the defective tissue, and again sending electrical signal along the axons). So this wouldn't be a brain in a vat. It will have full human-like interaction with reality.

There is no reason why they couldn't create a mind that's indistinguishable from a conventional human mind, even if the first one is a direct clone.

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

>>3940394

>>3940313
post it pls

>>3938953
The geometry of our universe is four dimensional(time is the fourth dimension). Seeing it in its true state would reveal the eternal waves of information defining the shape of matter in any given 3 dimensional snap shot.

>Can you give me a demonstration of this?
Quantum entanglement. The entanglement is "broken" when one particle is measured, but it isn't really because the information just transfers from one particle to another.

>>3937007
Oh boy, then you run into the ship of theseus conundrum. Think of it this way: If you replaced a boat, piece by piece, until you had eventually replaced all the pieces, would it be the same boat?

>>3940628
>If you replaced a boat, piece by piece, until you had eventually replaced all the pieces, would it be the same boat?
*If you replaced a human body, cell by cell, until you had eventually replaced all the cells in the entire body, would it be the same person?

In both cases, yes.

Read Searle again and again and again. Nothing else!

>>3941512
new suicide method?

>>3941512
>ad Searle again and again and again.
Searle was wrong.

He effectively dragged a computer into determinism (and said response was possible to calculate given enough time and all the variables), but allowed humans some kind of exemption, when the exact same thing is possible.

In a full simulation of a brain, especially a cloned brain of a current human, his reasoning gets destroyed. You can't have the same category mistake, as both the simulation and real brain will have to be treated as the same.

>>3934469
>Kurzweil
have you tried Dianetics by Hubbard yet?

>>3935775
>kurzweil
>anything to do with pop-sci not to mention pop-sci

yeah in ten years, you're gonna get cancer from polluted water source and urban pollution, so don't hold your breath for your pseudoscience cyb0rheavans, kiddo

>>3941561
>>3941572
Go to bed, militant sceptic.

>>3941573
>>militant sceptic
>he thinks its an actual thing
hows modelling your future cyb0rpenis going, you militant fool?

>>3941577
Just because you have no understanding of the things in this thread, you don't have to get so asspained.

Just sit down quietly, don't post anything, and try to follow along.

>>3941582
oh I understand things allright

you on the other hand are a perfect example of Dunning–Kruger effect, not to mention a true believer that will be awarded at least 69 robovirgins in cyb0rheavan

read a book, kiddo

>>3941588
Look, princess, I understand your frustration when a topic pops up that you can't participate in. It must make you feel really stupid. If there is any specific aspect of neuroscience or technology that you would like help understanding, then just let me know and I'll explain it to you.

Otherwise, please keep quiet and stop making a fool of yourself.

>>3941582

Asspained? Is that butthurt for believers in Techno Jesus?

>>3941599
Don't you usually spam "robojesus."

>>3941599
See: >>3941596

>>3941596
is throwing around a bunch of obscure (not for me, kiddo, don't worry) and meaningless memes with zero actual substance an actual participation in a topic in your mind? Oh wow I guess your robot cult fits here well, with all those 'wut book r on u bookshelf nao post pic" threads

take your meds, kiddo

>>3941605
You are a shit troll. At least put some effort in.

>>3941611
i don't have to, when robojesus comes he will forgive me my sins and give me 20 inch robopenis and lazer eyes just like in Deus Ex

can't wait for The Future™

>>3941617

You know, I could just imagine you standing over the Wright Brothers screaming, "Oh my god, you believe in bird-jesus. Dunning-Kruger dot jay peg." And no matter how much they offer to explain aerodynamics to you, you are just happier wallowing in ignorance and hurling insults about things you will never understand.

>>3941560
>Searle was wrong.
No he was right, he was just thinking of Siri.

