yeh, i tried to mention this, but it got flagged quick. it's unbelievable that my median salary for the past decade is $3,000 after several years of "Startup" followed by "How to Start a Reboot of My Life"
I think the answer is clear: go off grid and hunker down after pilfering a 2-year supply of unregulated popcorn memes. I too seem to be coming down with a mild case of existentialitus
This is part two of a series on International Trends that will dominate the 2020's, but involves a bit of speculative futurism. Next up: Space, Transnationalism and Experimental Governance in the Post-Westphalian era.
There's some invaluable analysis into economic trends here, by the way. So if you're <ahem> responsible for investment strategy, there's some good ideas here, but they need data and lots of vetting.
#Kanye2020 I hope you'll vote for me because i'm running for president in 2020!
And i've known for some time that LE agencies in general collect "lead" information in this way, which would be otherwise inadmissible in court. However, doesn't this violate the 4th amendment? Depending on the degree to which it is used, of course.
I don't think we need to scan 100% of the brain in molecular detail in order to read & preserve the information. It should be possible to observe the circuitry at a higher level and recreate an approximation -- though it'd be just that, an approximation. Additionally, much of the information could be compressed to a much more lightweight format than digitizing the physical neural networks of the brain.
Digitizing a static physical model of the brain is problematic in itself. Many regions and structures in the brain are likely structurally dynamic. That is, the neural circuitry could change structure from day to day and this is definitely true over longer timescales. So it'd be much easier to read the data from the brain into another format rather than emulate the physical structure of the hardware.
I've thought a bit about information could be read from MRI scans such as these. In the absence of higher resolution data, I don't think there could any memories retrieved. I don't know the low-level details of how MRI data is encoded, but I do know it is recorded in slices. To retrieve memories, you'd need to read 3D regions from the brain. And it'd need to be much more high-resolution.
hmmm, good point. i think the copyright issue would be fairly complicated here ... and you'd need a good lawyer basically. it'd likely hinge on how you constructed the argument.
For the record, i wanted to post my brain online for many reasons. First of all, I did it for science of course. It'd be great for more of this data to be available online for people to study and work with.
There are many anonymized datasets available on Radiopaedia. http://radiopaedia.org/ I've spent quite a bit of time studying neurological conditions on that site and on wikipedia. Those are more useful, but anonymized. I'm not sure that there are many healthy MRI datasets available there, which makes it more difficult to statistically model MRI data.
I'm hoping to use Nipy and Dipy to create visualizations of my brain. In particular, i'm hoping to recreate some of the Diffusion Tensor Imaging work in this talk by Ariel Rokem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdrSZtB0uX0. However, i'm not sure if my DT images are high enough resolution.
I also did it for philosophical reasons. I believe that all digitized information past and present will be inevitably become known & public post facto. It's the nature of information & knowledge in our technological world to distribute itself until the world converges on total information omnipresence. So if, in the end, all [digitized] information is known, then there is no point in hiding information. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint though. obviously it's impossible for all information to converge in this way.
But this is true even of our own minds. And if our mind can be digitized from our brain, this also has interesting security implications. If you've seen the show stitchers, then you know what i mean.
Under no circumstances was this done in the name of art.
Under no circumstances was this done in the name of art.
Out of curiosity, why point this out? It's obvious that you didn't do it for a number of reasons. Hundreds, in fact. So why art?
I also did it for philosophical reasons. I believe that all digitized information past and present will be inevitably become known & public post facto. It's the nature of information & knowledge in our technological world to distribute itself until the world converges on total information omnipresence. So if, in the end, all [digitized] information is known, then there is no point in hiding information. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint though. obviously it's impossible for all information to converge in this way.
This would be the end of freedom. I'll go into the reasons if needed, but the discussion has happened a few times before. Suffice to say, if you're not allowed to have privacy, then you're not allowed to be free.
Freedom is vague, here, but I think what you want will still be possible (at least theoretically) given causality and physical distance.
Deeper freedom (that is, infinite potential) is inherent to being itself, but if what you're looking for is something more like diversity or novelty, then yes, that's contingent on perceptual subject-object duality.
Causality and physics is also what makes GP's wish near-certainty given continuing technological progress. Hiding information is going to get only harder.
Thanks for posting your scans. As noted in the issue I just made (I am @maedoc on Github), if you add the diffusion imaging scans we can virtualize your brain [1] and simulate it [2].
What strength MRI was used for the scans? 1.5T, 3T, 7T?
I doubt the scans really high enough resolution for a meaningful simulation --- I don't believe MRI scans can capture the complete connectome of a single human brain, let alone any subcellular data.
e.g. the Human Connectome Project is still working on capturing the macroscale connectome, that is, high level structures only. Recording the microscale connectome, that is, the neuronal structure, currently requires destroying the brain you're analysing.
As the research engineer on the Virtual Brain simulator to which I linked, which we apply to improve e.g. epilepsy diagnosis, I can say that those scans do have enough resolution to capture global properties of anatomy and dynamics of brain networks.
Yes, but that's just large scale structures. This wouldn't be simulating any of the features which most people find interesting about brains, i.e. the personality. It's important to make that clear. This is not a brain upload.
Personality would be expressed as interperson variability in certain parameters or connectivity of the brain model. It's not at all mystical or hiding in the subcellular structure.
Brain upload is a sci-fi invention; using a T1, DWI, fMRI, EEG and behavioral data to build a realistic model of a subject's brain is today's neuroscience.
Brain upload is a sci-fi invention; using a T1, DWI, fMRI, EEG and behavioral data to build a realistic model of a subject's brain is today's neuroscience.
I will echo this point. I don't think I've met anyone in the field of neuroimaging who sees mind uploading as plausible. There's simply too much noise in the data for that sort of thing. Even simplified simulations such as the Human Brain Project require so much computing power that modeling a single mind is prohibitive; I can't imagine trying to perform whole-brain emulation accurately and practically without incurring more cost than it's worth. Wetware is good enough for me.
> (1) Even simplified simulations such as the Human Brain Project require so much computing power that (2) modeling a single mind is prohibitive
This step from (1) to (2) is a common assumption that most people are unwilling to reconsider, but it's equally possible to reject bottom-up modeling and ask what are the high-level constraints on brain activity that shape and direct it. This is what we do with the data I mentioned (T1, EEG, etc).
You need at least 10 picometer percision to go down to the cell level (1.5L / 86 billion neurons), MRIs are 1mm according to the talk dcunit3d posted [0].
Yikes, please don't step anywhere near anyone else's medical data. That kind of "philosophy" is pretty much an imperative to violate patient and research subject privacy (and yes that is something to be protected).
You say there is no point in hiding information if it will be known eventually but "eventually" is a key point.
Almost all information, especially personally identifiable information has a temporal component to it.
For example, that record you posted opens the door for someone to find your (dcunit3d's) current address.
If you recently pissed someone off on the internet (even under a different username), knowing your current address would enable that someone to send a litany of irritating, potentially damaging stuff your way.
On the other hand, if one of your records from five years ago ends up public, the address listed on that record is most likely not where you are living now so it is of little immediate use to a would be attacker.
Another fairly well know example is the AshleyMadison hack.
In that case, the recency of a given user's record on the site made the difference in whether the hackers were able to successfully extort money from the victim.
Also, I wanted my brain to be online in a widely distributed, public manner. In case of robot apocalypse of course. Hopefully, a quantum computer in the future would have low-bandwidth write access to my brain in the past. Quantum mechanics. Then I would be one of the earliest widely-distributed, targetable maps of a human brain on the public internet. And the people of the future could avert a worldwide AI disaster by pinging memories directly into layers of my brain. A la Steins;Gate, if haven't seen it, you should.
Humble neuroinformatics lab knave here. While it's nice that you've made your data available, you might want to reconsider including the PHI. Many researchers are not interested in your phone number / where you live past the recruitment stage, and even then that information is kept confidential in accordance with IRB policies and HIPAA. The only data that a researcher might want to know is whether there are any phenotypes associated with your data (e.g., autism, ADHD, other stable traits, etc) or, in the case of task-related data, when certain blocks or events started/stopped and for how long. Even with phenotyping data, we are very cautious about how we go about sharing since we don't want to violate anyone's privacy (see here: http://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/enhanced/sharing.ht...). This is very important for individuals with conditions that are stigmatized in society- we don't want to make someone's life worse by outing them as being autistic, bipolar or depressed for instance.
In light of what I've said above, I will also express my disagreement with your philosophy. I do not believe that is natural for information to converge to a single point- in fact, many corporations rely on information asymmetries to gain an upper-hand in the market. The internet may reduce such information asymmetry, but it is unlikely that it will eliminate it completely (unless humanity turns into the Borg and creates a hive mind). Indeed so long as human thought is decentralized with separate minds in separate bodies, information asymmetry will remain the default.
Moving along, I want to note that a chief goal of science is to seek truths that are generalizable to the population at large. A single DTI series isn't really useful for achieving that goal since you can't determine how it relates to scans from a number of other participants(i.e., a 1st-level analysis is not a 2nd-level analysis; a case study is not a wider truth about cognition). In that sense, it might be better to see if there is a databank willing to accept your scan and donate your data to that so that you could be part of a broader sample.
More pragmatically, you might also want to consider using the NifTI format for your data, since this is the format that researchers use when processing data in various neuroimaging suites (i.e., Freesurfer, AFNI, SPM, FSL, etc). You may also want to consider organizing your data according to the Brain Imaging Data Structure standard, as many datasets are moving towards this (http://bids.neuroimaging.io/) and software tools are being written to take advantage of this structure.
Finally:
Under no circumstances was this done in the name of art.
it was in the name of science, of course! i'm pleasantly surprised to see some of the discussions on here, concerning copyright and health data ownership. =]
i was aware of the privacy implications. i briefly looked at the data in osirix that i would be exposing and decided that it was worth it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36561808
it's a 429 error, so the developer who posted this is an idiot. they're not even wrong. the 429 doesn't even touch twitter's infrastructure
https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastruc...