/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1334584]

Discuss the possibility of the cyberization of humans in the next 30-50 years.

Also, anybody a neurology major/geek? need resources on modeling the human brain as an analog computer.

I think one could do it with op-amps.

The area where I lack understanding is on the interplay of the neurotransmitters and neurons.

Pic related: ghost in the shell

[Anonymous No.1334606]

>>1334584
>thinks neurology has to do with the brain rather than nerves
>thinks he can model 1,000,000,000,000,000 synapses using shit from radio shack.

[Anonymous No.1334626]

>>1334606

I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.1334627]

>>1334606
the brain is MADE of neurons, like a CPU is made of transistors.

and models are scalable, are they not? modelling a smaller neural networks in an attempt to make a workable analog computer is the goal.

[Anonymous No.1334664]

does anyone want to actually contribute?

[Anonymous No.1334672]

>>1334627
That's a terrible comparison.

Neurons, and all organic cells, are exponentially more complex than transistors, and anything we can build today. Neurons grow, synthesize proteins, form synapses, synthesize neurotransmitters, send and receive electrochemical signals, regulate the amount of neurotransmitters in system, police their own function to prevent cancer, and perform unknown functions that lead to consciousness.

The only way we could "cyberize" humans anytime soon would be some kind of metallic body that also ran life support for your transplanted organic brain, because we're nowhere close to making an artificial one.

[Anonymous No.1334698]

>>1334627
Transitors are nothing

NOTHING like neurons


NOOOOTHING

We will never have GiTS type of shit.

Know what the future holds though? stem cells. Regrowing body parts, repairing them, etc.

[Anonymous No.1334702]

>>1334672
the only way we can cyberize the brain is to build an analog electrically.

it appears the structure has everything to do with consciousness. In theory, one could use an extremely powerful digital computer to run a software model of someone's brain and in such a way have a "pseudoconsciousness" as long as you could take into account enough of the variables.

But it's not unfair to say that the brain is made of neurons. The function of it completely relies on the neurons, as the function of a cpu relies on transistors.

[Anonymous No.1334715]

>>1334698
Indeed. The analogy that neurons are like transistors are just that - analogous.

[Anonymous No.1334720]

>>1334698
I never suggested transistors were like neurons, I suggested they were the constituents of a digital processor as neurons are constituents of an analog processor.

one would need something like an amplifier to model an analog computer like the brain. I think operational amplifiers might be the best thing to model with, without having something better of course.

[Anonymous No.1334730]

>>1334715
For the third time, NOWHERE DID I SAY NEURONS WERE LIKE TRANSISTORS

[Anonymous No.1334751]

>>1334584

'Cyberization' of humanity within the next 30-50 years is almost certain. Research into a brain computer interface is very big at the moment and will continue until we finally get a working model.

The big problem isn't output it's input. We already have crude devices able to scan the brain and translate this into useful information. What we lack is a way of placing that information directly back into the brain.

[Anonymous No.1334762]

>neurons are constituents of an analog processor.

[Anonymous No.1334763]

>>1334702
>build an analog

And that's the problem. We've got no fucking clue how the brain actually does most of its shit. We know that some areas govern this or that function, and we know that these chemicals are present in this amount.

But that's nothing. For instance, we don't know how neurons spontaneously generate the small vesicles that carry neurotransmitters from the soma to the synapse. And saying that consciousness is a function of structure really isn't saying anything. We can't run a software version of the brain because WE DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE ORGANIC ONE.

And don't even bother to talk about "theoretically." Unless you can prove 100% that you can put a person's "mind" into an electronic counterpart with zero negative side effects (such as it actually being a copy-paste job where the original is then deleted), then nobody will undertake this procedure.

[Anonymous No.1334769]

>>1334751
but that's inefficient. we should make computers more like our brains rather than making overly-complex interfaces to digital computers

[Anonymous No.1334776]

>>1334769
Our brains are fucking amazing is what they are.

