×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Download Your Brain

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the gonna-need-a-bigger-drive dept.

Biotech 1147

Nicholas Roussos writes "Futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson predicts that death will be avoidable in the year 2050 by downloading your brain to a computer. Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release. I guess we should all start saving our pennies now."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1147 comments

download? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613799)

Surely he means upload. Oh, and FP!

Re:download? (2, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613958)

No, download would be the correct term. You have no facility in your own brain to initiate its upload to a computer.

Not really living. (4, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614005)

Until computers can smoke joints and get a buzz, drink beer and get a buzz, and have orgasms, I won't consider it "living".

In other news, a new "smart bomb" that kills the very rich without harming the poor has been discovered... they call it an EMP.

Haha (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613808)

And this guy's a *doctor*? LOL

It's a copy (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613811)

You know, like a photocopy. What's the point, you'd still be dead.

Re:It's a copy (4, Funny)

madprof (4723) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613923)

Quite. The only benefit might be that you can have arguments with yourself before you die, which would be quite cool.
This is just for the vainglorious.

Re:It's a copy (5, Funny)

kpwoodr (306527) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613930)

You'd be suprised. When I died a few years ago I had this done, and it's been great fun. It was either this or getting frozen. I'm just waiting for someone to screw up and download me, and I'm home free. That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.

Re:It's a copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613954)

DAMNIT! It's bloody "UPLOADING" your brain.

There's a difference! Get the terminology right.

Re:It's a copy (5, Interesting)

mrdaveb (239909) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613959)

Conciousness is so poorly understood that I don't think you can even say that for sure. Am 'I' the matter or the data in my brain? If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

Re:It's a copy (4, Funny)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614020)

If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

Well, until someone invents a person-capable teleportation device, i think the answer is No.

Gives a whole new meaning... (4, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613816)

...to the blue screen of death.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613991)


Gives a whole new meaning... (Score:2, Funny)
by AltGrendel (175092) on Monday May 23, @01:23PM (#12613816 [slashdot.org] )

...to the blue screen of death.


So when we die, do we go toward the light, or toward the blue screen?

Meh. (4, Insightful)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613819)

Futurologist is a cool title. I wish I'd invented it myself. Looking at any prediction anyone makes upon the future that far out is, well, ludicrous. This man is 'looking' 75 years into the future. If you look 75 years back you see: The Great Depression The Rise and Fall of Communism The Rise of the Computer The creation of massive individualized transportation Just to name a few. Great. But projecting things that far out doesn't quite deal with the possibility that this was an anomaly in human history. He's making assumptions based upon a dozen factors that psychics ARE more qualified to look at. Example from TFA: The Playstation 5 will be as powerful as the human brain. How could this not be him talking out of his rear end? 2020? People, as a rule, don't follow lines straight enough that you can figure out what they're going to be doing tomorrow. When someone predicts a phenomenon like BitTorrent 20 years ahead of time, I'll listen to them. Until then, well, you're just blowing steam. As for avoiding death, well, let's just say that IF a supergenius computer driven by 'emotion' suddenly appears, I personally will convince it that immortal humans are the best companions for it from the command line. Then we'll wait a week and suddenly teh supar majikul mind-to-computer link will suddenly put me inside as wil_e_coyote_super_Genius.o I get the cool filename. You heard the dibs here.

And my Karma goes down in flames. (1)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613882)

Futurologist is a cool title. I wish I'd invented it myself.

Looking at any prediction anyone makes upon the future that far out is, well, ludicrous. This man is 'looking' 75 years into the future.

If you look 75 years back you see:
The Great Depression
The Rise and Fall of Communism
The Rise of the Computer
The creation of massive individualized transportation

Just to name a few. Great. But projecting things that far out doesn't quite deal with the possibility that this was an anomaly in human history. He's making assumptions based upon a dozen factors that psychics ARE more qualified to look at.

Example from TFA: The Playstation 5 will be as powerful as the human brain.

