Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Memory Uploads and Consciousness

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I think a couple of discoveries tell us more about the brain, memory, consciousness and where we may be headed as a species.

You had Scientist implanting false memories into mice. I also remember seeing a Through the Wormhole where a scientist was working on implanting memories of how to drive a car for someone who has never driven a car before or memories on how to be an expert at a video game that you never played before.

This tells a a couple of things.

First, consciousness has to be outside of the material brain. How else can you recall specific memories at will and how can the material brain know the difference between these memories and which memories you wish to recall? This tells us that the brain processes information at the time an event occurs. In order to recall that event, the brain cells that processed that information have to be activated. There has to be a consciousness outside of the material brain that exerts it's will on the material brain and activates brain cells that will recall a specific memory from say 1985 when I went on a vacation to visit relatives in Chicago.

Secondly it's what I call memory uploads. I know it sounds Matrix like but it could be a future reality. Imagine uploading the memory of famous surgeon or someone who never took a physics course, uploading the memories of a Theoretical Physicist and they're able to write complicated equations.

In this case, the brain could easily reach information overload. Maybe this could lead to the beginning of Robo-Sapien. Maybe we will be able to upload a brain onto a computer chip and the first Robo-Sapiens would have a 10-chip brain which would be like 10 brains to process more information.

The future could be very interesting if we don't Nuke ourselves back to the Flinstone era first.

edit on 27-7-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
It will be a while before they develop anything with our brain capacity.

Your brain is a Quantum Computer really. The first of it's kind in nature IMO.

So, cracking that is going to be a hell of a job.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I wouldn't be too quick to make that assumption.

If our brain is a quantum computer (we actually aren't sure of this, you're assuming), then it would take something of equal computing power to be on the same level, obviously.

Oh look, we now have quantum computers:



Look at recent technological breakthroughs that had high demand, like the smartphone. It took less than 5 years to reach "penetration". A technical term for when greater than 30% of the population adopts it.

The demand for quantum computing is very high. Because we are capable of networking at such high levels in the information age, these will evolve and mature much quicker than many foresee.
edit on 27-7-2013 by QuantriQueptidez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
 


Source
Source
Source

These are three excellent articles on the quantum brain and yes, they are not concrete yet, but modern computing models that don't take into account quantum effects, cannot account for brain functions or consciousness.

The first HUGE step in Quantum will be Quantum Entanglement IMO. Until we reach that point, I highly doubt we will move beyond traditional chip sets, other than making them smaller, yet more efficient.

~Tenth
edit on 7/27/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Your first source is huffington post. Need I say more.


Your second source backs my point quite well. Here's the abstract:


We argue that computation via quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to explaining how brains produce thought, contrary to the ongoing speculations of many theorists. First, quantum effects do not have the temporal properties required for neural information processing. Second, there are substantial physical obstacles to any organic instantiation of quantum computation. Third, there is no psychological evidence that such mental phenomena as consciousness and mathematical thinking require explanation via quantum theory. We conclude that understanding brain function is unlikely to require quantum computation or similar mechanisms.


Your third source concludes with this:


Orch OR is a theory of consciousness spanning scale and discipline. It relies on as-yet unproven biology and physics, but is consistent with known science, falsifiable and generates testable predictions (Hameroff, 1998c; Hameroff, 2006a). Orch OR involves quantum com- putations in microtubule networks embedded within gap junction-linked cortical dendrites (dendritic webs) acting as laterally connected input layers of the brain’s neurocomputational architecture. According to Orch OR, consciousness is a sequence of discrete quantum com- putations, each culminating in a conscious moment in gamma EEG-synchronized integration phases of neurocomputational integrate-and-fire cycles. Orch OR is a specific and viable scientific proposal for consciousness.


So the first source, N/A.

The second source claims that quantum computing is not necessary to explain the phenomena of neural processing.

The third source claims that the brain as a quantum computer theory is testable, and verifiable, yet we have no such verification as of yet.

As for the quantum entanglement bit, I think we already went a bit further in a different direction. The above, commercially available quantum computer, utilizes superposition, which seems to be more of a powerful way of extracting more processing than conventional chips, than QE.

The chip is already being tweaked and tested, and preliminary results show it to be orders of magnitude greater than a conventional chip of equal space. The problem lies in the economic feasibility. It will be some time before this gets out of R & D, military, and large commercial applications.
edit on 27-7-2013 by QuantriQueptidez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
I think a couple of discoveries tell us more about the brain, memory, consciousness and where we may be headed as a species.

You had Scientist implanting false memories into mice. I also remember seeing a Through the Wormhole where a scientist was working on implanting memories of how to drive a car for someone who has never driven a car before or memories on how to be an expert at a video game that you never played before.

This tells a a couple of things.

First, consciousness has to be outside of the material brain. How else can you recall specific memories at will

Not sure how you reached this conclusion. Actually, that leads in the other direction.
If your computer doesn't have a program, then you load in a program, then...it has the program, can access it, etc...that proves the information is not in some mystical area, its located on the harddrive...

The memory implant can only work if the brain works with the meat verses some ghost...else you would need to..I donno..upload the memory to the ghost somehow (some Ouija board mixed with a wifi signal perhaps?).

Not saying there isn't something more than just the brain at work, but the conclusion you made there is just odd and backwards.
Its like...to start a fire, you rub sticks, proving that rubbing sticks has nothing to do with fire building...
...

As far as uploading stuff...well, consciousness is the key question. What is it, where is it located, etc. If I replace over time neuron by neuron my brain until its fully synthetic and able to transfer to any other medium, am I still alive...am I still "me" or just a great replication of what I once was...
This is a matter of philosophy until we have tools that can determine without question what consciousness is.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I agree with your first statement. It seems to indicate that the memories are stored within the brain itself, though more exotic theories could be postulated.

As for the consciousness, and "me" ness of slowly replacing you, I have my own simple thoughts on it.

As far as I can tell, based on what little I understand, we are a collection of assumptions, who, how, and why we seem to be as we are. I realize this is circular, but that seems to be the phenomena of higher consciousness. A continuous wrapping back in on itself.

I would think that consciousness arises kind of like how sound waves create ever complex patterns of reorganization of sand on a sheet of paper with sufficient energy output. As in, the law of nature are seemingly fixed as such, that patterns of energy distribution interact with other patterns of energy distribution to create further complex organizations of energy distribution. The subtlest of this, and most complex, seems to be the phenomena of consciousness.

So I think that if the physical properties of each particular component of the brain could be perfectly synthesized, and replaced little by little, we would still remain who we previously were, or at least with the exact same potential to evolve as before the transition started. We already have a certain amount of "chaos" at the biological level happening daily, cell death, neurogenesis, and so on. Adding an insignificant amount of change would not be likely to alter this "me" ness of who we are.

This is merely my understanding, based on what little I know.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


This statement doesn't make any sense.


Not sure how you reached this conclusion. Actually, that leads in the other direction.
If your computer doesn't have a program, then you load in a program, then...it has the program, can access it, etc...that proves the information is not in some mystical area, its located on the harddrive...


All this says is that the brain can process information when an event occurs. The USER can recall specific information at will. Consciousness has to be outside of the material brain in order for this to be accomplished. Some people talk about Collective Consciousness others talk about a higher dimensional self that would look at the information that was processed outside of 3 dimensions.

Whatever the case may be, the material brain processes information but it can't recall specific information at will. How does the materiasl brain know the difference between a memory from little league baseball and a memory from the Army? How does the material brain know which memory I wish to recall?