Related: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/06-brain-like-chip-may-solve-computers-big-problem-energy/artic
le_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

[Anonymous No.1334791]

>>1334763
And its pretty obvious OP knows as much about digital processors as he knows about the brain, ugh.

[Anonymous No.1334792]

>>1334763

We don't need to understand something 100% to get a working prototype.

Saying that until we understand the organic mind 100% we will never be able to create an artificial one or a uploaded human mind is bullshit.

We were building and flying planes long before we understood aerodynamics.

[Anonymous No.1334810]

>>1334751
>'Cyberization' of humanity within the next 30-50 years is almost certaine
You have no idea what you're talking about. Probably read some sensationalized article on some shitty pop-science site and now think the field of brain-computer-interaces is much more advanced than it actually is.

There won't be anything like it in 30, 50, or 80 years.

[Anonymous No.1334812]

>>1334769
Actually, the history of computer development backs up the notion that overly complex interfaces tend to be more cost effective than rebuilding the system. Sorry dude.

[Anonymous No.1334813]

>>1334763
maybe we don't know exactly how it does what it does, but we have plenty of clues, and we know ow it doesn't do things.

It's not digital, it's analog

it takes inputs from the senses and from itself, processes them, and produces a response.

look at a neuron, it has many inputs and one output, look at an op amp- 2 inputs, 1 outpus.

if i could just get a network of op amps to oscillate randomly between each other, that would be a start, right? at least we wouldn't understand it any more than why the brain seems to do what it does..

hardware comes first, then you can look at software

[Anonymous No.1334818]

>>1334792
Planes are simple material objects that work on physical laws. Since different people perceive things differently, we can reasonably assume that brains operate on subtly different laws between individuals, and therefore it is impossible to build a predictive model of brain function.

And if we build a model of the brain without 100% understanding, we risk missing that integral piece that lets us say "I think, therefore I am." It would seriously suck to be all hyped up about your new immortal body, upload yourself, and then be lowered to the cognitive level of a mouse.

[Anonymous No.1334825]

>>1334812

[Anonymous No.1334840]

>>1334810

You have no idea what you're talking about. Probably heard ignoring the speed of technological change will make you sound more of a 'hard' scientist so you now think the field of brain-computer-interaces is much less advanced than it actually is.

These will happen within 30, 50 years.

[Anonymous No.1334844]

>>1334791
I never claimed to be a digital guy, or a brain specialist, but I know systems and I know analog to some extent.

[Anonymous No.1334850]

>>1334810
nay-sayers
>>1334840
say-nayers

[Anonymous No.1334851]

Can I still have minor mechanical augmentation? Like more advanst versions of using subdermal magnets to feel electro-magnetic waves? Or chips wired to my nerves like that Kevin Warwick guy? Alone with prosthetics like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lvnUafkSy0&feature=related (using more advanced/realistic motion) and that are controlled like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppILwXwsMng&feature=fvw ?

[Anonymous No.1334858]

>>1334851
>Typos are a result of trying to type with that fucking BuzzFeed in the way...

[Anonymous No.1334859]

>>1334851
yes but the interface will be overcomplex and extremely limited

[Anonymous No.1334862]

>>1334851
Sure, we do mechanical augmentation. Prosthetic limbs are an example. And the only reason we don't have chips in our bodies is because there isn't much of a market for such a thing.

I bet spies could use tiny computes in their bodies. Wave their hands over a magnetic lock and disable it, that sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.1334866]

>>1334813
>Implying neurons operate 'randomly'

[Anonymous No.1334871]

>>1334818

Well you know what they say about assumptions.

It's true that it would suck to upload your mind find out that it had gone wrong and then crash and die. On the other hand plenty of air pioneers died as well.

No human technology ever proceeds from having a perfect understanding of the theory and then building it afterwards. The way things works is we think we understand ENOUGH and we build it.

And we usually overestimate how much we know because we're competing against other people.

[Anonymous No.1334887]

>>1334862
>>1334862
MIRACLES!!!!!

[Anonymous No.1334907]

>>1334866
>impying that patterns have been statistically identified >for the firing of individual neurons

[Anonymous No.1334908]

OP you have no clue what you are talking about. It would take at least 100 of the the fastest room sized supercomputer in the world to model the human brain real time.

the most that we have ever done is about 1 billion neurons real time, and that was done on the fastest supercomputer in the world.

[Anonymous No.1334914]

>>1334908
THATS WHY I SAID "IN THE FUTURE"

[None !Mjk4PcAe16 No.1334920]

>>1334908
you know that we will have computers a million times faster than they are now in 20 years right? remember 20 years ago how damn slow they were.

[Anonymous No.1334930]

>>1334862
Little market my ass! There are plenty of people that want this--including myself...
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/

[Anonymous No.1334946]

>>1334920
so see, in 20 years it will take like .0001 supercomputer to model the human brain in real time, or maybe like 3 ipads

[None !Mjk4PcAe16 No.1334957]

have you guys seen that thing where they hooked up a computer to people brain somehow, not physically i think, maybe by sensing the brain waves. then they were told to look at a picture of a word. and think of that picture in their mind. the computer managed to recreate that picture using just the information gained from the brain. it wasnt perfectly clear, but you could see the word and read it.

[Anonymous No.1334963]

>>1334957
no

[None !Mjk4PcAe16 No.1334965]

>>1334946
>or maybe like 3 ipads
lol funny man

[Anonymous No.1334966]

>>1334957

that was on an episode of house

[Anonymous No.1334971]

>>1334862
If I paid some scientists and my doctor 300K, what type of implant could I get, and would said doctor be willing to install into me?

[None !Mjk4PcAe16 No.1334977]

>>1334966
you stupid fuck. just b/c it was on house doesnt mean it wasnt also in RL. get out of your moms basement. wait you dont even have to. you have de internet

[Anonymous No.1334982]

>>1334971

Not much. You can get a RFID implanted.

[Anonymous No.1334987]

>>1334966
I dunno, i missed the house marathon yesterday due to holiday weekend festivities

completely unrelated question, doesn't a marathon imply there will be 26 episodes of something?

[Anonymous No.1334993]

>>1334971
a fairly realistic vagina

[Anonymous No.1334994]

>>1334982
If you would be so kind, please tell me every possible thing I could use this implant for and any possible risks of it's use (how long can IT stay in me)?

[Anonymous No.1334997]

>>1334920
Technological growth is already slowding significantly. Exponential growth isn't going to stay constant.

[Anonymous No.1334999]

>>1334977
you stupid fuck, i saw it on tv it must be real like everything on the internet

[Anonymous No.1335004]

>>1334930
Well there's not much of a supply.

Why don't you start a company, get a loan, hire some surgeons and some techies, and start grafting mechanical and computerized parts onto people?

[Anonymous No.1335005]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414184218.htm

they're starting to make circuits that experience synaptic plasticity

[Anonymous No.1335006]

>>1334977

It's also been demonstrated in real life as well. You can use fMRI techniques to identify basic thoughts.

[Anonymous No.1335016]

ITT freshmen who think because you could emulate 100 billion neurons in real time you have a brain

[Anonymous No.1335017]

>>1334993
I meant a cybernetic implant! As in real working technology. Like a radio transmitter/reliever.

[Anonymous No.1335020]

>>1334994

You can use it to activate a computer program simply by waving it at or walking past a sensor.

You can make any program you can think of.

[Anonymous No.1335022]

>>1335006
No. You can use fMRI to identify places of activity in the brain, then you can infer thoughts based on your knowledge of what functions those brain areas perform.

Fuck there's a name for the logical error you're committing here but I can't remember it.

[Anonymous No.1335027]

>>1335016
>implying you wouldn't
Simulating every subatomic particle within a brain would be hard though.

[Anonymous No.1335032]

>>1335004
amidoinitrite?

[Anonymous No.1335035]

>>1335017
There was an article in PopSci about a hearing implant that went into the jaw and acted as a secondary inner ear to counteract transduction deafness. I suppose you could put a radio receiver in there easily enough.