>>3941620
>it makes sense to compare an actual physical invention and a solution of an actual engineering problem to a bunch of powerpoint slides and pseudoscience non-consensus cranky wishful thinking of marginal, unrecognized circlejerking underachievers
this is what robot culstists actually believe

throwing around a bunch of artificial, lofty, meaningless memes doesn't make your wet-dreams actual science

>>3941625
>this is what robot culstists actually believe
See this is exactly what I mean. If you have something intelligent to say, then say it, otherwise we will have to think that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>throwing around a bunch of artificial, lofty, meaningless memes
Neuroscience is not a meme, regardless of how many times you say it.

>doesn't make your wet-dreams actual science
No, the billions in funding, the hundreds of thousands of scientists actually working on it, and the wealth of scientific research behind it does.

Look, I'm open to an actual discussion with you. But throwing around buzzwords isn't getting you anywhere. You just come across as an angry teenager who hasn't read the class material.

>>3941633
oh wow look at the ideologue trying to conflate actual neuroscience with his pseudoscientific ramblings; it's disgusting how brazenly arrogant one has to be to claim the hard work of actual scientists, constrained by actual scientific method and consensus findings, as his (cult's) own

it's so sad you don't realize how marginal and obscure your identity cult is

everything that has "neuro" or "computer" or "technology" in it is automatically, magically absorbed by your ideology and its prophets

how about you stick to your flashy powerpoint slides and no-citation paperbacks by true believers and leave consensus science alone

>>3941633
I'm not that guy, but you're a cultist. Sorry. Your beliefs have nothing to do with science.

>>3941639
>oh wow look at the ideologue trying to conflate actual neuroscience with his pseudoscientific ramblings
I did my MSc in Cybernetics and AI from the University of Reading UK. I studied underneath Prof. Kevin Warwick (one of the first people in the world to integrate a PCB into his central nervous system). I understand this topic in a lot more depth than you.

>it's disgusting how brazenly arrogant one has to be to claim the hard work of actual scientists
I am a scientist. I work for a US-subsidised German company designing prosthetic augmentation.

>constrained by actual scientific method and consensus findings, as his (cult's) own
I don't belong to a cult.

>everything that has "neuro" or "computer" or "technology" in it is automatically, magically absorbed by your ideology and its prophets
If you have a specific objection to something, then please state it so we can discuss it rationally. Otherwise I must insist that you stop embarrassing yourself.

>>3941622
>No he was right, he was just thinking of Siri.
His mistake was claiming that determinism applies to Siri but not a human.

>>3941648
>I studied underneath Prof. Kevin Warwick
you mean you went to a bunch of lectures where that guy recited some course material to a class of (few) hundred; how many times did he mention your fantastical cyberheav0n uploading paradises and other non-existent, non-provable, non-feasible technological marvels? Good to know your run of the mill diploma makes you qualified to override consensus science, scientific method and all that boring non-flashy shit and proclaim the humanity is on a definite way to The Future™ and all that other transretardist dogma

>I am a scientist.
I think I should have been more precise. I meant scientists that don't simultaneously hold irrational, non-consensus beliefs that impact their work in the field. You know, the 99,9% of them.

>I work for a US-subsidised German company designing prosthetic augmentation.
free 20inch robodicks for all! give me a call when you find out how to upload a prokaryote

>I don't belong to a cult.
this is exactly what a cultist would say

>If you have a specific objection to something, then please state it so we can discuss it rationally
first you would have to make and then prove a singular claim; it hasn't happened yet - just a stream of meaningless memes from a jerkbuddy to a jerkbuddy since post one

>>3941648
>one of the first people in the world to integrate a PCB into his central nervous system
No, he didn't intergrate a PCB into his _central_ nervous system.

Forgive me if I don't trust your credentials when you're making a trivial mistake already in your post.

>>3941682
>you mean you went to a bunch of lectures where that guy recited some course material to a class of (few) hundred
Yes, years of lectures, examinations, essays, peer-reviewed assignments, presentations, lab-work...

>how many times did he mention your fantastical cyberheav0n uploading paradises and other non-existent, non-provable, non-feasible technological marvels?
Could you give a more precise definition of what you understand by "cyberheav0n uploading paradises"? I really don't think you have any clear idea what it is that you oppose. Yes, we had many lectures on the future of technology, both from what is feasible and also the ethical implications.

