I've been thinking about brain computer interfaces a lot lately since in my opinion they are the future of video games and the internet as a whole. Imagine actually being inside a video game or accessing facebook or twitter with your mind or even pulling up information from google without physically typing one word or carrying a laptop/cell phone.

I also think this would bring into affect a new open source government utilizing collective intelligence in which citizens would be able to vote on key issues with nothing more than a thought. Eventually we would be able to emulate neural networks surpassing 100 billion neurons and true artificial intelligence would be born. At this point one could simply scan their brain and live forever but all of this is very far into the future.

Except possibly a super high resolution brain scanner which would allow you to live forever on no more than a few terabytes of hard drive space! Think about, if there were a scanner capable of capturing imagines with high enough resolution to see cellular structures and what they are made of, this could [font="Arial"]conceivably be used to construct a virtual model of a human brain. In the future these images could be used to emulate the the person exactly as they were at the time of the scan.[/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"]So in conclusion, I'm wondering how many of you would be interested in such a scan if the technology were available today? I know I would jump on it in a heartbeat![/font]

why dont you add a poll ?, it will be a lot easy'er to see the results

Assuming that there exists such a scanner, it doesn't follow that there necessarily exists the technology to reconstruct a brain with the exact state as the scanned one. But assuming that there is such a technique..

Yeah, I think it's obvious that almost everyone would do it. The question is whether everyone could afford it.

I'm curious why you seem to think it would be good to have a pure democracy -- one in which everyone voted on everything. I look around this country and the average level intelligence and I thank god most these people are too lazy to get off the couch and go in to vote.

You wouldn't live forever... the copy of you on the computer might though.

You wouldn't live forever... the copy of you on the computer might though.

It's essentially the same thing but you just have to look at it from a logical prospective instead of an emotional one. It's known fact that every living cell in your body is replaced in a period of no more than 7 years. The structures and information that makes "you" are maintained but the physical living cells are gone. The structure of your brain and your DNA is information that can be stored on a hard drive. This information can be used to rebuild "you" just like the natural processes in your body do in no more than 7 years.

Assuming that there exists such a scanner, it doesn't follow that there necessarily exists the technology to reconstruct a brain with the exact state as the scanned one. But assuming that there is such a technique..

Yeah, I think it's obvious that almost everyone would do it. The question is whether everyone could afford it.

I'm curious why you seem to think it would be good to have a pure democracy -- one in which everyone voted on everything. I look around this country and the average level intelligence and I thank god most these people are too lazy to get off the couch and go in to vote.

I don't think a pure democracy would work with stupid people. This is the reason I think there should be a competency test on every vote made. Personally I also think the right to have children should be restricted which would solve the idiot problem in the long run and over population as well...

I would not want to live on a hard drive as I couldn't do anything besides exist. If there were a significantly powerful CPU attached, I would have to think about it more.

I dont want to live on a hard drive, I live a "hard" life already...ugh life sucks x(

[quote name='rip-off' timestamp='1304605971' post='4806929']
You wouldn't live forever... the copy of you on the computer might though.

It's essentially the same thing but you just have to look at it from a logical prospective instead of an emotional one. It's known fact that every living cell in your body is replaced in a period of no more than 7 years. The structures and information that makes "you" are maintained but the physical living cells are gone. The structure of your brain and your DNA is information that can be stored on a hard drive. This information can be used to rebuild "you" just like the natural processes in your body do in no more than 7 years.
[/quote]

This reminds me of something in the The Prestige (not going to put any spoilers here). I'd have to agree with rip-off. The computer version might see it that way, but I'm not sure the original who has to actual die will.

Also, how will you really know the copy of you is "you"? Given the fact that the two will co-exist at some point, wouldn't that prove it really isn't you, since from that point on it really is two separate lives making separate decisions.

It's essentially the same thing but you just have to look at it from a logical prospective instead of an emotional one.
[/quote]
Not really. I know cells get replenished, that is beside the point. I might be constantly gaining and losing cells, but from moment to moment there is a lot of continuity.

The desire to live a long life is that ones perceived state of consciousness gets to continue. If you creates an independent copy of yourself, then if it continues for a long time it doesn't change the fact that your consciousness will still lead a divergent life and eventually face a biological end. I don't know how much consolation having such a copy would provide, trapped as we are in our mortal bodies.

Marketing it as "eternal life" seems like false advertising to me.

I don't think a pure democracy would work with stupid people...
[/quote]
I don't necessarily believe the average person is stupid. That is the impression one gets from having to listen to a loud minority. I believe most people are apathetic and uninterested, stemming from the limited control they have over the decisions they care about. Direct democracy where you are voting on individual issues would probably increase political engagement and decrease apathy, if it could be done in an efficient manner. The proposed system, barring fraud concerns, would be a candidate in enabling some form of direct democracy.

It would certainly be interesting so see the outcome of such a process. I know Switzerland has some form of direct democracy but even then they are limited by the physical nature of the polling system.