[Anonymous No.1335036]

>>1335005
NO. That is NOTHING like a cat brain. FUCK OFF.

This is what I hate about these threads

100% of the time its faggots who read a shitty article like this and go HURRRRR THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR I'M GOING TO BECOME A FULL CYBORG WITHIN MY LIFE TIME

Read this and STFU: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/blue-brain-project-leader-angry-about-cat-
brain

That goes for the OP too

You are going to DIE long before we get anything remotely close to human cyberization.

[Anonymous No.1335052]

>>1335036
NOT TRUE I STARTED THIS THREAD CUZ I WAS WATCHIN GHOST IN THE SHELL SO STFU

[Anonymous No.1335057]

>>1335036
>You are going to DIE
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.1335062]

>>1335035 Do want!

[Anonymous No.1335076]

>>1335036

[Anonymous No.1335077]

>>1335036

>You are going to DIE long before we get anything remotely close to human cyberization.

What I hate about these threads are people who, on one hand raaaaaage and castigate people for talking about possible future scenarios while at the same time pull out there own time lines on when technology will be created out of thin air with no justification.

The fact is you have no idea if or when it will be possible to extensively cyberize human beings.

[Anonymous No.1335099]

>>1335077

[Anonymous No.1335107]

my girlfriend's a cyborg

[Anonymous No.1335111]

>>1334862
>>1334930
>>1335004

Oh may! What is this?!
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=2010012700619
2&newsLang=en

[Anonymous No.1335112]

>>1335077
I kind of find sadistically amusing how these degenerate into "ur dum, is decade away" vs "ur dum, is centuries away" when both sides are clearly the same kind of retarded.

[Anonymous No.1335123]

>>1335112
ur dum, every debate on /sci/ is about which side is more retarded

[Anonymous No.1335124]

flying cars by 2000 folks

[Anonymous No.1335131]

oh no u di'int

[Anonymous No.1335163]

The question i believe we're all missing is

Can you fuck it?

[Anonymous No.1335168]

>>1335163

YES YOU CAN!

[Anonymous No.1335172]

>>1335124
>>1335131
http://abh-news.com/terrafugia-world%E2%80%99s-first-flying-car-3442.html

10 year delay, but hey we're scientists, not seers.

[Anonymous No.1335184]

>>1335168
where can i buy one?

[Anonymous No.1335190]

>>1335163
It'd be like fucking a fleshlight, but there's no reason we couldn't just build in an artificial vagina. A self-cleaning system would be simple too. Internal water jets or something.

[Anonymous No.1335193]

>>1335168
That is an impressive amount of "too much time on their hands."

[Anonymous No.1335205]

I am 20, will could I have arms like this guys within my life time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhqYBKZRg5I

[Anonymous No.1335225]

>>1335205
Yes.

[Anonymous No.1335226]

>>1335205
You could probably get arms like that now. It'd be all kinds of expensive and you'd be a guinea pig for the surgery, but it could be done.

[Anonymous No.1335234]

>>1335226
but how would you interface them with your nerves to control them?

[Anonymous No.1335266]

>>1335234
We've already got nerve-machine interfaces. They use them in advanced prosthetics like working hands.

[Anonymous No.1335267]

>>1335234

That same way you interface prosthetic arms now.

You use remaining muscle groups and nerves and train them to perform specific commands.

You still wouldn't be able to feel the arms or have any sense of touch though.

(theres a youtube vide of a mechanical arm that behaves like the one in the video game but i can't find it)

[Anonymous No.1335273]

>>1335267
you'd never get the control or fine motor skills like is in the vid tho

[Anonymous No.1335288]

>>1335273

Never is a long time.

You wouldn't get the fine motor controls now.

[Anonymous No.1335289]

>>1335273
We'll presumably refine the existing technology.

After all, they've gotten rat neurons to grow into computers, we could make muscle nerve cells grow into a machine's control pad.

[Anonymous No.1335325]

>>1335267

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1OBzc9QfIs


that girls?

[Anonymous No.1335366]

>>1334813
>implying analog signals are binary outputs

And the brain is an electrochemical computer. You'd have to simulate the chemical processes that also are involved in how our brains work.

[Anonymous No.1335369]

>>1335172
>doesn't realize that the problem isn't making the flying cars themselves as we've already had flying cars for years
>it's like i'm dealing with 14yos
>my face when I realized this thread is full of 14yos

[Anonymous No.1335373]

How well do current prosthetics emulate
tactile sensation? I remember Kevin
Warwick being able to share sensations with his wife
via a nerve implant chip...

[Anonymous No.1335378]

>>1335369

This.

We'll have flying cars ten minutes after we have a computer sophisticated enough to fly them without human input.

No one wants a drunk idiot dropping on their head.

[Anonymous No.1335382]

>>1335369
And 20 year olds that live in fantasy land.
>>1335205

[Anonymous No.1335390]

>>1335378
Fuck that shit! I want to fly it myself. I am planing on getting a pilots licences after college anyway...

[Anonymous No.1335454]

scientists have gotten networks of memristors to simulate the actions of neurons

prepare for true AI in 20 years, im gonna do grad school for these memristor bitches

[Anonymous No.1335465]

>>1335454
>prepare for true AI in 20 years
Was said 40 years ago

[Anonymous No.1335555]

>>1334584
>modeling the human brain as an analog computer

gitsfag here, that's not how it works in the gits universe. cyberbrains are just the original wetware plus cyberized implants, it doesn't mean brains work like analog. right now the brain is modeled with complex mathematics involving partial differential equations and signal processing (biological neural networks, more involved than the sort used in computer algorithms) - most likely too fluid and dynamic for a discrete, Boolean model to approximate in any meaningful way.

irl, however, we have used implants that allow people to control certain things purely with conscious intent (such as simple video games). these activities are too error-ridden atm to be practical, hence they are part of research. this is similar to how it was portrayed in gits:sac; motoko crushes her doll in the op theme (1st season) because her first cyberbody didn't lend itself well to precise control. skip forward in time and then people can literally code and run software from their seat of consciousness. this, to me, sounds like a more realistic and fascinating direction for human beings than complete brain digitization.

[Anonymous No.1335575]

>>1335555
They are also able to artificially grow brain tissue. It's outlined in the insane rantings of the creator in the manga.

[Anonymous No.1335606]

>>1335575
oh, i never got thru the whole manga, even tho i've seen the movies and show multiple times. the manga seems pretty meh in comparison, but kudos to shirow for inspiring prod ig

[Anonymous No.1335932]

Bump

[Anonymous No.1335940]

>>1335932
Fuck off, there's nothing left to say.

[Anonymous No.1335944]

>>1335454
> true AI
what you described is just a hacky cop-out because we've given up on understanding how the brain learns in a symbolic level. That's not true AI.

[Anonymous No.1335966]

>>1335555
I conquer and have always wanted to only become a cyborg. I wish to retain my organic self and transcend into a hybrid of the best of technology and nature.

[Anonymous No.1336071]

I love this thread!

[Anonymous No.1338428]

I'm a high school student who intends to major in brain-to-computer interface systems and I can tell you that the inherent complexity would mean that a cybernetic-organic design would take at least a decade of nueral mapping, not to mention trying to get the brain to recognize the semiconductors at all, and the herculean task of programming an intuitive machine. In short, it will take a while.

[Anonymous No.1338583]

we already augment our bodies with technology.
a few popular ones are 'clothing' and 'eye glasses', some may even use implanted devices like pace makers or using pharmaceuticals.

it's obvious that you don't consider these sufficiently advanced, but that's only because they predate you.

[Anonymous No.1338639]

>>1338428
A few decades is actually pretty short on the scales we're talking about. And we don't require the brain to recognize our devices, we only require our implants to tap the brain's electrochemical signals, although two-way communication would open up a whole lot more possibilities.