Ask David Eagleman discussion

If you have a question, please ask it in this thread. I'll be answering questions July 11 - 15, 2011.

What are the major hurdles to "uploading" a human brain (memories) as seen in so many science fiction stories?


Could you also please elaborate on the current knowledge regarding how we store memories?

What would you like to know about attention?

Hi. With new research showing that mouse memory can be improved using chips implanted in the brain, what is your opinion of augmenting human memory? Do you think that this technology will be a help or a hindrance? Are the limitations on our memory purposeful? Thanks.

With regard to uploading human minds; do you believe that time will play any part?

How does the brain influence what we listen to/for as well as what we ignore? Is that selection process a habit we've cultivated over time, and if so, can that habit be modified? How? Love your work.

If you could have the answer to any question, which one would it be?

Do you think there is a way to utilize this part of our brain in creative endeavors -- or that it could answer the age old question of where do you get your ideas?

Also--

There have been studies that show eye witness accounts are unreliable, do you think your investigation could shed light on how to get more accurate recall?

In the case of Dementia, is there any chance of reversal or the lessening or slowing of the deterioration of cognitive impairment. Are there any records of success with Namenda, Risperidol, or denocipril(Aricept)? What about Gingo Biloba?

Hi David!

I would like to start by saying Sum is my Favorite book, and I don't think I'll ever get tired of reading it. It seems to surpass anything our conditioned brains could comprehend, and I want to thank you for sharing it with us.

My question: what do you really think happens to people when they die, and, given an option, what would you want your afterlife to be like and why?

I loved Sum, but I kept returning to a central thought. What do you think are the bounds of human imagination? Are there futures, life forms, parallel worlds, inventions that we truly cannot dream up? Was Hamlet right?

I read Incognito & loved it. Working on Sum. I have turned into a neuroscience junkey as result.

I have two questions.

1) I read recently that the triune brain model, popularized by Carl Sagan's Dragon's of Eden, has largely been abandoned by neuroscience. What replaced it and why?

2) In the July 2011 issue of Scientific American in the "The Limits of Intelligence" Douglas Fox offers some convincing arguments that the evolution of the human intelligence may be close to its physical limits. Do you agree? Is this a concern? Fox's arguments ran on physical problems (hardware). Is there something in the software world, methodologies of thought or learning, where we could in your terms "burn" some forms of learning or thought into the "automatic zombie subroutines"? If we are stuck in hardware space as a species, can we develop better software to utilize the existing hardware?

Neuroscience is such a fascinating and complex subject, with seemingly endless ramifications for our understanding of ourselves, that I have to ask (as an aspiring writer)...

How do you control the scope of a book like Incognito so that you don't end up writing something that's 2-3000 pages long?

David, I remember meeting you when you were at the Salk and I was applying to the UCSD neuro Ph.D. program. Congrats on doing so well with your dual careers!

2 questions:
-Do you think science is less trusted than it used to be, in terms of leading to the truth? If so, why?

-All of us scientists probably need to get better at general communication outside of our own fields. What do you think are the most important ideas for us to communicate clearly? Any advice?

Janet, I couldn't help but put in my professional 2 cents on the issue of scientists and communication. I find that it is generally not output, or talking, that is the problem, it's listening. Anyone, scientists included, who doesn't take in available information, fails to ask questions directed at others), and pays attention only through his habitual filters, probably isn't really communicating--pontificating maybe, but not interacting.

I have one more question. My father believed that we 'inherited' memories the way some people inherit blue eyes. He thought that we just lacked the ability to access them. Is there any evidence of this? Or do we just inherit the hardware? Just curious.

Brian wrote: "What are the major hurdles to "uploading" a human brain (memories) as seen in so many science fiction stories?

There are three hurdles: one technological, one empirical, one theoretical.
The technological hurdle is coming up with enough computational power to simulate the massive complexity of the human brain. Prognosis: this hurdle will be quickly surmounted by the pace of technology.
The empirical issue is the problem of understanding which are the important details to 'copy' about the brain. Do we need to replicate a map of all the neurons and their connections? Or additionally the states of the proteins in the cell membranes? Or also the biochemical cascades inside the neurons? And so on. For more on this issue, see a short essay I wrote called Silicon Immortality: Downloading Consciousness into Computers.
The final hurdle is a theoretical one. We assume that if we replicate the pieces and parts of the brain (and the software programs running on top) then we will have something equivalent to the experience of being that person. Although the arrows of our current knowledge point in that direction, we have no real proof, at this moment in history, that this will actually work. Like every generation of scientists, we might be missing big pieces of the puzzle.

Jesse wrote: "What would you like to know about attention?"

I would like the neuroscience community to be able to figure out a good definition of attention. The word is often used in a circular manner: in half the papers, attention is what increases the firing rates of neurons; in the other half, the increased firing rates causes (or is) attention. There is still a good deal to be understood here.

dirt wrote: "Hi. With new research showing that mouse memory can be improved using chips implanted in the brain, what is your opinion of augmenting human memory? Do you think that this technology will be a he..."

We'll likely to be able to augment human memory someday, but I doubt it will be via chips. There are several issues here: the first is that brains have a lot of territory to cover, and chips only measure a handful of neurons (even up to, say, a hundred or so). That would be like trying to measure the sentiment of the planet by asking 3 people their opinion. One should also note with the mouse study that a particular 'memory' (in this case, which of 2 levers to press) had to be recorded first, and then played back in via electrical stimulation. This would have obvious limitations for wanting to pull up arbitrary memories in a human, and it sheds no light at all on how to teach something new (like Trinity downloading the instructions for flying a helicopter).
If you're interested in more on this topic, I recently spoke about it on NPR's Fresh Air: episode.

Ch.J. wrote: "With regard to uploading human minds; do you believe that time will play any part?"

Glad you asked - that's a part of my next two books (one fiction, one non-fiction). The short answer is that once we're able to run a simulation of a brain, then we can run it at any speed. We can simulate 30 years of your existence in 30 seconds of run-time. Or vice versa.
In general, time is absolutely necessary for a simulated consciousness. Otherwise one has no change, and therefore no experience as we would recognize it.

Marian wrote: "How does the brain influence what we listen to/for as well as what we ignore? Is that selection process a habit we've cultivated over time, and if so, can that habit be modified? How? Love your..."

Indeed, everything is passed through our filters. The filters presumably come from a complicated interaction of genetics and experience, making us who we are and defining the sorts of issues we care about in the world. I do think these things can change, but only when long-term parts of our brains want them to.

Sarah wrote: "If you could have the answer to any question, which one would it be?"

Are there entire civilizations living in other dimensions of time or space that we can't see?

Aticodejon wrote: ""Incognito" is still on my 'to-read' shelf, so the answer may well be in it, but just in case: my uneducated hunch is before progressing past the next huge wall in scientific knowledge we need to f..."

I couldn't agree with you more, and that's why about half of my lab's research is devoted to understanding time. For more on this topic, please see any of my scientific publications, and/or see a popular science essay I wrote called Brain Time.

Julia wrote: "There have been studies that show eye witness accounts are unreliable, do you think your investigation could shed light on how to get more accurate recall? "

Unfortunately there is no known way to make memories more reliable. Scary, salient memories (such as those laid down during a traumatic event) are more difficult to erase from the brain, but they have been shown to be no more reliable than normal memories. Memory is not like a video recorder; instead the reconstruction of an experience is tied in to one's experiences, expectations, and prejudices.

David wrote: "Brian wrote: "What are the major hurdles to "uploading" a human brain (memories) as seen in so many science fiction stories?

There are three hurdles: one technological, one
empirical, one theoret..."

I am reminded of a quote by Woody Allen, “I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.”

Let's assume that we can upload 100% of a person's mind into a computer. That is all well and good for the new me churning away in the latest Intel chip, but the same old flesh and blood me here in this biological bag is still going to be faced with death and taxes. I am not sure that I find much comfort in knowing that some other me will live on, but the me that is the me right now making the decision to upload or not is either not going to survive the process or will live in a parallel existence and still face death. I guess it comes down to what is me? Is there anyway around this? This might make a chapter in Sum II. "In the afterlife all the souls can sit in Intel's Corporate headquarters and monitor their mind's continuing existence in the cloud..."