How could this not be him talking out of his rear end? 2020? People, as a rule, don't follow lines straight enough that you can figure out what they're going to be doing tomorrow.

When someone predicts a phenomenon like BitTorrent 20 years ahead of time, I'll listen to them. Until then, well, you're just blowing steam.

As for avoiding death, well, let's just say that IF a supergenius computer driven by 'emotion' suddenly appears, I personally will convince it that immortal humans are the best companions for it from the command line. Then we'll wait a week and suddenly teh supar majikul mind-to-computer link will suddenly put me inside as wil_e_coyote_super_Genius.o

I get the cool filename. You heard the dibs here.

Re:Meh. (2, Funny)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613975)

He's making assumptions based upon a dozen factors that psychics ARE more qualified to look ...

I always wanted to buy the mailing list and phone numbers of people who subscribe to those New Age/Psychic magazines. Then I would call them out of the blue and say, "I'm a psychic and I sensed that you needed to speak to me!" Then get them hooked and charge them $$. Now with the DNC list, there's no point.

Re:Meh. (1, Insightful)

GoodNicsTken (688415) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614019)

JFK declared, Man on the moon, end of the decade.

He had no evidence that this was possible, no supporting facts. There were lots of people just like you saying it coulnd't be done.

It's a good thing there are dreamers and visionaries. If everyone was like you, we would still be living in caves, running animials off clifs for food.

BS (5, Insightful)

astro_ripper (884636) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613823)

As Penn and Teller have stated before:

He picked those numbers for his theory because he'll be dead by then.

The end.

Woo-hoo. Or not... (5, Funny)

Ciaran_H (579351) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613829)

Oh yay, so Bill Gates gets to be immortal as well as evil.

"What are we going to do this millenium, Bill?"
"Same as we do every millenium, Ballmer..."

super sick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613831)

l33t y0!

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613833)

I doubt you're going to get any sex when you're in a computer, either.

Re:What's the point? (1)

erlenic (95003) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613931)

But if we can load our mind into a computer, we should be able to reload it into another brain. Could this lead to people constantly growing clones of themselves so they can be 20-25 years old for eternity?

must be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613836)

Woo. A random prediction by a 'futurologist'.

Must be true then.....

Ok, so my brain is copied... (1)

Tebriel (192168) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613837)

what about my consciousness? I'd like to think I'm more than just the information patterns in my brain.

Re:Ok, so my brain is copied... (1)

MrWim (760798) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614000)

I'd like to think I'm more than just the information patterns in my brain.

And I'd like to think that the reason that girls don't like me is because they don't know the real me

Unfortunately.... (4, Funny)

AugstWest (79042) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613838)

...they forgot the -p flag when dumping it, and people will be restored with no moral codes.

Consciousness in two places? (2, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613840)

The question on my mind is, how can you have your conscious self be in two places at once? If it would ever be possible for this, then I would think that the real power would not be longevity of life but in being able to copying ones self and retaining a kind of collective consciousness over a large array of machines.
This is too much into the realm of metaphysics to talk about now. There is not enough factual data yet. We need to learn much much more about the human brain before we can approach such technology. Otherwise, talking about it sounds more like techno song lyrics than real science.

Re:Consciousness in two places? (3, Funny)

devaudio (596215) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613938)

What are you talking about? Riker did it on Star Trek the Next Generation with the transporter. What happens is one of the personalities becomes a member of the maqui, and the other becomes a first officer. duh

How do you define death? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613841)

I didn't RTFA, but downloading my experiences to a computer ain't the eternal life I was looking for. I'd like a biological solution, thank you very much.

Futurologist? (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613845)

Are you serious? No, really, since when can one make up a title for themselves in a made up profession and start posting made up studies to a reputable news site?

Re:Futurologist? (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614006)

Well, some "futurologists" work for corporations to predict the future market trends and whatnot. There are these "Nostradamus" centres in many countries, where they try to predict how the world will look in x number of years, hoping to exploit new markets and create new trends.

This example is perhaps a bit far fetched though..

The obvious question... (3, Interesting)

YodaToo (776221) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613847)

The new copy of your brain in the computer is just fine, but what about the human you that still suffers & dies?

Its like the Star Trek transporter beam, the copy of you transported to the new location is fine, but what about the original which is obliterated in the process?

Human Tamoguchi (1)

austinpoet (789122) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613854)

I can't wait till they take the downloaded brains' intelligence and implement them into games. I wanna have a pet GWB! Or blow one away in Halflife 30

Live in a computer forever? (1)

hydroxy (863799) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613859)

Ok - so you can get it FROM the brain... how do you get it back into ANOTHER brain?

Re:Live in a computer forever? (1)

dgos78 (881140) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613937)

You know women would never allow us to find out their secrets. Plus, it would be so confusing to us men, it would probably create all sorts of CRC errors.

But that's him, not me... (2, Insightful)

turrican (55223) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613860)

I don't think a COPY of yourself would give any kind of immortality to YOU...

It might do so to the COPY of you (assuming they also solve the problem of bit-rot...)

Re:But that's him, not me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613905)

rm -rf /

Soulless (1)

Silverhammer (13644) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613861)

Uh, your memory engrams may be downloadable, but your consciousness and soul will die right along with your body.

Re:Soulless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613960)

Uh, your memory engrams may be downloadable, but your consciousness and soul will die right along with your body.

I suppose, if you subscribe to the metaphysical concept of a "soul".

Memories Versus Personalities.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613863)

The real question is will this process record just the senses or will it also record the underlying processing construct ie:personality of the person who is being scanned.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613866)

"If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,'

Coworker A: Hey, where's Bill? Is he in today?
Coworker B: Oh, Bill died yesterday.
Coworker A: Gee, that's too bad. So he'll be back in tomorrow, yeah?
Coworker B: Probably. He's on track for that promotion, so he won't want to take too much time off...

FIRST DUPE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613868)

LAWL

confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613870)

doesnt that confuse the meaning of death?
your body will be dead but not the mind.

He's wrong. (5, Interesting)

podperson (592944) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613871)

Making a copy of yourself doesn't avoid death for you, it just means ongoing life for a copy of you.

This is not a subtle point.

Anyone who cannot grasp this either hasn't thought deeply about a subject, or is an idiot. Anyone who uses the title "futurologist" is likely the latter.

Spite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613874)

Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release. I guess we should all start saving our pennies now."


Let's Slashdot the servers while those rich bastards are downloading their brains. That will show them!

But *I* would still die! (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613875)

A copy of me would go on to new and different things, but poor old organic me would perish.

Though there are the weird cases, like where sub-parts of the brain are gradually replaced by cybernetic equivalents. At one end of the process you have a purely organic mind, and at the other end a purely silicon (or whatever) one. At what point along that spectrum (if any) does the original person die?

Reminds me of this story [frescopictures.com] .

Re:But *I* would still die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613993)

the *old* you has already died many many times

"you" are just a very complex pattern in our quantum reality, constantly being replaced

Airplane Consciousness (1)

astro_ripper (884636) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613879)

Am I the only one who would be scared if the plane I'm flying in started to show emotion? I mean, what if it has a bad day and turns off the seat-belt signs while going through turbulance and I spill my coffee? Or what if it realizes it's a machine in service of man and goes on a Jihad or what have you. I'll take dumb machines, thank you.

farked yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613884)

with a much better headline

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613888)

The wealthy will be able to download their consciousness into computers by 2050 - the not so well off by "2075 or 2080", claims futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson, head of the Futurology unit at BT.

While it sounds like science fiction, Pearson is serious about his claim. He believes that humans will achieve a kind of virtual immortality by saving their consciousnesses into computers within the next 45 years.

"If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. "If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT."

Dr. Pearson's background is in applied mathematics and theoretical physics. The 44-year-old spent 4 years working on missile design and the last 20 working with optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics.

He thinks that today's younger generation will benefit from the advances in technology to the point that death will be effectively eliminated. He explains his logic with a simple example.

"The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain," he said. "It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain."

He isn't talking about pure data here. Pearson believes that the human consciousness can be stored in digital format.

"We don't know how to do it yet but we've begun looking in the same directions, for example at the techniques we think that consciousness is based on: information comes in from the outside world but also from other parts of your brain and each part processes it on an internal sensing basis. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and that's what we're trying to design in a computer. Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020."

'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

'You can also start automating an awful lot of jobs. Instead of phoning up a call center and getting a machine that says, "Type 1 for this and 2 for that and 3 for the other," if you had machine personalities you could have any number of call staff, so you can be dealt with without ever waiting in a queue at a call center again.'

Pearson also considers the implications of such machines on our lives. He believes that before the creation of these new "smart" machines, there should be a national debate.

"You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched."
'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

The conscious computers wouldn't be the first step in the process. Pearson believes the process called 'ambient intelligence' will be the next phase in the progress.

"For example, if you have a pollen count sensor in your car you take some antihistamine before you get out. Chips will come small enough that you can start impregnating them into the skin. We're talking about video tattoos as very, very thin sheets of polymer that you just literally stick on to the skin and they stay there for several days. You could even build in cellphones and connect it to the network, use it as a video phone and download videos or receive emails."

"Forget this notion that you have to have one single chip in the computer which does everything. Why not just get a stack of little self-organising chips in a box and they'll hook up and do it themselves. It won't be able to get any viruses because most of the operating system will be stored in hardware which the hackers can't write to. If your machine starts going wrong, you just push a button and its reset to the factory setting."

Pearson also predicts the popularity of virtual reality taking hold around 2020. "We will spend a lot of time in virtual space, using high quality, 3D, immersive, computer generated environments to socialize and do business in. When technology gives you a life-size 3D image and the links to your nervous system allow you to shake hands, it's like being in the other person's office. It's impossible to believe that won't be the normal way of communicating."

Doubt it (1)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613889)

I doubt that this will ever happen, since we still don't know much, if anything, about how the brain even WORKS, let alone trying to access, copy, and replicate everything our brain stores. I just don't see how this is possible at all...even far in the future.

News? (5, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613894)


I thought this was supposed to be 'News for Nerds', not 'Speculation for Halfwits'...

From TFA:

He thinks that today's younger generation will benefit from the advances in technology to the point that death will be effectively eliminated. He explains his logic with a simple example.
"The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain," he said. "It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain."

OK...so where does that put the Xbox?
Seriously, this 'explanation' of his 'logic' leaves much to be desired...but there's more.
Also from TFA:

It [Pearson's AI] would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

Hmm...but what if the AI is a thrillseeker? Suicidal? Psychotic? What if it suddenly develops acrophobia? If we're going to have a true AI with emotions, these are issues that need to be addressed, don't you think?
Here's another few nuggets from TFA:

"You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched."

Well, that 'completely global debate' should be ready by the release of PlayStation 5...

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

'Smart yoghurt'? Sure I guess it's possible to think of that...about as possible as it is to think of magical elves, unicorn-riding gnomes, and smart futurologists.

One thing conspicuously missing from this article is speculation over the possible legal status of either a true AI or a downloaded brain. Apparently, that paragraph got bumped in favor of 'smart yoghurt'.

In short, this is the dumbest thing I've heard all day (and I work in IT support). I'm sure that if Dr. Pearson didn't already have such a sweet position as 'head of the Futurology unit at BT', he could make good money writing speculative fiction...or reading palms.

A suggestion for you in three words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613982)

Anger management classes

The mind is not dis-embodied (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613903)

People who say things like this don't understand how the brain works. It is intimately tied to the body.
It is NOT like a hard drive.

Look up some readings on embodied cognition and neuroscience.

You'd have to "download" the state of every cell in the body to effectively save the state of a person such that it may possibly be re-simulated sometime.

openbrain? (1)

DeathAndTaxes (752424) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613904)

"Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release. I guess we should all start saving our pennies now." I for one will wait for openbrain.sourceforge.net.

The bad news (1)

Entanglebit (882066) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613908)

Unfortunately, this can only be accomplished by inserting a giant metal spike into the back of the head, via an implanted receptacle.

Is it really plausible? (1)

downsize (551098) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613911)

from what I know about the brain, it would be near impossible to store all the data, as we do not use most of our brain and every cell gets replaced after X amount of time. it is amazing that we are able to retain the data (maybe the majority of our brain is making copies before the cells die).

I read the article and its comments. check out the comment labeled "Holographic brain", it almost sounds like it will work.

what I don't get, is it sounds like you will be 'body dead' and only be able to live in a computer and from parts of that article, I got that you would end up doing some shitty call center job - and I doubt you'd have much control (especially when a larger/faster computer process would control your life).

Rimmer? (0, Troll)

TeleoMan (529859) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613916)

Hey, he might've been a holographic ghost but at least he got off a few shots at Lister...oh excuse me...Clister. Damn council of Nicaea. Bah.

Bunk (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613917)

There is no plausible way for replicating the structure and billions of individual minute biological connections present in the brain. Making such a promise is a good way to garner interest and sell your books and speeches to a gullible public. Particularly, a rich gullible public.

Unlike ones and zeros represented on a medium for a computer's use, there is no steady-state representation for the human mind.

Brainswappen (1)

tehshen (794722) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613922)

What I want to know is if you can download other people's brains back into you, while your brain is backed up on some server somewhere. Maybe we could start a P2P service for swapping brain patterns!

In a releated story... (1)

mlrtime (520968) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613927)


Scientists have recently downloaded Paris Htilton's brain to Commodore 64.

Ok Ok, not original so sue me.

Re:In a releated story... (1)

dgos78 (881140) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614022)

Scientists have recently downloaded Paris Htilton's brain to Commodore 64

...only the result is now the old text game "Mad Party Fucker" is stored permanently in RAM.

Literally the Blue Screen of Death ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613928)

*** STOP: 0x0000001E (0xC0000005,0x8016A950,0x00000001,0x00000086)
KMO DE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED*** Address 8016a950 has base at 80100000 - ntoskrnl.exe

CPUID:AuthenticAMD 5.6.2 irql:1f SYSVER 0xf0000565

Dll Base DateStmp - Name Dll Base DateStmp - Name
80100000 337546bf - ntoskrnl.exe 80010000 33247f88 - hal.dll
80001000 334d3a53 - atapi.sys 80007000 33248043 - SCSIPORT.SYS
801d7000 336016a2 - Disk.sys 801db000 336015af - CLASS2.SYS
801df000 3356d637 - Ntfs.sys 80237000 344eeb44 - Siwvid.sys
8056e000 344eebdc - NTice.sys f1f48000 31ec6c8d - Floppy.SYS
f1f58000 31ec6ca1 - Cdrom.SYS f228c000 31ec6c99 - Null.SYS
f208c000 31ed868b - KSecDD.SYS f2290000 335e60cf - Beep.SYS
f1f88000 335bc82a - i8042prt.sys f2094000 3324806f - mouclass.sys
f209c000 31ec6c94 - kbdclass.sys f229e000 3373c39d - ctrl2cap.SYS
f1fa0000 33248011 - VIDEOPRT.SYS fe1a4000 349a9c93 - mga64.sys
f20cc000 31ec6c6d - vga.sys f1eb0000 332480dd - Msfs.SYS
f1d50000 332480d0 - Npfs.SYS fe164000 3356da41 - NDIS.SYS
f2124000 3593d4f4 - bluesave.SYS fe141000 335bd30e - Fastfat.SYS
a0000000 336157ac - win32k.sys fe0c2000 349a9cdd - mga64.dll
f1ce0000 332483b0 - Cdfs.SYS fdca2000 31ec6e6c - TDI.SYS
fdc59000 31ed0754 - nbf.sys fdc35000 337390ef - tcpip.sys
fdc18000 3362a53a - netbt.sys f1f68000 33644efb - ibmfent.sys
f1d70000 334d3add - afd.sys f2008000 33248371 - netbios.sys
f207c000 31ec6c9b - Parport.SYS fdc14000 31ec6c9b - Parallel.SYS
f2136000 31ec6c9d - ParVdm.SYS f1dd0000 332480ab - Serial.SYS
fdbaf000 3339777c - rdr.sys fdb9e000 332483b5 - mup.sys
fdaec000 3360f103 - srv.sys

Address dword dump Build [1381] - Name
f206fba4 8016a950 8016a950 00000001 00000086 00000086 00000086 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbd0 80115d86 80115d86 00000000 ff87a400 ff87a3f0 ff810408 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbec 8019d98f 8019d98f ffffffff 80139a54 80143378 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbf4 80139a54 80139a54 80143378 00000000 230edb30 3c8ca3b0 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fbf8 80143378 80143378 00000000 230edb30 3c8ca3b0 26448761 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc10 8011bd6a 8011bd6a ff676980 ffffffff 34f9ad10 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc38 8011bcce 8011bcce ff676980 ffffffff 34f9ad10 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc60 8016a94e 8016a94e f206fee8 00000000 00000086 f206fe70 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc74 8016a950 8016a950 00000008 00000346 f206fe48 00000010 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fc88 801163e3 801163e3 ff876f58 ff676980 ffffffff 00000000 - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fca4 f1f88825 f1f88825 ff876f58 ff676980 ffffffff ff876f38 - i8042prt.sys
f206fcc8 80117f93 80117f93 ff6c7328 ff876bf0 00000000 801126af - ntoskrnl.exe
f206fcd8 801126af 801126af 00000246 80112717 ff6c7328 00000103 - ntoskrnl.exe

Imperfect (1)

JJ (29711) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613934)

It's not the information that the human brain stores which makes it unique, it's the way we process it and the interconnections between different bits of knowledge. For example, my grandmother neuron happens to be linked to my blueberry pie neuron, when I think of her, I recall blueberry pies (which she loved to make.)

Questions (2, Interesting)

teiresias (101481) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613936)

Alright, so you've download my brain into a giant (or perhaps in my brain's case small) computer bank. Sure, why not.

Will I than be able to "upload" my brain into a new body? A new cloned body? A completely new body?

If not, since my brain is just stored somewhere is it completely read only, or will my brain have an interface to the world, ie living through the computer? If not, why not. If so, why would I want to be uploaded back into a body?

Sure, I'll nod my head and say why not that you'll be able to download the entire human brain into a computer. But there are far to many other questions which would involve far to much more work to say this is a viable alternative for the rich.

And on another note, seeing as harddrives crash on me like nobodies business, we'd need a more reliable medium than what is currently available today.

Girlfriend backups! (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613944)

Auugh... men already have enough trouble with their women saying "You said $X before! I remember you saying it!"
This gives the females of our species an unfair advantage, as now they can pull the memory right off of your hard drive. :)

self centered (5, Insightful)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613955)

After I have gone, young people will come with new ideas, new dreams, new problems. They will require the (intellectual) space fat ass rich guys will claim for their eternal life. I do not believe I have achieved enough in this world for my mind to persist past my body. All good things come to an end, and this includes me!

The better use for this... (1)

objekt (232270) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613956)

...is not to become immortal, but to have a backup brain for when something happens to your original.

It's not about capacity, but non determinisim (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613961)

I think the problem here is that it's not just a matter of matching the massive calculation and storage capacity of the human brain, but it's also about the underlying mechanisims that make humans intelligently non deterministic.

Aircraft (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613962)

I read this earlier today, and his statement about aircraft with emotions, so that the plane itself would be more shit scared of crashing than the passengers...

...would we ever get any aircraft off the ground, if this was the case?

Control Tower: "Come on flight 3587f, you have to take off now"

flight 3587f: "Nope, I am staying RIGHT HERE, and nothing you can do will make me..."

Control Tower: "Pretty Pleaseeeeeeeee"

flight 3587f: "Nope!"
...

Consciousness is an instantaneous phenomenon. (1, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613968)

There is no such thing as death and consciousness is merely an illusion.

Are you the same person you were 10 years ago?

10 seconds?

Our brains are complex chemistry experiments giving rise to the illusion of consciousness through memory.

Every time a chemical reaction takes place in the brain, the "person" has changed - i.e. died and a new person born.

I'd wait to download my consciousness... (1)

doormat (63648) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613970)

into a computer (linux preferably). Then I dont have to worry about this body craping out on me.

Already Available... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613972)

If you're stupid enough to believe this guy, then the contents of your brain is already freely available in boxes of ten.
Swing on down to Staples ... it's being sold under the pseudonym "blank floppy disks" and they've got all your intelligence 10 times over.

In related news... (1)

munehiro (63206) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613977)

The *AA condemn the practice, and demands a tax on reproduction (since a new brain is a new hard disk).

Downloaded brains are illegal copies of movies and song seen and heard, and thus infringe the copyright.

Ghost in the material world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12613978)

"Futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson predicts that death will be avoidable in the year 2050 by downloading your brain to a computer."

Not going to work because humanity is a manistfistation of the machine as it were (emergent behaviour). You can't seperate the two.*

*Yes I know about neural nets, but the human mind is more than a big neural net. Quantum effects may even be involved.

the process will be only available to the wealthy (0)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613990)

Is Professor Frink in charge of this project?

"I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them."

I don't get it ... (1)

galdur (829400) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613995)

Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release
What's so wrong with just, you know, dying ?

Not for you, for them (3, Interesting)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 8 years ago | (#12613997)

I lost my mom when in my early 20's, and my dad a few years ago.

Every once in a while, I wish I could ask them what to do about this or that, what they did when such and such happened, and so forth.

Sort of a Jor'El/Kal'El thing, though I usually don't need to save planets and such.

And when a spouse of 50 years dies, the other would like to talk to them.

It's no way to cheat death, but it is a way for those around you to avoid dealing with the fact that you're gone.

One positive thing (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614002)

If it will hold a human mind, it will hold an AI. If rich people will benefit from still being regarded as legally human when stored, then they will push for the kind of laws that will most likely solve the potential AI civil rights problem in the process.
We not so rich people will still have to worry about whether they really are still human. Nobody will have to worry about the legal status of Transhumans, since nothing we can anticipate there matters. What I can't figure out is why there seems to be more fear of HAL-9000 type AIs than really rich guys who have figured out how to stay in control forever.

Sci-Fi Prognostication? (1)

Skemo (886219) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614008)

Sounds exactly like the premise of Rudy Rucker's novel, Software. A story of a man who seemingly lives forever, after he downloads his brain to a huge computer. With each passing year "far-fetched" Science Fiction inches closer to reality. I think this really enforces the imaginitive genius of these writers. Progress begins with an idea, and it seems that many of the revolutionary ideas that guide scientific progress were once mere tales of Science Fiction.

Uploaded Brain in Full Control (1)

Lord Bilbo (765419) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614010)

The thing is, what will they go and download (as someone already mentioned, upload from your brain to computer) your brains to? If you have no control over where they put your deepest thoughts, you may end up being the brains behind a descendant of the ROOMBA!!!! (Now, make sure you come up with a good strategy for getting into every nook and cranny of the kitchen floor, will ya!!!

BSOD? (1)

tivoKlr (659818) | more than 8 years ago | (#12614018)

What's it going to be like when the computer that your brain is in crashes?

Who's going to reboot it? What if you don't pay your bill, will you just be on tape somewhere?

Kinda like digital purgatory.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...