When a memory occurs the brain processes this information. In order to recall a specific memory those brain cells that processed that specific memory have to be activated. So in order for me to recall a memory from the Army, A memory when I first went swimming, a memory when I went to Vegas for a Tyson fight or a memory flying on a plane for the first time, there has to be consciousness outside of the material brain that can exert it's will on the material brain to activate these brain cells to recall a specific memory.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
 


Meh I don't discriminate sources when they actually have information to provide. It's a matter of fact checking the information..

In any case, I do agree with you and have seen the preliminary testing of new chip sets. Were only about 20 years ago from that kind of tech being affordable though.

Especially if they continue trying it with nano carbon.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I'm sorry, but it's you who aren't making any sense.

This in no way indicates that consciousness is stored outside of the physical brain.

We can draw inferences from this, but no definitive conclusions.

I do think that the current information which is available leans more towards consciousness being held within the brain.

Too many points link to that conclusion. That we can't specifically account for the exact mechanisms which lead to the phenomena, doesn't mean we are free to jump to our wildest speculations as the best solution.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
 


Sorry but these are just the facts.

You're engaging in wishful thinking. There's ZERO evidence that the material brain can recall specific memories at will, that it knows the difference between specific memories and it knows which specific memories I wish to recall.

Of course materialist say that consciousness must be in the material brain. This is because they have a materialist belief system but at the end of the day this nonsense belongs in middle earth with the Hobbits.

Consciousness outside the material brain just means that science doesn't have to be confined to a person's belief system. There's scientific explanations that seek to explain this. People who BELIEVE that consciousness has to emerge from the material brain act like there explanation is the only possible explanation which is just blind faith.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So basically you're arguing from a state of ignorance. That's a logical fallacy.

Your reasoning equates to: We don't currently know how based on what we do know, therefore, we must go to theoretical models which haven't been proven, either.

It makes no sense.

Like I said, we're making inferences, and yours are far more wild and speculative than are my own.

Did you bother to read my above posts? Phenomena that happens at the sub-atomic level, which isn't explained by the laws of physics governing the macroscopic, ie material world, is a certainty.

So your derogatory statements and assumptions about my world view are null and void.

What we currently have is a decent understanding of how the macroscopic levels of physics work, and very, very little understanding of how the sub-atomic mechanisms work.

You are attempting to confuse sub-atomic, very, very little understanding, with the macroscopic, decent understanding.

There is absolutely no way of currently bridging the two. You're just running on a series of assumptions, with very weak reasoning to back it up. Your foundation is assumptions, and you work from there. It's a house of cards waiting to collapse.
edit on 27-7-2013 by QuantriQueptidez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
 


Nope, your reasoning is the logical fallacy. You said:


Your reasoning equates to: We don't currently know how based on what we do know, therefore, we must go to theoretical models which haven't been proven, either.


Your reasoning equates to, Consciousness MUST BE an emergent property of the material brain even though it makes ZERO sense.

Again, these are just the facts. Usually when science runs up against facts then you build new theories to explain the underlying phenomena. Sadly, in too many cases people have a confirmation bias and they're stuck in their belief no matter how silly it is.

The point is, this is impossible for the material brain. It makes no sense to even entertain such a ridiculous notion. You have scientific theories that recognize this and seek to explain consciousness as a fundamental property of reality instead of an emergent property of the material brain. Many of these theories are on the right track but they're met with ridicule because of confirmation bias and a silly, unwavering belief that consciousness HAS TO emerge from the material brain.

Again, there's no way the material brain can recall specific memories at will, know the difference between specific memories and know which memories I wish to recall.

How can the material brain recall and know I want to recall a specific memory from a trip to Chicago in 1985? How does the material brain know which brain cells to activate to recall this specific memory from 1985?

I'm not saying because we don't know it must be another explanation. I'M SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MATERIAL BRAIN TO RECALL SPECIFIC MEMORIES AT WILL AND KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE SPECIFIC MEMORIES.

The brain can process vast amounts of information but when you try to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, you're moving into Fantasy Island territory. There has to be a force outside of the material brain that can exert it's will on the material brain and can ACCESS AT WILL SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT THE BRAIN HAS PROCESSED.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Originally posted by neoholographic

Your reasoning equates to, Consciousness MUST BE an emergent property of the material brain even though it makes ZERO sense.



This is not my position. I have stated it more than once.


Again, these are just the facts.


You seem not to know the difference between assumption and fact. Why should I trust anything further you say if you can't get the basics correct?


Usually when science runs up against facts then you build new theories to explain the underlying phenomena. Sadly, in too many cases people have a confirmation bias and they're stuck in their belief no matter how silly it is.


What does this have to do with the position you have? There are many people who hold many theories of how consciousness emerges, and we're attempting to test, and verify if these theories are correct. So far, nothing solid has come out of it.


The point is, this is impossible for the material brain. It makes no sense to even entertain such a ridiculous notion.


Again, you are assuming. It's certainly not, "impossible", the truth is that we have yet to have any real understanding of how probable, or improbable it is that consciousness arises outside of quantum mechanisms. I refer you to the second source TTTP gave, which I quoted. It clearly shows this is not, "impossible". Do you have a specific refute to the source?



You have scientific theories that recognize this and seek to explain consciousness as a fundamental property of reality instead of an emergent property of the material brain. Many of these theories are on the right track but they're met with ridicule because of confirmation bias and a silly, unwavering belief that consciousness HAS TO emerge from the material brain.


They're met with ridicule because the ones who are making these wild claims are often not scientists. Are you going to refer me to "what the bleep do we know", the documentary that twisted the one expert, and threw in a bunch of morons to play on people's beliefs and emotions?


Again, there's no way the material brain can recall specific memories at will, know the difference between specific memories and know which memories I wish to recall.


You have absolutely no way of knowing this. I think your reasoning is pretty pathetic here, actually.


How can the material brain recall and know I want to recall a specific memory from a trip to Chicago in 1985? How does the material brain know which brain cells to activate to recall this specific memory from 1985?


Um, I don't know, why would it not know this? It's a circular argument. How does anything in the brain happen? How does any of it come to be? The reason we can have these experiences, is because we have a need for this to be the case. Those with less efficient memory organizations are less fit. Over time, we have evolved to form more complex memories, and levels of self-awareness. This is very straight forward. I have no clue why you're hung up here.


I'm not saying because we don't know it must be another explanation. I'M SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MATERIAL BRAIN TO RECALL SPECIFIC MEMORIES AT WILL AND KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE SPECIFIC MEMORIES.


No, it's most definitely not. What you're forgetting, is that what we consciously process is but a sliver of what is available. Think of EEC memory. You know what that is? An easy metaphor is that various pathways through many memories are accessed, all of which give a piece of the data to reconstruct the whole of the information. It doesn't work linearly as you're trying to make it out to be. That's what very limited people think of, on a conscious level. The brain is simply not thinking as you demand it absolutely must.


The brain can process vast amounts of information but when you try to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, you're moving into Fantasy Island territory. There has to be a force outside of the material brain that can exert it's will on the material brain and can ACCESS AT WILL SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT THE BRAIN HAS PROCESSED.


No, there doesn't. You provide no evidence that this must be the case. You simply run with an assumption, based on an erroneous way of viewing how the brain must operate. It's ridiculous, and I'm done trying to get through to you.

/thread
edit on 27-7-2013 by QuantriQueptidez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   


First, consciousness has to be outside of the material brain.
reply to post by neoholographic
 


How could you have arrived at this conclusion? If scientists are manipulating braincells in mice in order to create false memories, this obviously points to the brain as being the source of consciousness.


Scientists say they have, for the first time, generated a false memory in an animal by manipulating brain cells that encode that information. They published their findings this week in the journal Science.

CNN



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
Whatever the case may be, the material brain processes information but it can't recall specific information at will. How does the materiasl brain know the difference between a memory from little league baseball and a memory from the Army? How does the material brain know which memory I wish to recall?

Since I am not a brain scientist, I won't discuss the specific biochemical facts, but I am a computer scientist, so I can explain this much at least, especially since the brain is just a computer. A very sophisticated biochecmical computer, but nonetheless it is. And the best way to explain this is by example.

I install a game (lets say Skyrim). This is information on the hard drive (or memories on the brainmeat). I then wish to play it. how does skyrim know when to have birds flying by, a deer crossing the road, a dragon to fly around? Logical addressing to the physical address. You don't need some ghost to be constantly accessing bits on the computer to make it flow perfectly, you simply need the mapping done correctly. Now, the brain is amazing, yet it is also a bit stupid. Whereas a computer will flawlessly "remember" things, the human brain, due to its sort of haphazard structure, has a way of forgetting things, getting things muddled up, etc. Still not bad for mother nature (and a few billion years of slow development of trial/error)..

But yes, a simple understanding of running a game will have you understand you don't need spirits or whatnot to bring up the information at will perfectly, you need simply addressing and requirement.

I have no clue why you think accessing memories requires an outside source. That is like saying skyrim requires the user to type in commands to have the leaves on the tree blow.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
 


Again, you're not making any sense.

Where is your peer reviewed paper that even suggest these things are possible for the material brain? Where is your scientific study that shows these things are even possible for the material brain?

Why should I even entertain a notion that's not even shown to be possible? These are just the fantasies of materialist who have reached the conclusion that consciousness MUST BE an emergent property of the material brain.

How is it possible that the brain knows the difference between specific memories? How is it possible that the material brain knows which memories I wish to recall?

Where is the science that shows this is even possible for the human brain? Where is the peer reviewed papers and studies?

Is there a part of the brain that's labeled 1985 Chicago lol? When I recall a specific memory of a trip from 1985 to Chicago how does the material brain know I wish to recall this specific memory and how does the material brain activate the brain cells to recall this specific memory?

The brain processes information and there has to be of force outside of the material brain that can exert it's will on the material brain to recall and activate brain cells to recall a specific memory.

You're saying I should consider something that's just a fantasy. There's no evidence to even suggest this is possible.

I do know that I can recall specific memories at will. I do know which memories I wish to recall. I do know the difference between the memories I wish to recall.

You're the one that accepts nonsense that has no evidence. If you think the material brain can accomplish these things then show me why. Show me the scientific studies and peer reviewed papers that show these things are even possible for the material brain. The most you get is people assuming this is possible because they BELIEVE that consciousness has to be an emergent property of the material brain.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


This is just stupid for lack of a better word. I suggest you get off of the World of Warcraft and read a little bit about how the brain works. You said:


I have no clue why you think accessing memories requires an outside source. That is like saying skyrim requires the user to type in commands to have the leaves on the tree blow.


In order to play the game it takes an act of will. You have to access the specific game you want to play. If you couldn't access the specific game at will how could you play it.

So let's take your silly analogy and turn it on it's head. If you were to take a trip to Vegas 5 years later how would you recall this specific memory without an act of will?



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez
 


You're grasping at straws. You quote a paper that has nothing to do with anything I have said. It's a paper that ask Is the Brain a quantum computer? There's other papers that reach an opposite conclusion. At the end of the day this has nothing to do with anything I said. The paper is asking do you need quantum mechanics to explain how the brain processes information. Some people say yes and some say no and I never questioned if the bran can process information. Here's a point made by the paper you quoted:


We contend that information processing in the brain can similarly be described without reference to quantum theory.


This has nothing to do with how it's even possible that the material brain can recall specific memories at will. How it knows the difference between specific memories or how it knows which memories I wish to recall.

When I want to recall a memory from my days in the Army how does the material brain know which specific memory I wish to recall? I was in the Army from 92-97. How does my material brain know the date of which memory I wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between a memory from the Army and a memory when I wasn't in the Army?






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join