>Good to know your run of the mill diploma
'Run of the mill' from the second best university in the country for this course. lel.

>makes you qualified to override consensus science, scientific method
I don't override consensus.

>free 20inch robodicks for all!
Now you deny the existence of vibrators?

>first you would have to make and then prove a singular claim; it hasn't happened yet - just a stream of meaningless memes from a jerkbuddy to a jerkbuddy since post one
Why would I make a claim? I have reviewed the evidence from thousands of other scientist, and concluded that it seems plausible. And just because 'something hasn't happened yet' does not demonstrate anything. That is one of the most ridiculous positions I have ever heard.

One last time, if you have a specific objection to something, then please make it. If you have a question about how dendrite clusters can form around resistive material, or how oligodendrocytes can be artificially stimulated, or any other specific query that will help you understand the future potential of one of the hundreds of current projects, then I will be more than happy to explain them to you. If you want to keep shrieking about r0b0j35us like a drunken street preacher, than this conversation isn't going to be productive, and I will continue to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about.

have you bought yourself a place for your head in a techno-freezer yet? The technocalypse is like in twenty years, innit. If not, for five bucks I think I have some space left in mine, hope you don't mind the company of frozen dogfood

>>3941685
Pic related is a PCB (printed circuit board). They are designed in various sizes, from motherboards to a few mm wide with SM components baked on. Yes, Kevin was able to get the electrical signals of his CNS to intergrate perfectly with, not one, but many PCBs.

>>3941711
>I have reviewed the evidence from thousands of other scientist, and concluded that it seems plausible
what seems plausible? let me guess, that a brain is *just like* a PC and hence 35654634 implications of technocultists are guaranteed to happen hence immortality hence robobodies hence cornucopia hence peace and prosperity?

have some balls and claim that brain is like a computer
then show me this conclusive evidence

>>3941712
>have you bought yourself a place for your head in a techno-freezer yet?
There are already quite a few brains in cryogenic refrigeration.

>>3940374

The body is not just feeling the outside world, but also self feeling. When I sit I'm feeling the warmth of my arm on the torso, the air in running in my nose feeling my lungs, my stomach grumbling. Losing this is not without consequences as anyone who witness the traumatic consequences of an amputation can tell you.

There is two ways you can operate go anyway

1)You simulate an already developed mind. Then you can imagine the shock of a normal functioning person finding itself in an artificial body. And that's if we admit that such a precision imitation of somebody's brain is possible.

2) You start a developing mind, but you are never going to obtain a functioning person's mind. A lot of our self-interpretation comes from the understanding and the relating with others. We understand what it is sad by being sad and by interacting with sad people. That's why it's important for kids to play and interact with other children. We are group animals and we are group minds. Unless you manage to put that artificial mind in a body that nobody realizes is artificial than you won't get a human mind.

And that's still by assuming that:

1) We take the Turing test as a good indication of whether or not there is a mind.
2) The Churchland are wrong in saying that the essential of the mind is in sub-atomic interactions (which we could not mimic).

>>3941727
yep, quite a few suckers got suckered pretty good
i wonder how families feel about this retarded shit

>>3941729

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268011/Kim-Suozzi-23-head-cryogenically-frozen-reborn-cure-brain-cancer-found.html

lol reddit

>>3941722
>Yes, Kevin was able to get the electrical signals of his CNS to intergrate perfectly with, not one, but many PCBs.
Not of his _central_ nervous system.

Is this what /sci/ is like?

>>3941752
No it's worse.
It's mostly "where can I start to learn quantum physics?"

>>3941741
About half an inch beneath the central calculus (the main coronal divide) there are special types of neural cells that extend out to form the peripheral nervous system. Kevin breached the lipid bilayer, intersected a small section of a myleanated axons, and changed the flow of positive membrane voltage. He created a closed feedback circuit that ran from his implant, up the long axon and integrated with his central nervous system in a closed loop, allowing him what he refers to as an 'extra sense'.

