Computerized brains

amadeus

Apply directly to the forehead
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
40,169
Location
Weasel City
ZDNet: Elon Musk: Update to Neuralink computer-brain tech is coming soon

Anyone have thoughts on this development?

First, is Musk anywhere near a device that would actually do what he says it does?

Second, would you be willing to put a computer chip in your brain?

Third, would you trust that to Elon Musk?

I say maybe not, no, and no, respectively. I find the whole thing kind of creepy.
 
EM idea has been around for a long time but we are decades away from any viable working tech
The biotechnology / cybernetics for this is pretty much in its infancy and it will take multiple breakthrough to get there.

Elon Musk has a mixed track record, hes lets say eccentricity is starting to border on narccassim. a lot of ideas arent viable and they most certainly arent coming soon.
 
I don't know. My understanding of consciousness is so limited that I'd be extremely worried about continuity of self. Even now I basically rely on assumption that when I go to sleep, I wake up as myself. But it's possible I've been dying every night and then just waking up as someone new with the memories of the one who came before.

How does modifying the brain change us?

We have hints of brain malleability with disease; conditions like dementia destroy the self or our ability to access it. There are natural processes that inhibit our ability to function. I myself have health problems that have turned me into someone functionally useless, yet I'm still me (I think). So how much does function impact the self? I haven't the faintest.

Trust in manufacturer aside, I'm not sure I would trust the assumption that installing such a modification would allow my consciousness to continue instead of split. And frankly, I'm pretty attached to my existence despite the misery of it. No one else would be the wiser; they'd just see me go down for the surgery and then come back with all memories intact, but me, me, what happens to me?

No clue. I don't think I'd be willing to gamble with it unless I had no other choice.

(And we still come around to the same issue as before, me assuming that I don't already go through this every night when I sleep. I have no way of knowing that I'm not essentially a cloned drive, and that the "real" me hasn't died 9500 days ago. The very nature of the problem is that none of us would know.)
 
ZDNet: Elon Musk: Update to Neuralink computer-brain tech is coming soon

Anyone have thoughts on this development?

First, is Musk anywhere near a device that would actually do what he says it does?

Second, would you be willing to put a computer chip in your brain?

Third, would you trust that to Elon Musk?

I say maybe not, no, and no, respectively. I find the whole thing kind of creepy.

Doesn't seem credible in the slightest.
In fact it sounds less credible than that doctor who claimed they can decapitate you and move the head to another body and you'll be just fine.

That said, there's no reason why in theory something like that (computer interface used with a human brain) is impossible. But obviously there's no tech like this now, nor is it around the corner.

Also, the claim that this new tech may cure depression etc, is even more ridiculous. Maybe take it one step at a time, as in first create something which provides a sustainable interface of sorts which doesn't mess up the existent human interface (aka thinking; usually with little to no graphics and non-standard saving options).

In the 19th century there was a lot of hype about hypnosis. You could actually change a person drastically by using hypnosis, but the side-effects were massive, leading to it being abandoned in medicine (eg psychiatry).
 
Last edited:
Trust in manufacturer aside, I'm not sure I would trust the assumption that installing such a modification would allow my consciousness to continue instead of split. And frankly, I'm pretty attached to my existence despite the misery of it. No one else would be the wiser; they'd just see me go down for the surgery and then come back with all memories intact, but me, me, what happens to me?
I have a bit of cognitive dissonance surrounding this. I'm very skeptical of allowing a computer have access to my brain, but I have no issue in taking medicines that have been conjured up by scientists in a laboratory to perform similar functions. I mean, both chemicals and computers exist as states of matter, and both have been produced by man... so what's the difference between the two? I can't figure that out.

The medicine though can't connect to the internet. Surely the brain chips have some sort of IP address, right? Imagine if someone tried to get unauthorized access to your brain. No way, Jose.

Doesn't seem credible in the slightest.
That hyperloop is right around the corner! Musk to me has that Trump/Branson element in him, always talk big (or HUGE, varies by personality) and if you can deliver on just one thing, people think you're a visionary. Kind of a Neo-Nostradamus.
 
Second, would you be willing to put a computer chip in your brain?

If we’re talking distant future, there might not be a choice. Unless we want to perpetually stay behind our peers, who carry vast amount of information and are hence more competitive on the job market. Someone with a chip in his head will likely be able to know a lot of languages, learn them faster, have access to relevant data bases to the point, where a human without a chip would be like an awkward chimp in comparison, when it comes to workflow efficiency.

Can Musk pull it off? idk, he’s a capitalist, regular as they come, with all the positives and negatives. Doesn’t matter who does it, the tech is almost within our reach, someone will follow through, as, clearly, this is a direction we’re all steaming towards. Drilling a hole in the head though.. way above my comfort level of self-experimentation.
 
ZDNet: Elon Musk: Update to Neuralink computer-brain tech is coming soon

Anyone have thoughts on this development?

First, is Musk anywhere near a device that would actually do what he says it does?

Second, would you be willing to put a computer chip in your brain?

Third, would you trust that to Elon Musk?

I say maybe not, no, and no, respectively. I find the whole thing kind of creepy.
1) Absolutely not
(I remember Teslas were supposed to be self-driving in ~2015 and that cars produced before then 'already had all the necessary hardware to allow it' which was a complete lie)

2) Yeah probably. I'm with @Synsensa in that I have issues related to continuity of consciousness but I do see the potential of embedding computers in your brain (or some form of vice versa) to be a potential way around my concerns.

3) Absolutely not. His companies succeed almost in spite of him, not because of him.
 
Last edited:
If we’re talking distant future, there might not be a choice. Unless we want to perpetually stay behind our peers, who carry vast amount of information and are hence more competitive on the job market. Someone with a chip in his head will likely be able to know a lot of languages, learn them faster, have access to relevant data bases to the point, where a human without a chip would be like an awkward chimp in comparison, when it comes to workflow efficiency.
If technology were to reach that point, would it even be necessary to have it as something permanently installed in the brain? Also, what about obsolescence? Compare the original iPhone to the most recent version, and that was only... 13 years? 12? I can't imagine someone having a model year 2075 brain being able to keep up with the 2080 brain, or 2090 brain. It wouldn't be like comparing iPhone versions, it would be like the iPhone vs. a pair of tin cups and some string.

Just more investor bait vaporware from Musk.
I wouldn't doubt it.

(I remember Tesla's were supposed to be self-driving in ~2015 and that cars produced before then 'already had all the necessary hardware to allow it which was a complete lie)
Good call!
 
Musk the person is terrible and not trustworthy, but his eccentricity does help breed innovation in others. Of course, he channels his inner Ben Franklin and steals what that innovation brings.
 
Musk is a putz with demonstrably terrible track record of predicting timelines for technologies.

The thing is though, we don't need computer-brain interfaces to make computers extensions of our brains. Computers, and in particular, smartphones, already serve as extensions to the human brain. The biggest risk to this are efforts to outlaw encryption. If governments mandate backdoors to encryption, you can't treat your phone as an extension of your brain, you have to instead treat it like a safe in your house.
 
Fast forwarded to the relevant section of neuralink, goes on for about 40 mins.

Spoiler Musk @ Rogan's, 2 months ago :
 
Parkinson's Disease, Huntingon's Disease, and Cystic Fibrosis: The forward-thinking transhumanist should be donating to the research for these disease, since they each represent the first step in a cascading technology stream.
Alternatively, if you're a humanist transhumanist, I just recommend funding vaccine delivery.

Parkinson's Disease has a characteristic where a specific neuronal population dies too quickly. There are downstream problems after this happens, but that problem is considered the defining 'problem' of PD: what makes it a transhumanist target is that there are (broadly) three intervening technologies we're working on: targeted drugs to keep those cells alive, replacing those cell with some type of new tissue, or using wiring to replace the function of those cells.

The neuralink target described as 'near' is targeted depression. This is a reasonable target for this type of technology. Strong success has even been shown in the past using similar ideas.

Everyone knows that neurons fire, and that they communicate with each other based on this firing. There's a second modulatory component, though, which is the ease of forwarding information from an upstream signal. In depression, broadly, we use drugs that change the propensity of certain neurons to fire. It's a tuning issue. BUT, the drugs themselves are a pretty broad effect, affecting whole regions of the neurobiology, and we're just praying they help.

My analogy is that you hear something rattling in your car while you drive, and it's affecting engine performance. The 'drug' is the equivalent of tightening every bolt in the car a quarter turn, and hoping than things get better. They might, based on the underlying problem. They might get worse. Nothing might happen.

IF the depression has a discoverable anatomical component in its manifestation, then a wire in there can really make a difference. What happens is that the wire can be set to change the propensity of those neurons to forward a signal in its pathway (or even cause a signal to come out, even if there wasn't anything coming in). It's still a pretty crude technology, all told, since any wire will affect millions of neurons. But it might be better than subjecting all of your neurons (including ones in your stomach) to an drug that only really benefits you if its affecting the neurons in that anatomical region.
 
If technology were to reach that point, would it even be necessary to have it as something permanently installed in the brain? Also, what about obsolescence? Compare the original iPhone to the most recent version, and that was only... 13 years? 12? I can't imagine someone having a model year 2075 brain being able to keep up with the 2080 brain, or 2090 brain. It wouldn't be like comparing iPhone versions, it would be like the iPhone vs. a pair of tin cups and some string

Sure, there will be hardware degradation and obsolescence, as with any other device. Perhaps even option to hot-swap some of the hardware components, idk. Software development, updating going alongside and the marketing forces spinning whirlwinds around all that. Imagine, a window pops up in the top left corner of your... (field of view?), despite the adblocker, a sexy voice pitches you the all new underwear merch. Later that day, before going to sleep a deeply concerned voice emerges from the depths: please update your brainware to v1.0.666, two options pop up: “Yes”, “Remind me in 15 minutes”.
 
In the 19th century there was a lot of hype about hypnosis. You could actually change a person drastically by using hypnosis, but the side-effects were massive, leading to it being abandoned in medicine (eg psychiatry).
I think you'd be surprised to find out that that isn't exactly true.
 
I think you'd be surprised to find out that that isn't exactly true.

Unfortunately. Still an otherwise unblemished legacy from the early pop science that discovered ectoplasm, photographed spirits, saved earth from comet farts and documented the elusive wild fairies.
 
Hypnotism is still occasionally used in psychiatry, though its merits are largely rubbish. Usually it is used to get the patient into a relaxed state and frame of mind. That way they are more forthcoming in their therapy sessions. There is no attempt at therapy or control or post hypnotic suggestion resulting from hypnosis. It's just a tool to help the patient relax.

Do I use it? No, but I know how to do it. I find it dishonest, because the patient expects that hypnosis will actually work, based on pop culture, and they expect a "cure" from it. There is no free lunch here, I'm afraid. I have seen it used to settle extremely agitated or fearful patients, but as a general tool in the psychiatrist's arsenal, it's largely bunk.

Just my opinion. Some psychiatrists/psychologists use it as I have described above, but in my experience, if you are looking for a way to change thought and action, prolonged cognitive therapy is a much better bet.

And no one, but no one, EVER thinks they are a chicken. What garbage.
 
Back
Top Bottom