BTW this discussion group is totally cool. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this.

Neon Bible Thumper wrote: "I would like to start by saying Sum is my Favorite book, and I don't think I'll ever get tired of reading it. It seems to surpass anything our conditioned brains could comprehend, and I want to thank you for sharing it with us. My question: what do you really think happens to people when they die, and, given an option, what would you want your afterlife to be like and why?"

Thanks for your kind words. I've gotten the question about afterlives a lot since writing Sum. Of course, my answer is that -- like everyone -- I have no idea what happens. It's one of the great unknowns, a question for which we as a scientific community have no ability at the moment to do experiments or gather meaningful data. Many neuroscientists will argue that we shut off when the brain shuts off, and that's likely to be true -- but truthfully we don't know that with certainty. (I address this point in detail in the final chapter of Incognito, in the section about what we can and cannot conclude from our current biological knowledge). Therefore the afterlife remains in the realm of imagination and literature.
As for what I would want my afterlife to be like: I suspect that living forever could have the potential to be pretty awful. Perhaps my ideal afterlife would be any one in which we get to rise above time and are no longer slave to it.

Mr. Eagleman,

Your book, Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives, is an amazing piece of literature. I was blown away by the creativity of the book as well as the scope of theories covered. I have only read it once so far. But, I plan to read it many times.

How did you come up with the idea for Sum? Also, what were the easiest and hardest concepts for you to explore?

Thank you for creating what I consider to be a masterpiece. I remain astounded.

Faith

Heron wrote: "I loved Sum, but I kept returning to a central thought. What do you think are the bounds of human imagination? Are there futures, life forms, parallel worlds, inventions that we truly cannot dream up? Was Hamlet right?"

Indeed, there are limits to the kinds of thoughts we can think. In the same way that our spleen, skin and hearts have been carved by evolutionary pressures, so has our psyche. And that means there are whole categories of thoughts that are unthinkable, and others that we are funneled into. Chapter 4 of Incognito is all about this topic, which I call the "thought umwelt". (For more on the concept of the umwelt, see a short essay here).

Nova wrote: "I read recently that the triune brain model, popularized by Carl Sagan's Dragon's of Eden, has largely been abandoned by neuroscience. What replaced it and why?"

The spirit of the model -- that there are multiple, competing parts of the brain -- stands strong. The details haven't been specifically supported by modern neuroanatomy.

Nova also wrote: "Douglas Fox offers some convincing arguments that the evolution of the human intelligence may be close to its physical limits. Do you agree? Is this a concern? Fox's arguments ran on physical problems (hardware)...."

We probably are coming up against our brain-hardware limits. However, we are getting so much better at offloading data into the cloud around us (books, experts, hard drives, Wikipedia, Google, etc) that we can clear up a great deal of neural space for optimizing how to think rather than filling that space with memorized, just-in-case material.

Neil wrote: "How do you control the scope of a book like Incognito so that you don't end up writing something that's 2-3000 pages long?"

The more we understand about a topic, the shorter our books can become. There is a standard book in the field called "Principles of Neuroscience", and it runs over a thousand pages. To my mind, this tells us that the title is incorrect. If we understood the principles of the brain, the book would be much shorter.
If we do our job correctly, then in a century that book should be the length of a pamphlet. In two centuries, a haiku.

Are there really flash backs, and if so, are there flash forwards?

Janet wrote: "Do you think science is less trusted than it used to be, in terms of leading to the truth? If so, why?"

I don't have the impression that it's less trusted. If anything, I sometimes worry that it's too trusted. Scientists are generally careful thinkers, but sometimes the interaction of science with the media makes a hypothesis seem like gospel. I often hear people say things like "it's been scientifically proven that... [some opinion here]". I always stop to point out that we don't actually use terms like "proven" in science -- because all we ever have are the best narratives of the moment, but narratives that we recognize will shift and change. I don't have the impression that the changeability of science is always recognized by the wider community.

Janet wrote: "All of us scientists probably need to get better at general communication outside of our own fields. What do you think are the most important ideas for us to communicate clearly? Any advice?"

Many ideas in science matter for education, legislation, and domestic and international policy. It is critical to (carefully and with nuance) get the word out about what's happening in the labs that might reflect on these.

As someone with a background in both philosophy/science and decades of meditatively simply observing whatever is available to awareness, both 'outwardly' and 'inwardly,' I'm puzzled by how little conversation there is between neuroscience on the one hand and the meditation-centered wisdom traditions on the other. What is your view on the value of such a conversation? Is there perhaps much more available to conscious awareness than we might think? Including that no actual 'CEO' or 'doer' can be found?

I was blown away by the profile of you in the New Yorker recently. I ended up reading pretty much the entire article aloud to anyone who would listen. I really found your ideas on time fascinating. I was also wondering, having seen the story on superior autobiographical memory on 60 Minutes, what you think of this phenomenon. I believe Lesley Stahl said this was only a recent development, there is not a lot of historical examples of it. I read Jill Price's book on it and was interested in how she had a concept of how the memory was logically ordered day by day in her head. Do you think it is the way it is organized that allows such a brain to retain memories so well?

Does Deja-Vu actually exist? If so, how does it work?

David wrote: Chapter 4 of Incognito is all about this topic, which I call the "thought umwelt". (For more on the concept of the umwelt, see a short essay here).

I read the essay and enjoyed it, but I'd like to push back a little. You cite several examples of those who cannot see beyond the limits of their umwelt: the color blind, the congenitally blind, those hard of smelling. Yet, as you mention, these individuals can be made aware of their limitations, their umwelt, and those the possibilities beyond the umwelt. Doesn't the fact that "limited" individuals can be made aware of their umwelt belie the existence of the umwelt. In other words: if there are things beyond the limits of our collective imagination, wouldn't it be possible for members of the human race, who can imagine a little further in one direction, show us what we are missing? Are the edges of an umwelt fuzzy?

If we can show other humans that they are color blind, surely we can show each other that there is more than we "collectively" imagine?

As an English Ph.D., and a creative writer, I'd like to know where you see SUM existing on the continuum of literary history. I suspect you were influenced by Calvino's INVISIBLE CITIES, and I would be curious to know your opinion on the works of the Oulipo. I published a book with a structure similar to Sum and Cities, called CLOCKFIRE, and while researching it was also impressed by books like EINSTEIN'S DREAMS. Another excellent book in this vague genre is THE LOST BOOKS OF THE ODYSSEY. I'm wondering, to what degree were you aware of writing within this vague genre of Calvino-esque books while composing Sum? What do you value most in literature? Perhaps more on topic, what has your research in neuroscience taught you about literature?

Hi David
Im sure you will have been asked this question many times before but if you hadnt had that fall as a kid do you think you would have spent so much of your life studying 'time'.. or would you.. with your enquiring mind have got there anyway through some other 'accidental' event?
Loved Sum by the way and its been a pleasure to read this post.. thank you for your time!!

What are some of the most exciting neurological enhancement gadgets the average person can look forward to enjoying in the next 10 years?

Also, do you think that brain training programs can improve function in everyday life (not just in the brain training program's assessment tests)? If so, what do you think are the components of a good brain training program--if we would like to enhance specific skills and not just play neurological pong?

Thanks--it's been great to read your responses.

Nova wrote: "I am not sure that I find much comfort in knowing that some other me will live on, but the me that is the me right now making the decision to upload or not is either not going to survive the process or will live in a parallel existence and still face death."

I agree, but note that this is similar to the situation we enter every night upon going to sleep: our consciousness dies, and when we wake up in the morning the creature that gets out of bed assumes it the same as the one that went to sleep. Is this really so different from Kirk stepping into the transporter, getting pulverized into molecules, and getting reconstituted somewhere else? Or you getting destroyed and simultaneously uploaded into a computer simulation? In this sense we already have experience with this conundrum...

Faith wrote: "Your book, Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives, is an amazing piece of literature.... How did you come up with the idea for Sum? Also, what were the easiest and hardest concepts for you to explore? "

Thank you for your kind words, Faith. I think the seed of SUM started when I was a child and asked a rabbi about the Jewish view of an afterlife. He said, "well, you ask two Jews, you'll get three opinions." The liberation-from-dogma inherent in that answer stuck with me powerfully, and the book grew into shape slowly over the course of many years.
All the stories have elements of easy things and hard bits. The latter typically make their appearances right at the end of the story; those are the ones that hit you in the gut and make you realize what the story was about all along.

D wrote: "I'm puzzled by how little conversation there is between neuroscience on the one hand and the meditation-centered wisdom traditions on the other."

Happily, there is an increasing amount of crosstalk between these fields. Several of my neuroscience colleagues have been studying the neural basis of meditative states and mindfulness. To name a few, I'd point to Richard Davidson, Read Montague, and Jonathan Downar. And one of my colleagues in Germany, Thomas Metzinger, wants to get legislation passed that would require meditation for all elementary school students; he insists it should be part of their 'brain toolkit.' And you may know that the Dalai Lama has played an important role in bridging these fields: he's a big fan of neuroscience.

Roseanne wrote: "I was blown away by the profile of you in the New Yorker recently.... I was also wondering, having seen the story on superior autobiographical memory on 60 Minutes, what you think of this phenomenon."

As far as my colleagues and I can tell, all the people with superior autobiographical memory also have synesthesia. The synesthesia helps them to link events to spatial layouts, which makes it easier to recall (in the same way that poems are difficult to memorize, while lyrics to a song are easy because of the extra dimension to hook the words to). For more on this idea, see Simner at al (2009) A foundation for savantism? Visuo-spatial synaesthetes present with cognitive benefits.
For those who think they might have synesthesia and want to test themselves, please take the online tests developed by my laboratory at The Synesthesia Battery.

Jonathan wrote: "I'd like to know where you see SUM existing on the continuum of literary history...."

Indeed, your guesses are correct: I've always had a great love for non-traditional storytellers such as Calvino, Borges, Garcia Marquez, Lightman, and so on. I was certainly aware of these influences while writing SUM, and I was also aware of moving into new ground.
You asked what my research in neuroscience has taught me about literature. It has taught me that science often deserves a place at the table in conversations about our most important life-concerns. Further, my science life and writing life have many similarities: they both involve making up stories: competing stories, incompatible stories, often wrong stories. In science, this is the only way forward. Same with literature.

Fenella wrote: "if you hadn't had that fall as a kid do you think you would have spent so much of your life studying 'time'..."

Such an interesting question. And so impossible to know. That's the funny part about our lives: we have no control experiments, no way to know who 'we' would be if even one event had been different.

Ruby wrote: "What are some of the most exciting neurological enhancement gadgets the average person can look forward to enjoying in the next 10 years?

I think these will involve new peripheral bionic devices that will allow the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and everyone else to enhance their senses beyond the normal human range. For example, my laboratory is just now starting to experiment with hooking ourselves up with 'super-senses' such as 360 degree vision, ultraviolet vision, etc. This is partially the topic of my 2012 book "LiveWired" about brain plasticity.

"Also, do you think that brain training programs can improve function in everyday life (not just in the brain training program's assessment tests)?"

Great question. I think there's real hope for brain training programs that transfer to daily activities. The trick is to exercise several different aspects of the brain, to make the tasks emotionally salient, and to make them sticky for continued compliance with the training regiment. This is also something my lab is working on -- please keep an eye out for our smartphone app on this in October.

It has been suggested that there is no such thing as human nature; that our decision making capabilities can supersede any inborn tendencies or instincts. Given how much occurs outside of our awareness, however, suggests to me that there must be human nature and are more influenced by instinct than we would like to think. What kinds of conclusions about human nature has your work on the unconscious led you to?

What is your favorite story in Sum? I suspect many of the stories were delightful to write as they are so orignal, funny and achingly poignant. I enjoyed each one, but "Mary" is the one I tell friends about when I recommend they read this book. Also, what is your writing process? Do you have a consistent time to work and a writing routine? Thanks. It's such a joy to read your work.