>>3941752
/sci/ is mostly math.

>>3941774
>central calculus
*central sulcus

>giuze guise our steam powered steel golem is gunna to be cool when we build it, sooooo awesum gunna do my homework and play hide and seeek
>what do u mean it's impossible? we know what is steam, right? we know what is steel, right? we got it all figured out, shut up skeptic

this is what you all retards sound like, take your meds before bed

>>3941774
>cells that extend out to form the peripheral nervous system
> peripheral
Man, now you're contradicting yourself in the space of three posts.

Never realized /lit/ really was full of Luddite retards

How would we build an artificial brain if we don't actually know how the brain works

>>3941869
>Luddite
Why in the world do you think this is an effective insult?

>>3941875
b-b-bcuz thinking cyberjesus isn't real makes you a luddite

robojesus is the only god and lord kurzweil is his prophet
robojesus is the only god and lord kurzweil is his prophet
robojesus is the only god and lord kurzweil is his prophet
amen

>>3941871
what is this heresy young acolyte? don't you know Lord Robo is not constrained by mortal limits? TheFuture™ cannot be stopped. As his prophet Kurzweil once said: something something Exponential something something NeuroBioTechnoScience something something TheFuture™ something something My Dead Dad SOO SAD something something Complete.

submit and be saved or face contempt from internet imageboard Dunning–Kruger suffering robocultists for all eternity

>>3941739
she wasnt a typical customer, just a brainwashed cultist - most of enthusiasts are delusional, moneyed WASPs with some degree in CS and/or silicon valley record

>>3941890
Some guy schooled the fuck out of you already, don't start misbehaving again.

>>3941982
i must have missed the post, please direct me to it

>>3934508
>Why have America started doing this when Europe are doing the exact same thing with the Human Brain Project?

I think this is so fucking stupid. Why can't they just collaborate like the Human Genome Project? They are both wasting billions on this – billions that could be spent of countless other things. They are doing the exact same thing, so why are they fighting to be the first to make a brain simulation and computer mind? It's retarded, and a colossal waste of tax money.

>>3941987
because research is not fun and games, because it's a possible multibillion dollar industry in the making

technocultists have hard time seeing the larger context, realizing it's business through politics that drives day do day life, research direction included

>>3934508
They are not doing the same thing, the BRAIN project is doing mapping and theoretical stuff, the human brain project on the other hand have explicitly stated brain simulations as one major goal.

Anyway, who gives a shit, brain science projects like this should've been started decades ago.

>>3942002
>Anyway, who gives a shit, brain science projects like this should've been started decades ago.

cool financial planning, you should work at central bank

>>3941987
Their objectives are different. It's estimated that diseases of the nervous system cost 800 billion euros each year in Europe, so if they can reduce that slightly, the project pays for itself.

>EU - Human Brain Project objectives
-A full simulation of the human brain with supercomputers
-A functioning artificial mind
-Better diagnosis of different brain problems.

>US - BRAIN initiative objectives:
-Reduce language barriers through technological advances in how computers interface with human thought
-Better understand the mechanisms underlying neurological diseases like Parkinson’s to inform improved treatments, preventions, and even cures
-Create high-tech jobs for Americans in cutting-edge industries of the future.
A lot of the funding is through - surprise surprise - The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

There are at least ten other companies doing similar things, not just these two.

>tfw no qt artificial brain gf

Why do people flip out so much about simulated neuroscience and brain preservation efforts?

Is it muh religions speaking?

>>3942005
>implying central banks are the ones funding projects like this
>implying you're not part of the eternal pessimist naysayer crowds

>>3942006
>There are at least ten other companies doing similar things, not just these two.
But are the others players having billion dollar level funding?

>>3942006
>A lot of the funding is through - surprise surprise - The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
I wonder why they have an interest? I thought they were just making these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczY

There is no way they would consider merging BRAIN with it, right?

>>3942033
I really dread to think of what the US military will have in 20 years.

>>3942014
>neuroscience
>brain preservation efforts (scam)
know the difference, it could save your life

>>3942022
other "companies" are high OT level robocultists coding their robot god in their basements, most of them pose as non-profits (HAHA NO SHIT) or NGOs (OH WOW) or even charities (NOT EVEN KIDDING)

>>3941875
"Retard" was the insult, "Luddite" was the descriptor.

>>3942129
m-m-my god there will be shooting robots, just like in the eighties, god save us all

oh god where is the good old twentieth century where US armed forces was so tame and non-threatening with their 3000 nukes

do you tech entusiasts slash brainless robotcultists even think before you press "submit"?

>>3942149
still waiting for the schooling post, champ

>>3942153
>do you tech entusiasts slash brainless robotcultists even think before you press "submit"?
What are you taking about? I'm opposed to this. You have some seriously bad reading comprehension.

>>3942129
Yeah, I think 'war' is pretty redundant when it becomes America bombing the shit out of a defenceless village with drone strikes, then sending in the cyborg army.

>>3942162
>You have some seriously bad reading comprehension.
It's just some teenager who is terrified of technology. He has been shitposting nonsense for the entire thread.

>>3942160
Not that guy, child.

>>3942162
opposed to what? fearmongering and blowing out of proportion 80ties military tech? doesn't seem so

>b-but the robot has two legs now and is all flashy and shit, it makes me feel all uncanny
so srs bsns, like trillion times worse than the nukes

>>3942164
I'm fairly sure that they have to send in a certain number of humans. There is a lot of legislation governing acts of war, and I don't think the US is allowed to have an exclusively drone war.

>>3942165
>dismissing land drones as 80ties tech
>being terrified of technology
pick one

how are you planning to bring the robot jesus about when you fail that hard at reading comprehension? think of our children for fucks sake

>>3942169
nice argument, faggot

>>3942180
What is a robot jesus? This thing (>>3942033)?

Sure, we will probably have cyborgs and shit in the future, but I don't think people will believe he's the son of God. Are you high?

On a serious note, though. If anyone has balls big enough and wants to have his parochial delusions about technological development challenged in a non-imageboard format, google "superlative summary" from amor mundi blog. A series of posts and a long read but definitely exhaustive enough and much more educational than shallow paperbacks of your favourite robot cultist gurus.

>>3942199
>Are you high?
No he's a troll. Every time there has been a thread about technology over the past few years, that guy's been here talking about his r0b0jesus. Every single one that I have seen, this guy's been in it. Just type variations of robojesus into the archive. it's really quite sad. There was one a year ago where he was attacking someone for suggesting something like the BRAIN initiative, and now that there is a project like that he is devastated.

From the content of his posts he isn't scientifically literate, has no understanding of biology, computer science or electronics, yet spams every thread mentioning it. Just don't feed him.

The Future Doesn't Need Us
Bill Joy

I don't understand why humans are so keen on replacing themselves. I understand as far as automating menial tasks goes, but why make robots performing human skills, and worthwhile activities? Why make each other irrelevant? My main thought is that it's people of this generation not wanting to take responsibility: "I don't need to hone myself, to change anything, or do anything I don't want to, because it will all be automated." Or is it because there isn't, as there was in times past, a homogenous culture, with its values, hopes, and fears being consistent? We should understand that Bill Joy had a good point, and proceed with great caution technology wise, or decide not to proceed at all.

>>3942353
I think it's because our technological advances are tightly bound with our ability to postpone death. Underlying this obsession is an existential dread that gets tranquillised when someone says, "Dude, they're cloning someones mind."

>>3942353
>I don't understand why humans are so keen on replacing themselves
there is no "humans" collective
there is only the other next door that wants to fuck you up

>>3942353
For me it's an observers interest. I find it fascinating that our species can do these amazing things with bits of metal, and I want to watch too see how far or complex we can take it.

Bump for Kurzweil