>The below flame is to get all of you mislead/undereducated/Nonphilisophical 
>dunderheads who keep mooning about how you want to be uploaded to shut up and 
>listen to some irration. ;) My first hope is that you will help develop my 
>cybernetics. If that fails I hope you will at least shut up and stop 
>diverting resources from what I will show to be a much better alternative. 

Is this only a joke?  Or are you really utterly unaware about what 
uploading means? If the last, then please read some more information 
about it, which you can find at many >H locations on the web.

Even if it is the first, then I still think you don't understand, 
otherwise you wouldn't be joking about it in a way that shows 
misinterpretation of all the facts concerning the concept.

Assuming this, next time, please try to get some more information 
about a subject before you draw a (wrong) conclusion.

OK, I will try to point out some places where you are wrong :

* Uploading will not be done into a system that will have an 
architecture like todays PCs.

* Uploads can have real bodies just as well as virtual bodies.

* I (and most rational people) will only upload themselves when 
there are ONLY ADVANTAGES and not ANY DISADVANTAGES by doing so. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan Grimes wrote:

>>Is this only a joke?
>No, It's a full fledged flame. I hate all uploading people. >= |

I hate people that claim they understand something while all their 
statements show they don't understand.
 
>>  Or are you really utterly unaware about what 
>>uploading means?
>Well I wrote a story about a future where everybody became uploaded before I 
>had even heard the term "uploading". 

And now you've heard the term but you still don't understand! 

>> If the last, then please read some more information 
>>about it, which you can find at many >H locations on the web.
>I think I know enough about it to have a valid oppinion.

Your comments show the opposite.

>>OK, I will try to point out some places where you are wrong :
>>* Uploading will not be done into a system that will have an 
>>architecture like todays PCs.
>
>*All* computers are the same. If You are suggesting that we upload into some 
>other kind of machine the principal of what I said doesn't change.

If all computers are the same, why does my Windows PC hang all the time 
while my brain keeps working all the time?

Not all computers are the same! If I make a computer system 
with it's hardware based on the same architecture as our brain 
(i.e. a neural network) then it would be just as robust against 
local hardware failures. Many computing (neurons) brake down 
in our brain every day, but it still keeps functioning. 
Only one transistor braking down in a PC can (and mostly will) 
render it non-functioning.

So it seems that the architecture is important indeed!

(Same goes for the software architecture.)

>>* Uploads can have real bodies just as well as virtual bodies.
>
>I would prefer to have my self be in the body I use, I would also like the 
>option of using auxiliary bodies... I consider this to be a form of 
>cybernetix or Robotix. In my flame about uploading I referred strictly to 
>virtual bodies which I believe to be completely pointless except for 
>simulations or for entertainment.

You can use virtual bodies for almost everything. You only need a 
real body if you want to interact with the outside world through 
a body.

>>* I (and most rational people) will only upload themselves when 
>>there are ONLY ADVANTAGES and not ANY DISADVANTAGES by doing so. 
>
>Have nice long wait. 

Let me clarify this:

People will only upload when the artificial brain runs at least 
as fast as the original. You will need technology to scan the 
state of every synaps in your brain, this means being able to 
detect the small molecular details that encode the information 
stored in the neurons (like the ion-channels in the synapses). 
If you emulate the functioning of all the neurons in the 
brain with enough accuracy, the artificial brain should work 
exactly the same as the original.

Now (when you have ascertained that your new brain works well) 
you can remove the biological brain from the skull. Inside 
the skull you can now install a transmitter/receiver that 
connects to every single neuron of the spine. Now your 
artificial brain can control your old biological body. If 
you didn't know you shouldn't even notice that you were 
uploaded. (All this reminds me of a three hour documentary 
about artifical life that I once saw on Dutch television!)

Now tell me : "What are the disadvantages in comparison with 
a biological brain of this situation?"

In this scenario, you feel the same and you still have the 
same body.

Some advantages :
* you can make backup copies easily, because you can design 
the hardware in such a way that the state of every artificial 
neuron can be read out easily

* you temporary disconnect the communication with your 
biological body and turn the switch that accelerates 
your artificial brain a thousand fould. During this 
state you will temporary use an virtual body because 
the biological body will be much, much to slow. 

*when your biological body is squashed you can create a 
new one by using the DNA information that you stored 
somewhere. While this body is being build (or grown) 
you can temporary use a virtual body

*some advantages of virtual bodies/world/existance :

-it is fairly easy to make adaptations to your thought 
processes. Of course with the nesseacry caution. 
However when you have a backup copy standby, you 
can always restore to a prior state.

-the robustness of an artificial brain can be made 
much better than the jelly you have in your skull now

-you can choose your own brain speed

-the energy consumption (without a biological body) 
can be much more efficient

-one does not have to transport a body but can 
use lightspeed communication lines (i.e. 
direct virtual teleportation)

-adapt the laws of nature according to your 
preferences (for example change the laws of gravity)

-unthinkable safety precautions (like creating a 
simulation where the glasses can't break)

-posibillity to take every bodily appearance desired

____________________________________________________________________________________


>>Not all computers are the same! If I make a computer system 
>>with it's hardware based on the same architecture as our brain 
>>(i.e. a neural network) then it would be just as robust against 
>>local hardware failures.
>
>That's not a computer, It's a neural network.

The definition for computer is "information processing machine", 
using that definition a neural network (including the brain) is 
a computing system too.

That is the misunderstanding, uploading won't happen in a 
system having an architecture like the current Turing computers. 
More likely is an artificial (probably electronic) neural network, 
i.e. an artificial brain. To prevent this kind of misunderstanding 
one should avoid explaining uploading as "transfering your thought 
processes to a computer" but phrase it as "transfering your thought 
processes to an artificial electronic brain".

Indeed systems like the architecture Hugo de Garis is currently 
working with: neural networks emulated on top of cellular 
automata hardware. Maybe the conventional electronic circuits 
themselves will be replaced by quantum dot circuits, or at 
least an other type of electronic circuit with nano-dimensions.

>>So it seems that the architecture is important indeed!
>Yes and no. I'm discussing the box and you continue to nitpick about what's 
>in the box, a place that I am excluding form discussion! :P

But, like John Clark stated : "your brain is in box too".

Of course, I don't want to be uploaded and spend my time in 
a virtual reality without keeping an eye on what's happening 
in the real world. That would be utterly stupid indeed. 

You are thinking about having multiple bodies, about spending 
some time (maybe 20% ??) in virtual worlds for recreation, and 
keeping your current biological brain. 

I am thinking about having multiple bodies, about spending 
some time (maybe 90% ??) in virtual worlds for recreation 
and more, and getting an artificial brain. 

The only real difference between our views is the brain type 
we will use. 


>>>cybernetix or Robotix. In my flame about uploading I referred strictly to 
>>>virtual bodies which I believe to be completely pointless except for 
>>>simulations or for entertainment.

>>You can use virtual bodies for almost everything.

>Re-read the last line directly above. 

OK, let's turn the question around : "What can you do more with real 
bodies, what you can't do with virtual ones?"

My answer was:

>>You only need a real body if you want to interact with the 
>>outside world through a body.

(For example if I had a nostalgic mood and wanted to experience 
the world as I did in my old biological body, then I would 
temporary use a real body. After a short time I would probably 
be bored again and return to the virtual worlds. :-> )

Note that in about a hundred years every production job will be 
automated. So you don't need a body to do manual labour anymore.

So what can you do more (or should I ask: want to do) with real 
bodies, what you can't do with virtual bodies?


>>as fast as the original. You will need technology to scan the 
>>state of every synaps in your brain, this means being able to 
>>detect the small molecular details that encode the information 
>>stored in the neurons (like the ion-channels in the synapses). 
>>If you emulate the functioning of all the neurons in the 
>>brain with enough accuracy, the artificial brain should work 
>>exactly the same as the original.
>
>It'll never happen. You have no understanding of the sensitivity of neural 
>networks to their environment. 

That remains to be seen. But in principle every physical process 
can be emulated by a digital system as accurately as you want. I don't 
see why it should be impossible to emulate every aspect of 
the biological neuron with enough precision.

>Exparement: Evolve a neural netowrk on a FPGA to do something. Then raise the 
>temperature in the lab by 20 degrees. Doesn't work now? Now copy the SAME 
>network onto a FPGA built by a different company. Doesn't work now? 
>	How well will a neural network evolved for the human brain work on a 
>FPGA by any company? Not well at all! :P hehe U suck.

Now rase temperature of your brain by 5 degrees, does it work now? :->

I am no idiot, I'm not planning to use current hardware/software.
In principle the functioning of a biological neuron can be emulated.
If you can emulate one then (with a little more computing power) 
you could also emulate a network of a 100 billion neurons. 

Now, I will only upload myself into that hardware if it has been 
demonstrated to be reliable and if it has been demonstrated that 
the uploaded version will behave the same as the original would. 
(For example because somebody familiar to me has been uploaded 
and I couldn't notice any different behavior from the original.)


>>* you can make backup copies easily, because you can design 
>>the hardware in such a way that the state of every artificial 
>>neuron can be read out easily
>
>That advantage isn't specific to uploadees.

Note the word "easily" !  Only with an artificial brain you 
can design the hardware for making backups fast. 
Making backups of a biological brain will be cumbersome.

(You could put microscopic sensors in every neuron to 
keep constant measurements of the state of each neuron, 
but that still would be cumbersome.)


>>* you temporary disconnect the communication with your 
>>biological body and turn the switch that accelerates 
>>your artificial brain a thousand fould. During this 
>>state you will temporary use an virtual body because 
>>the biological body will be much, much to slow. 
>
>Dreams compress many minutes of experience into a few seconds. Again this 
>isn't specific to uploadees.

That is completely different. You're talking about the subjective 
perception of time. That doesn't result in any advantages (except 
maybe emotional ones). I'm talking about accelerating your thinking 
speed by orders of magnitude. Being able to think faster does 
have real advantages. However you can speed up the human 
brain a little (less than a factor two), for example when having an 
adrenaline surge.

____________________________________________________________________________________


>>But, like John Clark stated : "your brain is in box too".
>
>With arms and legs, eyes, and ears I said. With cybernetiks I will have 
>opened the door to that box. But alas it is my home and I am rooted there so 
>I won't be leaving. 

But when I upload I want arms, legs and ears (and more ways to interact 
with the world) too. 

It is a misconception that people will upload into a box and 
then shut themselves off completely from the outside world.
I will still have a body (or bodies) in the real world, 
and I will also spend time in the virtual world. 

If you put on a conventional VR helmet you are also, to certain 
degree, disconnected from the outside world. (To put it in 
your terms: I could put a bullet trough your head, while you 
were playing a VR game wearing your helmet.)


>>Of course, I don't want to be uploaded and spend my time in 
>>a virtual reality without keeping an eye on what's happening 
>>in the real world. That would be utterly stupid indeed. 
>
>Why not stay in the real world so you can take part in it too?

Of course, I will do that too.

>>You are thinking about having multiple bodies, about spending 
>>some time (maybe 20% ??) in virtual worlds for recreation, and 
>>keeping your current biological brain. 
>
>I never will haveto leave either world. I could spend 66% of my time in both 
>worlds simultaniously, and 33% of my time sleeping. :)

Uploaded people will also do continuous monitoring of the outside 
world (by sensors, intelligent cameras, and other equipment). When 
something dangerous is going to happen (like the sun is going to blow 
up) they will notice. And they will (can) also make regular trips to 
the real world. And if you really wanted to, you can spend all your 
time in the outside world (although this would have many disadvantages, 
and I hope I do not have to explain those again).


Actually, when you go to sleep, you are leaving the real world too! 
(I could smash your brain while you're sleeping. ) 
Isn't this a similar situation as uploading yourself into a 
box without contact with the outside world, or being in a 
virtual world.

>>The only real difference between our views is the brain type 
>>we will use. 
>
>I trust the one I have, It needs a little tuning granted, but it is a proven 
>design. (I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia).

It seems, you're certainly not a real transhumanist, otherwise 
you would acknowledge that it would be good to give   
the human brain considerable (if not dramatic) redesign.


>>OK, let's turn the question around : "What can you do more with real 
>>bodies, what you can't do with virtual ones?"
>Collect stamps.

I'll take that as a "nothing".


>>(For example if I had a nostalgic mood and wanted to experience 
>>the world as I did in my old biological body, then I would 
>>temporary use a real body. After a short time I would probably 
>>be bored again and return to the virtual worlds. :-> )
>
>You lack creativity.

On the contrary, virtual worlds offer a lot more ways to express 
creativity. That's why the real worlds will seem so boring.

Remember, I'm talking about virtual worlds that can be made 
indistinguishable from real worlds. Not the pitiful VR stuff 
from nowadays.


>Who then will do our exploring for us? That is a job that will forever remain 
>ours unless we want to pass the deed to the planet to some other species... 
>Hmpf. That argument is irrelevant.

Indeed that's a job I would like to take part in. The question though is: 
 "Do we need human bodies to do that?".


>>So what can you do more (or should I ask: want to do) with real 
>>bodies, what you can't do with virtual bodies?
>
>make things

You can also make things in virtual worlds. The only thing that you 
would have to make is a design. Fully automated robotic fabrication 
systems (probably even molecular assemblers) will then create 
the object in the real world. So you will not need a human body 
to do that.


>>Note the word "easily" !  Only with an artificial brain you 
>>can design the hardware for making backups fast. 
>>Making backups of a biological brain will be cumbersome.
>>
>Or just intercept the dataflow across one of the busses in your mind such as 
>the corpus colosum. That would both be efficient and suitable for maintaining 
>any mechanical portion of your brain well in-synch with the living part of 
>your brain.

But for making backups you will have to monitor the dataflow for 
a prolonged period of time. Furthermore if you have any information 
stored in one half of the brain that is never transferred to the other 
part, it will not be detected. So this is a cumbersome and not a 
reliable method for backing up your brain.
____________________________________________________________________________________


>>Show me a self sustainable robotic factory.
>>In many cases nothing other than a human, and a highly skilled one at that
>>can repair a machine.

Mark Yarian wrote:
>In Japan they have a robotics factory.  In this factory, all the machines
>make are robotics arms, just like themselves.  Point being, just have
>factorys that makes all the machines you need.  No repair, just replace...
>Recycle the old one.

Actually the robots only perform the final assembly of the big parts 
(like attaching the complete robotic arms). The parts themselves are 
still produced using conventional production lines. So this is nowhere 
near a self sustainable robotic factory.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan Grimes wrote:

>Infact I havn't yet seen any truly compelling counterarguments. People seem 
>to have the most difficulty countering the second part of my flame.

OK, here some replies to your second flame:

>Run the human brian as a simulation in a computer? That would be highly 
>inefficient and it would violate in the most profane way the orrigional 
>design and intent of the human brain.

This can in principle be done. But as I told you before the likely 
architecture to be used is an artificial neural network.


>The brain is not there to think, It's there to steer a body around, If 
>the body wasn't there then the brain itself may as well not be there either. 

Therefore human body simulations will be required.


>If you want to build a mind to work without a body then you would go about it 
>in a completely different way!! (see the work of Dr.Hugo Degaris ; 

That is indeed the better way to create a super intelligence. 
But that superintelligence won't be me. I want improve myself.


>Lets say that your mind was emulated in some abstract way that would 
>indeed run well on a computer. How do you get from point A to point B? 

What do you mean, transportation?


>This leaves only longevity as the motovating idea for this. I hope you 
>can see that the *QUALITY* of life would be much better for a cyborg or 
>otherwise enhanced person, or as Arthur C. Clarke, a free intelligence 
>then a person in a box. 

Longevity is one motivation. Futhermore there are the many other 
advantages. (easy backups, increasing speed, easier tweaking of the 
thought processes, extending storage capacity of memories, 
lightspeed transportation etc..)

___________________________________________________________________________________


>Henri Kluytmans wrote:
>> Now, I will only upload myself into that hardware if it has been
>> demonstrated to be reliable and if it has been demonstrated that
>> the uploaded version will behave the same as the original would.
>> (For example because somebody familiar to me has been uploaded
>> and I couldn't notice any different behavior from the original.)

Alex Janzer wrote:
>OK, the uploaded version would behave exactly like you. But it
>wouldn't be YOU, because YOU would die and only a decent simulation
>of your body would remain.

Again that identity (copy) problem that keeps popping up every time. :-<

I consider the survival of an uploaded copy of me that behaves something 
like 99.999% the same as I would, sufficient survival of my (information) 
identity. 

For people who are against direct uploading because of emotional reasons 
there remains the method of gradual uploading (neuron by neuron 
replacement). 

But in fact it doesn't matter in which substrate your thought processes 
run, as long as the thought processes behave the same. Be it in an 
biological neural network or an artificial neural network or any 
digital emulation of it.

____________________________________________________________________________________


Alan Grimes wrote:

>For the sake of argument lets say that the robots won and the humans 
>lay dead. But the humans had successfully dissabled the robofab facilities. 
>And all that's left in the world of the living are these useless military 
>robots... Ready to cede the field?

You think to conventional. You have in mind conventional robots, conventional 
factories, conventional computers, etc..


>better design. That was the point of the second argument of my orrigional 
>flame. YOU ARE STUCK IN YOUR BRAIN; uploading is IMPOSSIBLE!!! 

For now we are, but this does not have to stay this way. In principle 
it is possible to transfer our thought processes to an artificial 
"brain", I mean, there is no phyiscal law against it. So it is only 
a question of time until we will have the technology to do it.


>Show me a self sustainable robotic factory. 
>In many cases nothing other than a human, and a highly skilled one at that 
>can repair a machine. 

I can't show you one, because we were talking about the future. 
But a self sustainable factory is not impossible. Actually a tree 
is an example of a self sustainable factory that produces certain 
proteines.

In the future we WILL have the technology to create self sustainable 
factories. We will only have to deliver the right product design, the 
raw materials and the energy, then the factory will produce it. No 
manual labour will be required anymore. Those factories can in principle 
even produce copies of itself (like trees do). 

The most ideal way to accomplish this, is by molecular nanotechnology (MNT).
But also without MNT such factories are possible.

I assume you have not read "Engines of Creation" yet, I suggest 
you READ IT!! There is an online version on the net. This book 
is very important, because it will open your mind by giving an 
example of what future technological developments can (will) 
occur that will radically change our future. 

You must get rid of that conventional thinking.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Alan Grimes Wrote:

>All the attacking humans would have to do is to find the plug...

You're thinking to conventional again. The "robots" of the 
future will not be anything like the robots from today. 
You could for example include distributed energy storages 
in the design. 

However already including a single electric battery would make a 
robot invulnerable to this kind of attack.

Regarding complexity and intricacy the robots from the future will 
more resemble the human body then todays robots.
____________________________________________________________________________________

>Henri Kluytmans wrote:
>> I consider the survival of an uploaded copy of me that behaves
>> something like 99.999% the same as I would, sufficient survival 
>> of my (information) identity.
>> 
>> For people who are against direct uploading because of emotional
>> reasons there remains the method of gradual uploading (neuron 
>> by neuron replacement).
>> 
>> But in fact it doesn't matter in which substrate your thought
>> processes
>> run, as long as the thought processes behave the same. Be it in an
>> biological neural network or an artificial neural network or any
>> digital emulation of it.


Alex Janzer wrote:
>You could be right - if you and your identity are nothing more than
>your neuron interactivity.

Indeed, that is what is assumed.

>The important thing you forgot is your consciousness. 

No, I didn't. I consider consciousness just another mental 
aspect (i.e. a thought process that runs in the neural 
network of the brain).  

>Are you sure that your simulated copy would be aware of itself 
>as you are? Or more exactly: Do you think, YOU would be aware 
>of yourself after uploading or would you die and create a new 
>life form that would have your neuron activity.

That all mental aspects emerge from the neural network of the 
brain seems the only plausible explanation. Artificial neural 
networks are nowadays being used for pattern recognition. The mind 
itself seems to be hierarchy of pattern recognizers (or a society 
of agents). 
It seems very likely that the complexity of the human brain only 
emerges from the behavior of a neural network of a hundred billion 
neurons. There is no proof for it _yet_, but there are very strong 
indications. (And when uploading will become feasible there 
finally _will be proof_ )

But ask the people who know most about the physical construction 
of the brain : neuro-biologists  (like Anders Sandberg :->)


>I think it's similar with cloning: you can create another person
>with the same (in this case DNA-) information in him but it still
>wouldn't you, even if it was an exact copy of you.

No, this completely different. Cloning is just creating an (younger) 
identical twin. This is technically so easy that it already happens spontaneously in nature. And you know from twins that they develop 
completely different identities.

>On the other hand, we're always changing: old cells die, new cells 
>are built etc, and we have an almost new body after several months. 
>It MAY be possible to keep your consciousness by gradual uploading. 
>But then again, it could be a gradual loss of consciousness, too.

Either the emulations of the neurons are good and the upload 
will function exactly the same. Or the emulations are not good, 
and that will mean a gradual loss of _ALL_ MENTAL CAPABILITIES.

But of course, upload experiments (first with lower animals) will 
show if the emulations are good enough long before they will be 
tried on any humans.

____________________________________________________________________________________

"jonathan fulton" wrote :

>       Fortunately for bio-humanity, uploading wont be the way
>       of the future. 

It will be the only way for humans that want to be an active 
part of the civilisation that will run the universe in the future.

>	The limitations are not in the machinery,
>       by any means. The barrier is in the biology, I'm stunned

The whole idea of uploading is to transfer the mind processes 
to an artificial more efficient/faster substrate, not to 
immitate the complete biology of the human body. Therefore it 
is not required to understand every biological detail of the human 
body. In principle only complete understanding of the 
fundamental low level building blocks of the brain  
(i.e. the neurons) is required. Note, that we do not even 
need to understand higher level brain processes to be able 
to transfer them to an other substrate. However such 
understanding could be used to make the upload run more 
efficient.

>       on one hand by the techno-prowess of some transhumanists/
>       engineers and computer sciences buffs, but simultaneously

This is maybe because those "computer scienses buffs" recognize 
that in principle at an essential level, we all are information 
processes.

>       amused by the lack of understanding of the complexity of
>       mammalian (human) biology. We in the field know enough to
>       realize we barely KNOW anything, let alone that which is
>       merely quasi-deductively *assumed* by transitional humans
>       at large. 

IMO we do understand a lot of the big picture and the fundamental 
principles of human biology. The lack is mostly in the details.

>       On the other hand, biological systems derive complexity
>       from self-organizing simplistic units (to be VERY general)

Cannot artificial systems do the same ?

>       and the future is increasingly bright for humanity 

Bright in what way ?

>       non-silico. Carbon will prevail. ;>

If carbon will prevail, then not in the organic form.... :)
____________________________________________________________________________________

I wrote:

HK> It will be the only way for humans that want to be an active 
HK> part of the civilisation that will run the universe in the future.

Andrew replied :

>'run the universe'?
>
>Sounds a bit unlikely.  If nothing else, speed of light considerations
>will make it a tad tricky to run the whole thing in a coherent manner.

OK, ... only their local part of the universe. 

And what I meant with the word "run", is that the process
of creating new science, technology and culture etc., 
will in the future almost exclusivily be done by the 
artificial and uploaded intellects. The contributions 
of humans with their limited (in speed, capacity, flexibility
and efficiency) intellects will certainly be neglectable.


>And I'd have thought that uploaded people would have better things to
>do with their time.

HK> body. In principle only complete understanding of the 
HK> fundamental low level building blocks of the brain  
HK> (i.e. the neurons) is required.

>What about non-neuronal interaction?  Tricky to simulate without doing
>a chemical level simulation.

Hmm, I expected this remark to be made ... :)

The non-neuronal interactions in the brain are of minor 
importance compared to neuron interactions. Furthermore 
simulating for example the hormonal system of the brain 
will be relatively easy and require much less 
computational resources than the neuron interactions.
And it is certainly not required to do a detailed 
simulation at the chemical level. In fact the hormonal 
system can be compared to a kind of broadcast system.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I wrote:

HK> It will be the only way for humans that want to be an active 
HK> part of the civilisation that will run the universe in the future.

Andrew replied :

>'run the universe'?
>
>Sounds a bit unlikely.  If nothing else, speed of light considerations
>will make it a tad tricky to run the whole thing in a coherent manner.

OK, ... only their local part of the universe. 

And what I meant with the word "run", is that the process
of creating new science, technology and culture etc., 
will in the future almost exclusivily be done by the 
artificial and uploaded intellects. The contributions 
of humans with their limited (in speed, capacity, flexibility
and efficiency) intellects will certainly be neglectable.


>And I'd have thought that uploaded people would have better things to
>do with their time.

HK> body. In principle only complete understanding of the 
HK> fundamental low level building blocks of the brain  
HK> (i.e. the neurons) is required.

>What about non-neuronal interaction?  Tricky to simulate without doing
>a chemical level simulation.

Hmm, I expected this remark to be made ... :)

The non-neuronal interactions in the brain are of minor 
importance compared to neuron interactions. Furthermore 
simulating for example the hormonal system of the brain 
will be relatively easy and require much less 
computational resources than the neuron interactions.
And it is certainly not required to do a detailed 
simulation at the chemical level. In fact the hormonal 
system can be compared to a kind of broadcast system.
____________________________________________________________________________________

HK> I wrote:
>>Besides, you still havent addressed
>>the "conciousness in situ" issue. 

HK> Ehhh... which issue are you referring to here ?


Well, you have two options with uploading.

You can copy your brain into a computer, but that leaves your physical
body still wandering about being 'you'. (of course, you could have
yourself killed after you uploaded, but that'd be murder)

Or you can slowly replace every neuron in your brain with a
neuron-analogue.  This means that you have continuity of experience
while still becoming 'uploaded'.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I wrote:

>The non-neuronal interactions in the brain are of minor 
>importance compared to neuron interactions. 
>And it is certainly not required to do a detailed 
>simulation at the chemical level. In fact the hormonal 
>system can be compared to a kind of broadcast system.

replied:

>     It's not just how neurons work, or even grossly where they
>     connect, but the relative strengths of synaptic butons, the
>     number and loci of synapses, and the glial microenvironment
>     around said neurons, not to mention chemical energy gradients, 
>     protein products and non-neural endocrine/paracrine influences.

I dont deny that for a correctly working uploaded human mind 
these detailed simulations of biological neurons are required. 

The fact that artificial neural networks can perform 
similar tasks as biological networks although they only 
incorperate the basic properties of neurons (the connections 
and their strength factors) indicates that those other "details" 
are not essential (to be simulated in an identical way) 
to create an artificial intellect. However they could be a 
required for a uploaded human mind.

Furthermore the technology for uploading a human mind will 
probably take some 50 years to arrive. It seems quite likely 
that all those "details" will be known by then. 

Even right now research is being done on a detailed simulation 
of a biological neuron with all its details. (Sorry, I had no 
time to look for the URL...)

>     The devil IS in the details. 

I dont agree that the devil is in the details. These details
will certainly be known in another 50 years. I agree that 
for an uploaded human mind these details will have to be 
taken into account. But it looks likely that for a artificial 
intellect in general these details of biological neural 
networks need not to be simulated identically.

>Besides, you still havent addressed
>the "conciousness in situ" issue. 

Ehhh... which issue are you referring to here ?


.....

Right now research is being done for correct simulations of 
biological neurons. A next step could be the exact simulations 
of simple organisms with very small brains (like the nematode worm). 

====

>>I expect that in the future (>50 years from now) when uploading 
>>a human mind becomes feasible, all the details about the chemical 
>>broadcasting systems and the exact functioning of neurons will be 
>>known.

>           It's all time and space; where the connections are, 
>           how they change with stimuli, how they interact with
>           non-neuronal white matter (It's NOT just insulation.) ;>

Yes, I know.


____________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew wrote :

>Well, you have two options with uploading.
>
>You can copy your brain into a computer, but that leaves your physical
>body still wandering about being 'you'. (of course, you could have
>yourself killed after you uploaded, but that'd be murder)
>
>Or you can slowly replace every neuron in your brain with a
>neuron-analogue.  This means that you have continuity of experience
>while still becoming 'uploaded'.

Aahh!    The "copy-paradox" !!   hehe :)
____________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________