What If We Were Digitally Immortal?

All of us have uploaded our “selfies” in one or the other social networking sites. I myself have done it too. It is also common to upload videos, assignments, essays, songs or any other file. Is it not? Every time we do it, we take the pain to open up our PCs, go online, check for a good picture, click the upload button, and wait for it to get uploaded. Seems like a couple of steps!! Well, may not be the case anymore!

The racing science and technology is exceptionally amazing. With the present level of advancements growing up, it shouldn’t be a surprise if there is a digital copy of yourself that does things instantly just as you think. Director of engineering at Google, Ray Kurzweil, believes that we will be able to upload our brains to the computers instead of just uploading some petty documents.

The basis for thinking in such a futurist way is that our brain is thought to function as a function of nerve impulses. We know that nerve cells communicate with each other through an electrochemical signal. The pattern of signal transmission from one neuron to another is what encodes information, memories, emotions and personality. So you see a neuron can exist in either of the two forms- active or rest. This gave an insight to the computer scientists to come with an equivalent brain like machine that would represent the two state of a neuron with the basic binary system, zeros and ones.

You must be thinking “So how can remembering stuffs be manipulated into computer language?”. That’s what made me glued to the article I was reading a couple of days ago. Ok! So this is the principle behind it.

When you see a famous painting, let’s say “The Old guitarist”, by Pablo Picasso, for the first time, neurons from the visual areas of brain will fire. So the next time you see the same painting or hear someone say about that painting, the neurons that encoded that message will fire, thus making you recollect it. Interesting, isn’t it? So building a program that can “recollect” the past neural networks using math and other powerful tools is something our computer scientists, neural engineers are working on. In fact such software does exist which performs complex pattern recognition tasks as of now.

Then, what it is like to give our whole brain to a machine? Theoretically speaking, uploading our minds to a computer would mean that we have already generated the required program code ourselves and it just needs to be executed on a digital platform. Otherwise, your brain is just another computer language that can run with proper inputs on a PC.

Let’s say we have created a human like machine (advanced computer) which has your brain information. Also imagine you can make a link to your digital version-your twin, whenever you want. When you are linked, both of you think the same. However, when you cut off the link, your twin can remember the last bit of memory until the next link is made and so on. This is the strategy I will use to give inputs to your twin.  Sounds awesome? But hang on a second. You can play with your twin however you want. That’s the creepy part. To illustrate it, imagine that you are not an experienced swimmer. You want to know through your twin whether you would escape a high tide rough sea. So you think about it and then cut the link. Your twin is now ready to process the input given. Based on your past neural network pattern, it will execute the action. Won’t the outcome scare you?

This is the level of technology we will have to witness in the near future. It may sound unrealistic but that’s what is more probable to happen. Some futurist’s have already predicted that by digitalizing ourselves, we would become digitally immortal- they refer this phenomena “singularity”.

More on singularity- see the next post!!

Referred sites:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2344398/Google-futurist-claims-uploading-entire-MINDS-computers-2045-bodies-replaced-machines-90-years.html

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/neuroscientist-who-wants-upload-humanity-computer

Connecting the three: Our mind-Entropy-Unsteadiness

It was again my chemistry teacher who put me through some thought provoking statements in the class hours. It was when we were dealing with the second law of thermodynamics.  And yeah...how can one forget what it is all about? Maximum work, entropy, equilibrium, heat transfer etc. 

“What does thermodynamics have to do with clinical psychology? What is the connection between thermodynamics and the psychology of our mind?”

“Interesting!”, I thought.

I tried defining entropy in psychological terms. And yes I could figure it out. So that one word corresponding to entropy in psychology is “unsteadiness”. It is all about unsteadiness of our mind, or it might also be the unpredictability of our mind. Now what do the laws of thermodynamics have to do with our unsteadiness? The answer is deeply interrelated and also simple.

Let me put here one of the statements made by early researchers because it is worthwhile knowing it. "Early in the year 1877 Ludwig Boltzmann defined entropy as a function of micro states that could potentially comprise a particular macro state. The more the number of micro states it combines to form a macro state, the more is the entropy associated with the system"(Jacob B. Hirsh). As a result of this, the ability to perform useful work is altered by reduced accuracy to transform the present state to a desired state.

Understanding the relation between entropy and the potentiality to perform useful work can provide a possible explanation to the uncertainties in biological systems.

Let’s say that you are very angry at this point of time. You were just deceived by someone you trusted a lot. In about some one hour you are having your viva for your internals. The question is whether you will be able to answer the questions as you would do when you are normal, that is when you are without any mental disturbances?

I would probably say a NO. The reason is self-explanatory. So what has happened to you?  It just means that your internal entropy is in its dominant state. That is you are unstable and therefore you are not able to think properly. Only when your mind is calm, stable, you are able to exhibit maximum results. Knowingly or unknowingly, we are always trying to reduce our internal entropy so that we are able to make sense of what we do. In the process, we are putting the universe under risk because the external entropy is increased.

The more the number of work load we have, the more is the probability of us being uncertain, unpredictable of what we would do. And this is exactly what I mean by” micro states”. The more the number of micro states possible, the more is the macro state under risk. One possible solution would be to find your suitable way to interrelate those micro states, think about one at a time, so that you are able to do what you actually want to do!!! It is not easy though, but you have your freedom to choose your time and practise accordingly. Isn't it?

References:

Hirsh, J.B., R.A., & Peterson, J.B(2012,January 16). Psychological Entropy: A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty-Related Anxiety. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/

Do You Really Feel the Blue Color?

It was my chemistry teacher who introduced me to “thought experiments”. One fine day, he started off with a small description about the “Schrödinger cat”, and the concept was pretty cool.

I looked up for more thought experiments. Well!! So here is one that I liked very much apart from the one mentioned above. And this essentially talks about our conscious experience.

 

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation. Imagine that you are a blind person. This necessarily means that the way you have perceived the world is completely different from a person who is able to see. Okay!

Apart from being a blind, you are a scientist who knows everything about colours. You know the exact wavelength of the colour from the sky which stimulates our retina and sends signals to our brain which prompts us say “Ok!! The colour of the sky is blue, how cool?” Remember you have never seen the colour blue and have never ever experienced the colour consciously.

Now, out of nowhere, you get back your vision and you are able to see the world. Will you not learn something new? I mean, will you not be able relate to the colour more than you had before? It’s like from now on, whenever I say “blue”, your own mental picture of blue pops up and you will be able to remember things better. Now that’s the difference between academically knowing something and experiencing it in reality.

Try fitting this idea to your own life. When you want to know something, going beyond the objective observation would help a lot. Discovering things yourself and experiencing it in actuality does you good. When you do this for a prolonged period of time you will reach a point where you will be driven by yourself to know more about things and no one can stop you!!!

You can try http://io9.com/9-philosophical-thought-experiments-that-will-keep-you-1340952809 for more information!!

Predictions

Have you not come across situations where you thought something is likely to happen but did not? Let’s say you thought your mom would give you a cake as you bagged first place, but she proved you wrong by giving you just a piece of chocolate? I am sure people have many times crossed such situations in life. But not always do your predictions prove you wrong. You might be right when you thought it would rain!!!

So, how far can you rely on it? This is something important because the science and technology world vastly depends on predictions. We try explaining obscure science through mathematics. Sometimes the human made mathematical formula go well with our predictions and sometimes it contradicts. Just take a minute or so to do this. You might need a calculator to confirm.

What is 1÷9? Your calculator might show 0.1111111. Alright! Now what is 2÷9? Your calculator might show 0.22222222. Agreed!! Now what is 3÷9? 0.333333333 is the answer. By now you might be really confident for your next answer. And yes it is 0.4444444. Well done! Now you have started predicting your next couple of answers. But hold on! Your predictions might go wrong. According to what you think your cal-C should get you the following answers for the following equations.

5÷9=0.55555555

6÷9=0.66666666

7÷9=0.77777777

8÷9=0.88888888

9÷9=0.99999999

But your calculator never gives you a 0.99999999 for the division 9 by 9. It always gives you 1. Neither you nor can I violate the result.

This just implies to me that our predictions are always approximated to some degree, small or big with the happenings in reality. When it is small we tend to say what we have predicted is right and when the gap is big we say our prediction is wrong.

One might ask if no one in the world has seen how an atom looks like, then how is it possible to define a structure for it? And I would just say, scientists predicted the atom to be a homogeneous mix initially. But their prediction was proved “wrong” when Rutherford in 1911 showed there is a nucleus. He did this by shooting alpha particles at other atoms like gold and observed the change in which they bounced back.

Since then science is improving with this tool called “prediction”. Only when we rely on our predictions we would know whether it is right or wrong which then paves way for higher understanding of the subject. So get going with what you think, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter.