[ExI] The Parallel Man

[Ben Zaiboc]

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> This is a classical in vivo incremental uploading
> scenario.

Hmm.

> Notice that the hardware will have considerable bulk and
> power
> footprint, and will utilize numerical methods we do not
> yet
> have.

OK, possibly.

 
> Sorry, this is bogus. Instead of active grid probe spaced
> every micron
> apart or less and in-situ online processing you're suddenly
> dealing
> with an unphysical load of I/O. I/O is OPS/s, it takes J/s,
> and the
> infrastructure for it is both bulky and invasive.

I'm not sure if I'm just not expressing the idea very well, or if I don't actually understand what the idea is in the first place!

Forget the 'shutting off' idea, that just muddies things.

I am admittedly assuming that it's neural spikes that are important, and disregarding things like chemical gradients.  Maybe that's naive, maybe not.  It's still a worthwhile experiment, I think, even if it just established that the assumption is wrong.

At the risk of people rolling their eyes and saying "Yes, we *know* what you mean, Ben, but it still won't work!":

Imagine each neuron has a molecule (or molecular assembly, trans-membrane protein, whatever), that changes state when the neuron depolarises, in a way that is detectable to an external scanner (so this is a passive signal, no energy is needed for transmission), and in a way that uniquely identifies the neuron.  A model of neuron firings could then be built up in an external system that is very accurate, and could be said to be a passive copy of the functioning of the brain.

Also imagine a second mechanism, maybe an ion channel, that can reliably depolarise the cell when it's activated.  This also knows which cell it's in, and only activates in response to a specific coded signal from outside the brain (oscillating magnetic field or whatever).

So, would these combined mechanisms constitute a practical two-way neural interface?  (forget mind emulation, etc., just concentrate on the idea of an interface).  I understand that the external equipment would be bulky, and it might not be practical except in a purpose-built room, with the subject immobile in a special apparatus, etc.

Or, would just one of them work?  Even a one-way interface would be well worth the trouble.

> 
> Meanwhile, people are dying, and turn to carbon dioxide.
> Unnecessarily so.
> A classical case of misplaced priorities.

Sorry, you've lost me altogether here.

 
> Neurons are not the objects you're looking at.

Is this a Jedi mind-trick?  Not sure what you mean.  I shouldn't be looking at neurons?  This technique won't be looking at them?


> Don't spend too much time on this. It's not going to work.

Well, it's my time to spend.  I want to at least understand /why/ it's not going to work, if it's not.  And maybe thereby get an idea of what might work.

Ben Zaiboc