[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 13 KB, 325x320, Brain_in_a_vat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3307730 No.3307730 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, quick question...

how much longer until we have brain in a vat technology?

>> No.3307753

>implying you're not a brain floating in a vat right now

>implying you anticipated this response

>> No.3307790

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8On7rktFZME

Soon

Providing such things as petty ethics hold back science.

>> No.3307810

>>3307806
...right out of its vat

>> No.3307806

>>3307753
Blew my mind....

>> No.3307834
File: 21 KB, 500x303, Morpheus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3307834

>>3307753

this is actually usually the first response I get--

haven't really been able to get a good discussion about brain in a vat technology and the singularity going yet, I am just really curious to know what other people think about it.

>> No.3307889

We have the technology to keep a brain alive in a vat right now.

And we have the technology to pick up what it is that a person is seeing by scanning the responsible neurons.

And we have the technology to control an interface by simply thinking about it.

So, soon. Soon.

>> No.3307914

We've succeeded in controlling robots with our brains. We've succeeded in keeping brains alive outside a body.

Now all we need is compact life-support systems, artificial blood, and compact powerful batteries.

Also robotics question: If we didn't have to worry about writing a program capable of controlling a robot that had the physical complexity of the human muscle/skeletal system (Since you'd be hooking a fully grown adult up to it), could we build a perfect replica of a human with current technology?

>> No.3307928

>>3307914

I don't see why we would need to, we would just need robots that would be able to maintain the vats.

All experiences and research could be done within the brain itself.

>> No.3307985

>>3307928

That would be horrific

Seriously there is a pleasure in using your body and having freedom of movement.

>> No.3308014

we can both input information into a brain artificially and extract from it, but with terrible precision. we can for an example fool a brain into seeing the color red and then affirm that it does think its seeing red. I am doubtful that we have the technology to keep a brain alive outside a body though, keyword ALIVE.

>> No.3308020

>>3307928

I'm coming more from the perspective of "Would you put your brain, in a robot body".

Hence my interest in reproducing the human body via robotics, and in whether or not current technology has the ability to accomplish it.

>> No.3308060

>>3308020

I think we have the raw robotics to handle the movements. We might need to work on feedback mechanisms to provide useful sensation, mechanoreception, proprioception, and so on.

But it needs proving on a person first. A robot hand for an amputee that is equal or greater in function than a meat and bone hand. I don't see this taking more than a decade, though.

>> No.3308102

>>3308020
Why the human body? Once you've got a vat with a brain in it with back-up life support, it would be simple enough to just get a robot body and them move into another one when they have it. Just keep upgrading.

>> No.3308126

>>3308020

Robot body?
What's the point? Just use the stored stem cells within your own body to make a clone of your own, and have it undergo accelerated growth.

Then, replace the brain of the clone with your own, and there you go. A successful body transplant.

This is the secret to artificial immortality.

>> No.3308134

>>3308126
Why the whole body? It's usually the heart that gives out first. Simply use the stem cells to replace that. Grow a clone of your heart and keep it frozen in a jar. Then when it gives out, use the heart you stored and replace it.

>> No.3308141

>>3307914
>artificial blood
I thought brains didn't have blood and were full of some other fluid

>> No.3308147

>>3308141

The blood vessels reach to at least five microns from each neuron, but are separated from the neurons by the Blood Brain Barrier.

>> No.3308155

>>3308126

Well, if you could solve the problem of storing the necessary energy then you could build a robot body that was stronger, faster, and tougher then a human body.

>> No.3308167

>>3308126
This anon gives you the shortcut to avoiding the "What is identity" paradoxes that arise when attempting to move the brain.

Eventually there's the Theseus' ship problem though.

>> No.3308163

>>3308141

Lets use the more generic 'artificial oxygen delivery fluid' then.

>> No.3308165

>>3308126

A clone of your brain, because the genome determines the synapses and dendritic trees of a grown and fully educated adult?

>> No.3308189

>brain in a vat technology
Why did I lol.

>> No.3308210

>>3308167
>"What is identity" paradoxes that arise when attempting to move the brain.

Is that even a problem with humans? Our body replaces minor parts of itself all the time. A human is their ego, their conscious mind. If it were possible to move a mind into a new brain, it would still be the same person. If you pattern your mind into another person, then that person becomes you.

>> No.3308216
File: 759 KB, 800x976, 1307308412081.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308216

>>3308210

This, this, this and this. Ship of Theseus means nothing when everyone over 50 is going to want to have themselves uploaded by the time that technology comes along.

>> No.3308247

>>3308210
Pretty much agree with this. Ship of Theseus is more or less a non-issue. You could progressively replace an entire brain with cybernetic parts over time until the entire brain is no longer biological, but if the memories, personality and ability to change are all still copied/intact in the new brain then the person is the same.

People have been reported to have severe personality shifts or alterations after incidents of brain damage. But none of the parts of the brain have been replaced at all, just a few selective parts are damaged. I would argue that they are barely what you could call "the same person" as they were before the damage occurred. Trying to bring the Ship paradox into this argument would be like saying that if the ship were hit with a canon and partially damaged then it's no longer the same ship.

I wouldn't give a shit either way though, so long as my consciousness (whatever that is) isn't snuffed out.

>> No.3308276

>>3308216

Precisely. To avoid total death, I would gladly make the jump to another computing substrate.

>> No.3308309

>>3308060
>A robot hand for an amputee that is equal or greater in function than a meat and bone hand. I don't see this taking more than a decade, though.

Just about there... all it really lacks is a feedback system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDvJEKfT5TI

>> No.3308339

>>3308309

The feedback system is key, though. That and direct control from the brain.

I think a decade is a good estimate for a working arm of this type, to replace a missing one.

What it needs to do is send feedback to the sensory strip of the brain, and accept commands from the motor strip. In this case, the brain itself will gloss over the rough edges as the user learns to move it.

>> No.3308353

Can somebody give me a time period? When do you think the tech will be available to the general public?

>> No.3308399

>>3308353
>general public?

Not in your lifetime.
The maintenance cost alone would be unaffordable to the general public even if was available.

>> No.3308420

>>3308399

I disagree. We will see the first elective amputation for the use of a prosthetic robotic limb easily within our lifetime, c. 30 years.

And the second generation of this stuff will be an order of magnitude cheaper. It will move on computing generations, since it's mostly computer technology responsible for it.

>> No.3308441

you might be interested in the russian experiments in which they severed a dogs head and controlled it externally. the human brain turns out to be a bit more complicated.

>> No.3308446

>>3308420
So, all I have to do is live for 50 years and save up big time!

>> No.3308450

>>3308441
Not the same guy, but remember a video about it a while back.

Video for anyone interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrIkUXwsNk

>> No.3308460

>>3308420
http://io9.com/portraitsinposthumanity/

>> No.3308462

>>3308446

I mean more like; live another 25 years and save up big time; live another 35-40 years and be able to afford the equivalent of basic cosmetic surgery.

>> No.3308473

>>3308460

>cool

Wow! My initial estimate of 30 years was based on some of the thoughts in a thread from way back. I thought that we'd see an olympic runner deliberately amputate their legs to get those springy ones, to run faster, within the next 30 years.

>> No.3308480

>>3308446

This is what I'm doing.

>> No.3308495

>>3307730
When we discover we're all just brains in a vat.

>> No.3308525

>>3308523
Well untill you are, we won't have that technology.

>> No.3308523

>>3308495

Maybe you are, but I'm not.

>> No.3308535

>implying the beings that are running this simulation of our universe would arbitrarily add another layer of abstraction by simulating brains in a jar that go on to imagine a universe

>> No.3308534

>>3308495
/thread

>> No.3308541
File: 109 KB, 1024x768, cybermen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308541

Actually, consider present myoelectric interfaces whereby the nervous tissue is salvaged from an amputated limb and reimplanted in the chest cavity so that the nerve endings (now much farther apart and easier to identify the purpose of, compared to attempting a direct neural connection) can be fit with electrodes that control the corresponding digit or limb on the robotic prosthetic.

Because this is possible, it means we could replace every limb, and of course the heart, with prosthetics. There are also poor quality bionic eyes, which you would never want to remove your own for (as they are a downgrade) but if the goal here is to make a cyborg that is as much machine as possible then yes, you could use two prosthetic eyes along with the two DEKA "Luke" arms and the Ossur Power Knee motorized lower leg prosthetic.

From there you'd remove as much of the face as you could surgically and as much of the extraneous fat and hair from the body as possible (a metal outer shell would cover all of this so that outwardly he would simply appear to be a humanoid robot) while also possibly hooking up an intravenous feeding and waste release system so that the resulting cyborg could dock with an alcove that would take care of both his electronic and biological needs.

This could absolutely be done today, providing several million dollars and a willing subject. It's pretty much exactly what Robocop was supposed to be, or the Cybermen from Dr. Who, pic related.

>> No.3308549
File: 56 KB, 400x260, Deeper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308549

>>3308535
We have to go deeper!

>> No.3308553

>>3308541
Anyone here with 7 million dollars wanna give it a whirl?

>> No.3308555

>>3308541

I should add to this that myoelectric prosthetics also permit sensory feedback via stimulation of the reimplanted nerves, so with external touch sensitive panels the cyborg would retain the capacity to feel pressure, heat, cold, and pain from impact or thermal extremes (if desired.)

Also, I forgot to add that cochlear implants could also replace the natural mechanisms with which we hear. Again, a severe downgrade, but if the goal is to go as full metal as possible, it's a necessary addition.

It's hard to imagine any accident that would remove all of these natural faculties but not kill someone.

>> No.3308581

>>3308535
>Thinks they could prevent any infinite level of abstraction inside the simulation

>> No.3308601
File: 32 KB, 300x450, Pi Poster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308601

"If People Evolved From Monkeys, Then Why Are There Still Monkeys?"

"Why Did People Evolve From Monkeys and They Didn't As Fast As Us Or Are They Are Smart As Us?"

ANSWERS: Humans diverged from the primate specie from a common ancestor ~160 Mya ago. They didn't go from monkeys. The hand evolved in serendipity as a tool for a growing brain which evolved from the brain stem (connected to a developing cerebellum) creating the occipital lobe to increase vision-observation, and promoting intelligence via visual learning. I.E: Promoting hands, tactile creation of tools, etc.)

Endogenous integrated retrovirus allows pregnancy.

The human bodies' brain and body developed in key reactions. We developed languages because we diverged from X.

Other species may be as intelligent as us.

See elephant intelligence.

OWNED!

Pic Unrelated

>> No.3308716

Bumping because this thread needs to be on the front page.

>> No.3309024

Bumping one last time.

>> No.3309082
File: 223 KB, 1440x900, 1308487996497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309082

This is all very transhumanist, and I like it.

As much as swapping body parts for robotic and synthetic copies would be awesome, I do think that the tech is still some way off of becoming commercially viable. Still, I see no reason why in 50 years we won't have the ability to replace limbs with mechanical ones. They may not even function in the same way as a traditional limb does.

Take this artificial hear that has no valves. The owners of this artificial heart don't have a pulse.
http://io9.com/5811954/total-artificial-hearts-may-be-nothing-like-what-you-expect

Aubrey de Grey is always a cool guy to look at if you'd rather look at extending your life though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

also bumping with SCIENCE.

>> No.3310199

>>3309082

If we're talking the fifty year timescale, I think we'll see some kind of purely biological therapeutic treatments for these things. I mean, the human body already knows how to grow a heart, for example. You'd maybe have an artificial heart so you can go about your business until your new one grows in.

We have mice that can regenerate limbs right now, for example.

>> No.3310234

>>3309082
We are already replacing limbs with mechanical parts!
The module connects to nerve endings in, say, a cut off arm and picks up the signals. From there, it's simple.

>> No.3311151

OP here--

I know everyone thinks it would be really cool to be cyborgs, but if we have brain in a vat technology, we would be able to connect our brains to wires which would convince us into thinking we actually had bodies, and create some sort of world as the backdrop where we can do whatever we want, so there would really be no need to put out brains into robots.

>> No.3311161

>>3311151

What about, you know, manipulation of the actual physical world?

>> No.3311165

ITT

>implying it's not possible that we're already living a virtual reality

>implying anyone can disproof me

>> No.3311182

>>3311165

>implying simulation argument
>Nick Bostrom detected

>> No.3311189

>>3311165

no, I can certainly proof that you're a cringe-inducing faggot though

>> No.3311197

>>3311189
>prove

>>3311182
so that's how you refute a point? was that your best?

>> No.3311223

>>3311197

I was kidding bro. It's easier to believe we're in a simulation than to believe we aren't because " if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears".

>> No.3311231

>>3311197

>disproof
>proof

>> No.3311239

>>3311223
your argument for whether or not it's easier to believe is quite subjective and thus not reliable as good basis to build on a refutation counter argument.

>> No.3311251

>>3311223
>it's easier to believe, therefore, it's correct

Brilliant exposition.

>> No.3311266

>>3311251
inb4 he attempts to justify it through parsimony

>> No.3311315

>>3311151

No simulation will be absolutely perfect, and if it is - then why bother simulating at all? Plus there's the vulnerability factor - you're just a brain in a jar, if a robot malfunctions and smashes the jar, then you're fucked, no way to protect yourself.

Plus, there's exploring the universe, populating the stars, propagating the heavens and all that jazz. The destiny humanity must create for itself to give it purpose, and cannot be achieved in some virtual world.

>> No.3311321

>>3311239

It's silly philosophy. Why bother?

>> No.3311363

>>3311165
Idiot.

Hey guys, what if green is really yellow. No one can disproof me.

>> No.3311432

>>3311315

Basically this. Once spaceflight becomes commonplace and all these enhancements hit mainstream, I'll take one of the best AI's available, a matter re-fabricator, and head off to the asteroid belt and start hollowing out 'roids to form stock to create my own industrial base.

>> No.3311468

>>3311432

I'll die happy once I have walked upon the surface of another world. I don't know why, but I have an almost irrational fascination with space - not aliens and all that conspiracy shit, but the infinite beauty of cosmic formations and that we must explore and colonise.

>> No.3311492

>>3311468

That's my ultimate goal. Travel the stars, seek out and/or seed life all round. I'd also like to spend some time exploring s[ace and extrasolar planets.

>> No.3311537

>>3311363
terrible analogy

the first post explored the lack of evidences of whether or not is there simulation reality thus due to the insufficient data there can't be a worthwhile debate as a irrefutable conclusion won't be possible to be achieved and we'll be left with pure subjectivity.


your analogy explores the notion of convention and referential. ''what if plus is actually minus? what if positive charges are actually negative and negative charges are positive?" which even though eventually lead to the same conclusion it has nothing to do with what the first post was all about.

>> No.3311571

>>3311537

I think his point was that the original poster is a stupid faggot. It's a good point

>> No.3313045

>>3311315

OP here again, you have a point, I guess I just couldn't really see the reason to go out into the real world, we've already poisoned all our rivers and destroyed so much atmosphere, it just seems like it would be better if we went underground and didn't bother the earth anymore. But that's just me I guess.

>> No.3313073
File: 134 KB, 540x1391, 20101109.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3313073

>>3308549

>> No.3313364

>>3307985

mfw this argument vs. brain-in-vatness. "I /know/ I'm not a brain in a vat because <3 my body" everything you sense...everything...could be artificially supplied directly to your brain and there'd be no way to know otherwise. that's the whole point of the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment.