Hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov (Robin Hanson) (01/04/91)
In <Dec.31.18.54.11.1990.26132@athos.rutgers.edu>, T32QC@cunyvm.bitnet (Santa Claus) writes: >I was reading the past few messages, and was just wondering what time >frame the following inventions are expected to take place in...? >Computer assisted brain functions? (Vision, etc.?) >Computer acceleration of brain functions?? Brains operating at 1e6 times faster >than normal?? ... To which JoSH responds: >[This is virtually all speculation. I wouldn't imagine you'd see any of > this stuff happen before 2050. I could be mistaken if a widely-based > nanotechnology speeds up the progress of research before then--it will > speed up, of course, but it's got a long way to go. > --JoSH] Maybe it would be fun to discuss time scales now! A consideration of new approaches to molecular construction leads Eric Drexler to estimate a better than even chance that by 2005 there will be molecular manufacturing systems based on flexible high-speed assemblers and micron scale CPUs [private communication]. I challenge people to think about at what odds they would be willing to bet on the claim: By 2005, there will be a device, made to atomic specifications, fitting in less than 1 cubic mm., able to run C programs requiring 10MB memory at 1 MIPS, and able to replicate itself in less than one year from a bath of molecules, each of which has less than 100 atoms. I agree that there will be a significant time lapse between developing nanotechnology and technologies that require substantial understanding of how the brain works. However, it seems plausible that "uploading" will only require that we have a reasonable model of the signal processing capabilities of neurons and synapses, and understanding we seem close to today. Once we know what matters, we can dismantle a brain recording only the relevant info about each neuron, and reimplement the brain with computational models of those neurons. Since the nanotechnology to dismantle and record need not be particularly advanced, it seems that uploading may come much sooner than 50 years, and perhaps as soon as 20 years. It should be easy to run uploaded brains many orders of magnitude faster than meat brains (though perhaps not as easy to make that speed useful) and so fast brains may come sooner than you think. Robin Hanson hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov "Stake Your Reputation" 415-604-3361 MS244-17, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 415-651-7483 47164 Male Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539-7921
geopi@hocpa.att.com (George P Cotsonas) (01/07/91)
In article <Jan.3.23.30.03.1991.3519@athos.rutgers.edu>, Hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov (Robin Hanson) writes: > > I agree that there will be a significant time lapse between developing > nanotechnology and technologies that require substantial understanding > of how the brain works. then contradicts it by saying > However, it seems plausible that "uploading" > will only require that we have a reasonable model of the signal ---- > processing capabilities of neurons and synapses, and understanding we > seem close to today. Once we know what matters, we can dismantle a > brain recording only the relevant info about each neuron, and > reimplement the brain with computational models of those neurons. > > Since the nanotechnology to dismantle and record need not be > particularly advanced, it seems that uploading may come much sooner than > 50 years, and perhaps as soon as 20 years. I question whether the nanotechnology required to analyze, dismantle, and record neural nets would be "not particularly advanced." Brain function goes well beyond the realm of the structural, anatomical connectivity of neural nets and the electrical signal processing behavior of neurons themselves. It also encompasses a complex and dynamic biochemistry of neuropeptides. Are the mechanisms of memory and thought even understood in all their subtlety? Will they be within 20 years? I rather agree with the moderator (JoSH? jOSH? JOsH? jOsH?) that it is a very speculative realm we are dealing with when we start to consider such things as "uploading," and that the time frame is not around the corner. But many have been wrong before in the history of science... :-) -- George P. Cotsonas AT&T BL/CPL att!hocpa!geopi
landman@eng.sun.com (Howard A. Landman) (01/10/91)
In article <Jan.3.23.30.03.1991.3519@athos.rutgers.edu> Hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov (Robin Hanson) writes: >I challenge people to >think about at what odds they would be willing to bet on the claim: > > By 2005, there will be a device, made to atomic specifications, fitting > in less than 1 cubic mm., able to run C programs requiring 10MB memory > at 1 MIPS, and able to replicate itself in less than one year from a > bath of molecules, each of which has less than 100 atoms. At 5-to-1 against, I'd take the against side. At 100-to-1 against, I'd take the for side for a small amount. At 10,000-to-1 against, I'd wager enough that I'd be comfortably wealthy if I won. (If I won, I can think of some things I'd like to buy ... ). -- Howard A. Landman landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman