I feel like it'd just be making a copy of your consciousness, not truly transferring it. It'd be an exact duplicate, but you'd still be stuck in your own brain.
Kinda like how in Star Trek, some people think the transporter is just making an identical duplicate of you, while simultaneously vaporizing you on the pad.
I feel like it'd just be making a copy of your consciousness, not truly transferring it. It'd be an exact duplicate, but you'd still be stuck in your own brain.
Exactly. That's a mistake a lot of people make when they think of 'mind uploading'. The idea is just to make a copy of your brain patterns. Actually transferring your own consciousness onto a computer is a whole different ball game.
I feel like it'd just be making a copy of your consciousness, not truly transferring it. It'd be an exact duplicate, but you'd still be stuck in your own brain.
Kinda like how in Star Trek, some people think the transporter is just making an identical duplicate of you, while simultaneously vaporizing you on the pad.
Our consciousness isnt just the electrical signals its the chemicals as well. Also they reckon there's stuff going on inside the neurons good luck getting at that without destroying the brain. Downloading will never happen.
-If by 'near future' you mean the next 20 years, then you're probably right. Mind uploading will only be possible once the reverse engineering of the brain is complete, which is another 15-20 years away at least. We certainly can't do it now, and I'm not sure what year Trancendence takes place in.
-Even if we upload a mind, we don't know if it's "conscious". Consciousness is subjective, so only the uploaded mind would know. But that doesn't mean we can't simply record the patterns of the brain (once we understand it better) and then upload that onto a computer, thus creating artificial intelligence. That's all it is. Will that copy of you be conscious? Who knows.
Was very much looking forward to this film... until I saw the trailers. The reviews sum up exactly how I felt after seeing the trailers. Lost all interest in seeing it.
I was initially excited by the idea of Wally Pfister turning director but after seeing the trailers for Transcendence I lost all interest. These reviews are pretty much what I expected.
saw this last night... neat idea but executed poorly.
I felt as if they had this grand vision, but it just didnt pay off, and you never really had a reason to root against Johnny Depp's character, and that is where the film is fundamentally flawed... story spoilers below for a reason why:
So throughout the movie they wonder if it's actually Depp in the AI or not, and near the end of the film his wife essentially realizes it was him all along and that his intention all along was to make her dream come true (save the planet, make the world a better place)... the problem is, this is what we were seeing the entire time.. He was making nano tech that would heal plants, purify water, remove pollution, and make the human race better.
There was nothing Depp's character was doing (aside from the networking humans bit.. more on that in a sec) that actively made me think he had any ill intentions. The anti-AI group that killed a lot of researchers at the beginning of the film, and were meant to be a rebel force throughout the film were more of a villian to me than Depp was. There was no 'skynet' type maliciousness apparent in Depp's AI at all.
So, that networking humans bit.. any time Depp would heal someone via the use of his nano bots, they'd essentially become part of a larger collective of consciousness (a la the borg), but they still maintained their individuality and autonomy. This comes into play when the anti-AI rebels come and try to bomb the data center where the research is being performed.. Every one of the networked people essentially defend the complex, and turn into T-1000's from T2... healing after being shot, running after cars, etc.. It's the turning point of where the movie goes from promising to disappointing, actually.
So, after all the battle and the heartache and worry about how powerful he's becoming, nothing really ever comes of it. The system is beat, the internet gets destroyed, and the world continues on. But the leap from taking out the AI to taking out all electronics is ill explained.. Why didn't they just throw fresh hard drives in all the affected computers? Install windows from a CD. It was already shown that when the AI was eliminated, all the nano tech became dormant... it's not like they're just waiting for electricity again.
There were a lot of plot holes in that regard, matters of convenience and just a lazy way to wrap up this concept of a film. It wasn't BAD by any means, but it wasn't great.. it was a middle of the road film that could have been much better in execution.
If it had turned out that it wasn't Depp's character all along, and that it was just an approximation, I could see the rationale for shutting him down. But otherwise, they've essentially killed a man, twice, just because he was helping heal the world.
Oh, and one last bit about the networked people -- I can see that being one argument for shutting him down, as no one person should have control over people like that.. but on the flip side, if everyone on the planet were networked, and still autonomous and maintaining their individuality (As was mentioned in the film), there would be no more conflict, no more war, no more anything that would cause suffering. And, everyone would be healthier and stronger, and better. The possibilities there outweigh the fearmongering from the anti AI group.
I know the above looks like a book, but a tl;dr non-spoiler summary: The movie had no real villian, and no real climax. The rationale for being on one side of the debate or the other was not presented well enough for the way the movie played out to be satisfying in any way. You were never against what was meant to be 'wrong' in the world the film portrayed.
Not a bad film, but not a great film. Watch it on a sunday afternoon or wait for it on demand.
I know the above looks like a book, but a tl;dr non-spoiler summary: The movie had no real villian, and no real climax. The rationale for being on one side of the debate or the other was not presented well enough for the way the movie played out to be satisfying in any way. You were never against what was meant to be 'wrong' in the world the film portrayed.
I think that was the twist. I haven't watched it, but I did read the script.
You're supposed to be rooting for the humans throughout the film until you realize the AI was right all along, and the HUMANS are the real villains here, because they turned down the AI's gifts and started all the violence purely out of fear. Apparently the script goes as far as pointing out how the AI killed no one during the fighting.
Our consciousness isnt just the electrical signals its the chemicals as well. Also they reckon there's stuff going on inside the neurons good luck getting at that without destroying the brain. Downloading will never happen.
Downloading in the form of copying will probably happen.
Uploading, trying to somehow transfer the locus of your consciousness, yeah... I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Because our consciousness don't actually exist, we only imagine we are conscious when we in fact are the total sum of inputs cascading into a pattern which includes believing it is a pattern that recognizes itself.
We are the fragments of the universe foolish enough to believe we are more than fragments.
Downloading in the form of copying will probably happen.
Uploading, trying to somehow transfer the locus of your consciousness, yeah... I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Because our consciousness don't actually exist, we only imagine we are conscious when we in fact are the total sum of inputs cascading into a pattern which includes believing it is a pattern that recognizes itself.
We are the fragments of the universe foolish enough to believe we are more than fragments.
The problem is, even if it happened... how could you prove it?
To all outside observers, it might look like the consciousness had been transferred, when the reality was it had merely been replicated, while the original consciousness had been extinguished. The only one who would know differently would be dead.
The problem is, even if it happened... how could you prove it?
To all outside observers, it might look like the consciousness had been transferred, when the reality was it had merely been replicated, while the original consciousness had been extinguished. The only one who would know differently would be dead.
Our consciousness isnt just the electrical signals its the chemicals as well. Also they reckon there's stuff going on inside the neurons good luck getting at that without destroying the brain. Downloading will never happen.
Assuming I am correct in thinking that oxygen is delivered to neurons by red blood cells, in theory, could the entire wiring of the brain not be mapped by nanites, which would also need to measure the current required to fire each neuron. Sometime in the future, this doesn't seem like an entirely impossible task.
Trying to "capture" someone's consciousness externally, as depicted in the movie, is likely a total non-starter, because you are only mapping the brain's response to simple stimuli (e.g. a face) as opposed to mapping the brain's entire circuitry.
I don't think that the two of them are on bad terms or anything like that, so it would be a combination of how poorly this film will do and whatever both men have lined up once Interstellar is in the can. As I mentioned, Nolan is working with Hoyte van Hoytema, who has already turned in amazing work in the field, and if both of them hit it off on that film, it could mean trouble for Pfister.
I don't think that the two of them are on bad terms or anything like that, so it would be a combination of how poorly this film will do and whatever both men have lined up once Interstellar is in the can. As I mentioned, Nolan is working with Hoyte van Hoytema, who has already turned in amazing work in the field, and if both of them hit it off on that film, it could mean trouble for Pfister.
I'm mostly joking but as you stated van Hoytema seems very capable of tackling many genres or whatever Nolan asks of him. In hindsight, it was probably not the best idea for Pfister to direct a picture of this type with the stars involved for a directorial debut. Hope the guy comes out of it okay.
Plenty of movies in Hollywood need a quality cinematographer. He did Moneyball with Bennett Miller. Even if Nolan doesn't need him, he'll be fine with finding work.
No wonder I couldn't find a thread on this either on the forum or google, the title is swapped around. > *edit* Thanks mysterious mod!
So, I watched Transcendence. These comments should be mostly spoiler-free since they are general or are about things that happen right at the start. I will still mark them as spoilers just in case.
First off, I am not really commenting either way on whether things were realistic or whether there were plot holes in the technology that would be involved, since I basically treated it as scifi/fantasy and I don't think that sort of thing usually bothers me.
The bad: I disliked how the movie seemed to basically portray people carrying out organized plots
to (successfully) KILL academic researchers
as good, or even heroic...not even because of what they had done, but because of what they were AFRAID would happen. It reminds me uncomfortably of the class war going on with people destroying property or assaulting others in the Silicon Valley / Google areas.
The funny: My understanding is that a long-time cinematographer directed this movie, and it shows. It's chock full of entertaining experimental-film style crazy camera shots and effects. Super depth of field, BAM! Slow-motion water droplet, POW! Slow, long shot with everything out of focus, BOOM!
The good: I thought Rebecca Hall was pretty much a perfect choice for this. (Oh hey, she was in the Prestige, a movie I liked.) She did a decent job of portraying the love, conflict, sadness, fear, and hope that might be involved in that sort of situation. Johnny Depp was decent, though of course it feels sort of weird to have Jack Sparrow even trying a serious movie.
Overall, certainly not an awesome movie, but treated as a sad love story that provokes some thought about technology, it has some poignancy.
*edit* I see other people also felt the same way about disliking the anti-AI people, and noticing the Batman cameos. I was like, I swear that's Scarecrow...
Should I check this out GAF? I didn't see anything for this movie until I saw the trailer for the first time when I saw Captain America a few weeks ago, and even then it didn't grab me.
Sure I can see it for free, but is it worth my time?
Should I check this out GAF? I didn't see anything for this movie until I saw the trailer for the first time when I saw Captain America a few weeks ago, and even then it didn't grab me.
Sure I can see it for free, but is it worth my time?
How would we know, without knowing what sort of movies you enjoy?
If you want a slow, sad love story involving artificial intelligence, and you have a couple of hours to spare, sure. If you weren't interested having seen the trailer, and you're aware the reviews are horrible, you should probably avoid it.
The funny: My understanding is that a long-time cinematographer directed this movie, and it shows. It's chock full of entertaining experimental-film style crazy camera shots and effects. Super depth of field, BAM! Slow-motion water droplet, POW! Slow, long shot with everything out of focus, BOOM!
I don't think that the two of them are on bad terms or anything like that, so it would be a combination of how poorly this film will do and whatever both men have lined up once Interstellar is in the can. As I mentioned, Nolan is working with Hoyte van Hoytema, who has already turned in amazing work in the field, and if both of them hit it off on that film, it could mean trouble for Pfister.
How would we know, without knowing what sort of movies you enjoy?
If you want a slow, sad love story involving artificial intelligence, and you have a couple of hours to spare, sure. If you weren't interested having seen the trailer, and you're aware the reviews are horrible, you should probably avoid it.
I think that was the twist. I haven't watched it, but I did read the script.
You're supposed to be rooting for the humans throughout the film until you realize the AI was right all along, and the HUMANS are the real villains here, because they turned down the AI's gifts and started all the violence purely out of fear. Apparently the script goes as far as pointing out how the AI killed no one during the fighting.
Assuming I am correct in thinking that oxygen is delivered to neurons by red blood cells, in theory, could the entire wiring of the brain not be mapped by nanites, which would also need to measure the current required to fire each neuron. Sometime in the future, this doesn't seem like an entirely impossible task.
Trying to "capture" someone's consciousness externally, as depicted in the movie, is likely a total non-starter, because you are only mapping the brain's response to simple stimuli (e.g. a face) as opposed to mapping the brain's entire circuitry.
Yeah I think going physically inside the brain and mapping would likely be the only viable solution(if there is one at all), but we dont know what exactly is significant. There is different kinds of neurons with different shapes. The currents required for neurons to fire can change. The brain can rewire itself.
Also not to mention are we all our brain. There's a neuron structure in our stomach, feedback loops between the heart and brain. Its a biological system with all kinds of mess that makes no sense but for some reason has to be that way for it work.
I doubt we're going to be able get in there and record things with enough accuracy without damaging and changing things.
Thinking about it, how would you even translate it to something that is able to interact inside a computer. Even if you could put it into a computer the data would not suddenly become digital and be able to interact in its digital world. It would just be inert lifeless data, in the form of a brain, that wouldnt be able to see, talk or hear, it wouldnt be conscious.
Yeah I think going physically inside the brain and mapping would likely be the only viable solution(if there is one at all), but we dont know what exactly is significant. There is different kinds of neurons with different shapes. The currents required for neurons to fire can change. The brain can rewire itself.
Also not to mention are we all our brain. There's a neuron structure in our stomach, feedback loops between the heart and brain. Its a biological system with all kinds of mess that makes no sense but for some reason has to be that way for it work.
I doubt we're going to be able get in there and record things with enough accuracy without damaging and changing things.
Thinking about it, how would you even translate it to something that is able to interact inside a computer. Even if you could put it into a computer the data would not suddenly become digital and be able to interact in its digital world. It would just be inert lifeless data, in the form of a brain, that wouldnt be able to see, talk or hear, it wouldnt be conscious.
One must allow for some leeway in technical absurdities to allow a story teller to weave their ideas.
If we sat around and picked apart all the technical and physical inaccuracies of all movies, we'd have a very limited breadth of movies that we consider 'acceptable'.
Still, some ideas are so absurd that they deserve to be roundly criticized as anti-intellectual buffoonery.
Like Lucy... "We only use 10% of the human brain" ... "this drug has allowed me to use 27% - I can now see the chi in all things in the world"... *uses psychic/telekinetic powers*. *starts motherfucking shapeshifting*.
Limitless is the limit to my willingness to accept the brain enhancement premise (without jacking into super computers like Transcendence).
One must allow for some leeway in technical absurdities to allow a story teller to weave their ideas.
If we sat around and picked apart all the technical and physical inaccuracies of all movies, we'd have a very limited breadth of movies that we consider 'acceptable'.
Still, some ideas are so absurd that they deserve to be roundly criticized as anti-intellectual buffoonery.
Like Lucy... "We only use 10% of the human brain" ... "this drug has allowed me to use 27% - I can now see the chi in all things in the world"... *uses psychic/telekinetic powers*. *starts motherfucking shapeshifting*.
Limitless is the limit to my willingness to accept the brain enhancement premise (without jacking into super computers like Transcendence).
I wasnt specifically criticising the film, just speaking/theorizing in general about the plausibility of uploading your brain. I dont mind implausible plots as long as they dont go into the extremely stupid as you say the 10% myth. "Yes we found this woman, who only uses 10% of her brain, watch as we give her this drug that makes her a normal functioning human." lol. and I like Limitless.
