This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
So, there was an AfD for this article, and the result was "Keep but WP:TNT", because it was largely unreferenced. However, there was quite a few salvagable referenced passages. Obviously the article needs *some* examples, but I would argue there was too many before. Should we be rewriting from scratch or could we reinstate some referenced passages? MarkiPoli (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not one of quantity but one of quality. What's needed is for sources on the overarching topic—mind uploading in fiction—to be summarized. Examples should be taken from those sources and presented in WP:PROPORTION to their treatment in the overall literature on the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Illustration of a mind upload in progress. The brain-scanning tech (helmet) can be small since the process makes use of nanobots (as described by Turchin[1])
The image on the left is not helpful and not illustrating the subject so I removed it. There now is this illustration about the subject which could be used instead (see on the right). Alternatively, no image could be used (boring and illustrations help) or another image is used (likely one not yet on Commons; one could also improve the image on the right).
I can't say I think an image of what amounts to a person wearing a helmet is particularly helpful, either. What would be helpful is a visual representation of the abstract concept of the mind being uploaded to a computer. This could be done rather diagrammatically/schematically through symbolic representations like thought bubbles and arrows. For instance, we could use the image currently at the top of the Mind article (File:Mental capacities.svg) with a bunch of circled symbols inside the silhouette of a human head, adding a rightward arrow (to the right of the silhouette) and (further right) a symbol for a computer displaying the same circled symbols on the screen. One could also use File:Braininvat.jpg for inspiration. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, why don't we just ask the person who created the image for Mind? @Phlsph7: do you feel up to the task of creating a suitable image representing the concept of uploading a mind to a computer (which could be used both here and at the Mind uploading article)? TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. My take on this is that it would be best to have both a diagram of the abstract concept as well as some visualization of how it may look like / is depicted in scifi.
How would a diagram explain this? Since it's so unclear whether ever and if so roughly how and to which extent or in which shape it could be done. Just showing a brain with an arrow to e.g. a normal computer wouldn't be helpful and may be slightly flawed where I think a fiction-type image how it could be incorporated in fiction would be be more useful and informative. What else than what's in the image could one show that would be actually meaningful and due – and it's not just a person wearing a helmet, the person is in an upload clinic, the helmet is hightech, the helmet has two interfaces (one on the back one on the top) and cables where the data is transmitted, a display which is there for various stimulations to activate various neurons for the upload, and there are microdrones in the background which could be either part of the upload connecting with the helmet interface or of some scifi plot where these intruded the clinic. Not saying it's very good but I think it would be useful unless there is a better one that depicts mind uploading as a fiction theme. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind upload.svg
Thanks for the ping, that's an interesting but challenging topic to visualize. I think TompaDompa's diagram idea could work fine. I gave it a try, see File:Mind upload.svg. The AI image above is visually nice, but it looks more like sophisticated virtual reality goggles. Using an image from a movie, like the Matrix when a plug is connected to the back of Neo's head, could also work. But we would probably have copyright problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting diagram, thanks! By the way, there are lots of subjects in need for illustrations and there's justfew illustrators on Commons so if you like doing these more often I could maybe send you some more articles. Feedback on this image:
The biggest issue is the light bulb as a symbol of an idea or ideation in the image – this is not about uploading ideas (as can be done by writing them down), it's about copying/digitizing the mind so that would need to be changed somehow before it could be used
It's just a laptop on the right but I think even a desktop computer with some specific specs may not be the proper thing to display
Regarding your feedback on the digital art representation – maybe it's somewhat ambiguous but it doesn't necessarily need to be unambiguous and maybe that's not possible either – as said the hightech helmet is meant to work via nanobots that enter the mind that in combination with various things in the helmet does the mind-scanning/digitization. A plug to the head is not more realistic – how would that work and why would it work better than what I just described? In Matrix there is no minduploading but a sophisticated virtual reality and that is what you criticized about the image. One can't just plug into a head and copy out the mind so something like that is less sensical I think than what's displayed in the image (and also it implies people would be forced to do that or only do it at old age instead of it being done voluntarily). Maybe it would be better to have the person lie in some larger scanning machine but not such image exists and it could be replaced with such if there is one. Again, note that I think it would be best if there was two images. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I think the light bulb is a problem, but inasmuch as it is one it is trivially fixable by adding additional symbols (such as a heart and an almanac, for instance) to both the head and computer screen. As for the computer, the only important thing to my mind is that it is recognizable as a computer—it's a schematic representation of the concept. What say you, Phlsph7?I don't think an additional, realistic(-ish)-looking image would confer any additional benefit beyond one which illustrates the concept in the abstract. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind upload2.svg
For comparison, I create an alternative version using all the symbols from the diagram of mental capacities, see File:Mind upload2.svg. I prefer the original version since it is easier to understand, especially when displayed as a small thumb. There is no accurate visual depiction of the mind so anything we come up with will be flawed. The main point is to get the basic idea across, and I think the initial version is better at that. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading. Minduploading is not about uploading of isolated emotions and ideas – it's about uploading the mind so some agent which the personality and characteristics etc of a person. That image does not show that but again is misleading. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything in particular in mind as an alternative? I think any image that clearly shows uploading anything directly from a brain/mind to a computer is better than nothing and good enough for our purposes here. The semirealistic-looking image does not even reach that threshold—knowing that it is supposed to show a mind-uploading procedure I suppose I can see it, but it is by no means obvious if one is not already aware of that. TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better and things should at least not be misleading to false but accurate if there is an image at all. Good idea about that schematic representation for the brain, maybe that's better but an image for the right would still be needed. I could upload a new version with that image on the left now though. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think it's misleading. I disagree. Your image sacrifices understandability to make it, in your view, less misleading. I don't think that trade-off is worth it, as I don't think File:Mind upload2.png clearly demonstrates the concept (or indeed, any concept) at all. It's really not an obvious improvement from File:ArtificialFictionBrain.png, even. TompaDompa (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the image. If you try to depict what writing ideas in your brain on a computer is like, see article Note-taking. So the image was inaccurate, since that is not what mind-uploading is about. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Writing"? File:Mind upload.svg and File:Mind upload2.svg clearly show something being transferred (or indeed, uploaded) directly from the brain to the computer. Your version doesn't make it clear that what ends up on the computer is a copy of what existed in the head—the contents of the head and the contents on the screen being different is a major drawback of your version. What is the contents on the screen even supposed to be? TompaDompa (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you think it is important that the image cannot be mistaken for a representation of uploading some of the contents of the mind to a computer, as opposed to uploading the entirety of the mind. What I'm saying is that ensuring that nobody misinterprets it thusly is way less important than making sure that it is obvious that copying from the mind to the computer is what's being represented in the first place. That is to say, if our options are that somebody looking at it thinks "I get it, uploading a singular thought to a computer" or "I don't get it at all", the former is preferable. I also don't think "uploading of isolated emotions and ideas", as you put it, would be most people's intuitive interpretation of File:Mind upload.svg and File:Mind upload2.svg as opposed to "uploading the entire mind" (the intended reading), even if it is yours. TompaDompa (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the entirety. The image is just depicting the fundamental key thing wrong (not showing it). This is not about copying ideas, it's about uploading the mind and the top image should not be false. What one would get from the image is a misconception and no image would be better than that. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. I know it's not about copying ideas, but uploading the mind. I think File:Mind upload.svg and File:Mind upload2.svg are both reasonable depictions of uploading the mind, not just copying ideas. I suppose they could be interpreted as copying ideas as opposed to uploading the mind, but I don't think that we are going to have a big problem with people interpreting them like that. I do expect, however, that we are going to have big problems with people looking at your image—File:Mind upload2.png—and not knowing what to make of it. It is not clear in your image what the thing shown on the screen is supposed to represent at all. Could you, at least, try to make it clearer to the reader what they are looking at on the screen and how it relates to the person on the left of the image? TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So should we start a discussion at Talk:Mind uploading? I think false representations should be avoided even in the case that the image you made looks better. Uploading one's ideas is a concept too but it's a separate one which relates to mind-mapping software, note-taking software, brain-computer interfaces and so on so people should not mistake the concept here with that other concept which your image v2 depicts. Thanks for your effort but accuracy and not having misleading images is really important. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, you are the only one (so far) who thinks that's what it depicts. I think File:Mind upload.svg and File:Mind upload2.svg both look like they depict/represent mind uploading, not uploading one's ideas. On the other hand, I don't think your image—File:Mind upload2.png—looks like it depicts either of those concepts. It doesn't look like anything to me. This is for two main reasons: (1) the contents of the head and the contents on the screen do not match in your version, and (2) it is not at all clear what the contents on the screen are supposed to represent. I have already made the suggestion that a version could be created where a brain symbol is used for both the head and the screen. Is there any particular reason this would not be an acceptable course of action to you? TompaDompa (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the brain currently floats over the sensors Fixed it. what they are looking at on the screen and how it relates to the person on the left of the image That is made clear by the loading screen. It's clear enough but if it can be made clearer please explain how.
The other image shows isolated ideas emotion that are copied over. contents on the screen do not match in That is intentional and for accuracy and maybe a point of it. a brain symbol is used for both the head and the screen it would need to be a digitized brain, not a normal brain like on the left. That would be another way to depict it instead of a digital avatar agent being constructed, yes. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other image shows isolated ideas emotion that are copied over. I understand that you think so. Do you understand that we disagree on that point?That is intentional and for accuracy and maybe a point of it. a brain symbol is used for both the head and the screen it would need to be a digitized brain, not a normal brain like on the left. That the brain is digitized is clearly shown by it being on a computer screen. Using a different symbol on the screen reduces the clarity to no real benefit. Just use the same symbol.I think it is very optimistic, indeed unrealistic, to expect readers to intuit that a digital avatar agent being constructed is what your earlier version was supposed to show. I think you are aiming for the wrong target audience. TompaDompa (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly shows a digital avatar. And I think you are aiming for the wrong target audience when you think they should be expected to all make sense of an image as ambiguous (and in my view false) as the one where symbols representing ideas etc are copied over. Why would I not understand that we disagree. Showing the same brain symbol on the right is nonsensical, not needed because the current image is a better explanation, and suggests a biological brain is taken out of the body and inserted into some computer – there is no reason to use the same symbol when something more accurate can be there. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be clear to you that it represents a digital avatar, but surely you understand that it might not be clear to others? Or even if you do not understand that, perhaps you can simply take my word for it: it is not clear to me that the image shown on the stylized computer screen on https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/05/20250403133443%21Mind_upload2.png represents a digital avatar, specifically. Frankly, I think Showing the same brain symbol on the right is nonsensical, not needed because the current image is a better explanation, and suggests a biological brain is taken out of the body and inserted into some computer – there is no reason to use the same symbol when something more accurate can be there. is quite a stretch, bordering on nonsensical. Nobody is going to interpret it as the brain being physically removed from the body and physically inserted into the computer if the same icon is used on both sides of the image. The "digital brain" of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Mind_upload2.png is not more accurate in any meaningful sense—it's overly detailed and stylized in a way that jars with the rest of the image. To me, it looks more like it is supposed to represent some kind of artificial superintelligence or similar than a digitized version of the brain (and the image as a whole thus looks more like the artificial superintelligence "interrogating" the brain by downloading its contents than it looks like a mind upload). If you want the brain on the screen to look like a digitized version of the brain in the head, it would work much better to use a pixelated version of the brain in the head. That way, it would more clearly be the same brain in a digital format as opposed to a brain in a digital format—not just a digitized brain but more specifically "that particular brain, digitized". TompaDompa (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask whether you understand that we disagree is that you keep repeating your points about your interpretations of what the images show using wording like The other image shows isolated ideas emotion that are copied over. and It clearly shows a digital avatar. that would seem to suggest that you believe that the interpretation is a matter of fact and objective, rather than a matter of, well, interpretation and thus subjective. Of course, symbols do not have objective inherent meanings—their meanings are assigned to them, and not everyone necessarily assigns the same meaning to the same symbols. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand there's a chance for that. It's still better to have an image the user may not understand than an image for which there is a high likelihood the subjective interpretation will mean it's wrong. Also please don't take what I say too literal: I was trying to explain why having the same image left and right is inappropriate. Of course, symbols do not have objective inherent meanings—their meanings are assigned to them, and not everyone necessarily assigns the same meaning to the same symbols So it doesn't matter whether it's subjective interpretation. So let's assume it's entirely subjective: that does not matter to that it's ambiguous and can be easily mistaken if not very likely be misleading. However, it's also to some degree objective (but again this is not needed): it's not those symbols but their arrangement and what is symbolized (what are the subjects): on the left not the brain is symbolized but certain specific contents and those contents are copied over. No need to discuss this in such length; it's very inappropriate to have an image that kind of suggests things like ideas as the objects of reference are copied over when the subject of reference is the mind as in the title. I guess we'd be further if you accepted that your interpretation is subjective because then it may be easier to see how the other image is ambiguous and can be easily mistaken by people who don't interpret it like you. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still better to have an image the user may not understand than an image for which there is a high likelihood the subjective interpretation will mean it's wrong. I'm telling you there's a high likelihood that the subjective interpretation of your image—File:Mind upload2.png—will be wrong. Specifically, there's a high likelihood that the symbol on the right will be interpreted as a pre-existing artificial intelligence rather than an uploaded version of the mind on the left, and thus that the image as a whole would be interpreted as an artificial intelligence downloading information from a human brain rather than a mind being uploaded from a human brain to a computer. That is, to use your words, misleading and depicting the fundamental key thing wrong (not showing it). Following your line of logic, it would be better to remove the image entirely. That being said, I think it would be better to fix the problem with the image than to remove it—a mutually satisfactory solution should be preferable to everyone involved. I have given a specific, concrete suggestion as to how this could be accomplished: If you want the brain on the screen to look like a digitized version of the brain in the head, it would work much better to use a pixelated version of the brain in the head. I don't particularly agree with your objections to the other versions of the image, but I am willing to take them into consideration in order to find a compromise version we can both be content with. I put it to you that this discussion would be much more productive if you were to extend that same courtesy to me. If you are unwilling to do so, I suppose the next step would be to seek wider input. So I'll ask you outright: how about trying to reach a compromise we can both agree is satisfactory? TompaDompa (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the right it now depicts a brain like the icon on the left – the interpretation you describe makes no sense in contrast to the thing people can mistake the other image for.
Actually there is a page/section about the thing I'm describing and the illustration you favor would illustrate it well. If you'd like to it could be added there. I'd just suggest that this tool icon (hand with hammer) is swapped for an icon representing memory.
downloading information from a human brain rather than a mind being uploaded from a human brain to a computer actually that wouldn't be so wrong except that it's not an AI but that which the page is about: mind-uploading where the thing downloading would be the avatar. So in the context of the page title it can't be mistaken that way and in any case that would be a whole other type of issue. In contrast, mind-uploading can be mistaken for the other concept that your illustration actually depicts.
I suggest you leave other editors time to weigh in. The image on the right is illustrative and fine as is. No idea why you make such a huge problem out of it.
except that it's not an AI – but that is my point. It's not an AI, but it is liable to be interpreted as one. The galaxy brain meme-style depiction on the right looks like a higher level of intelligence on a machine, not like an uploaded human mind. I don't understand how you can think your objections are imperative to address and still act like the objections of others can be freely dismissed out of hand—it is unclear to me if you do not understand them or if you do not care. And still you are going on about the light bulb. I have specifically suggested a different approach—use a pixelated version of the brain on the left to represent the digitized mind on the right. I can come up with others if need be. Now answer the question, Prototyperspective: are you interested in finding a compromise we could both be content with? TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image on the right doesn't look like the galaxy brain meme. It could be higher intelligence on a machine indeed due to various things that could be possible if a brain is digitized. Please read the other things I wrote regarding your claim that it could be misinterpreted as AI such as that this doesn't make sense from the context of the article and wouldn't be much of a problem since it could be considered as simply a different take that is still accurate. I don't dismiss other objections – I edited the image many times based on your objections and kept on replying to your many replies. The image on the right is like a pixelated version of the left image – it's a digitized version of it and looks better and is more illustrative than what you have in mind which I probably can't visualize anyway. Let's leave this is as is, there's other things to do. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like a pixelated version of the brain on the left, it looks like a completely different depiction of a brain—because it is.The image on the right doesn't look like the galaxy brain meme. – and we're back to you treating your positions as objective facts and others' as subjective opinions. Your counterarguments against my objections, such as not making sense in the context of the article, could equally well be applied by me to your objections. You are acting as if your position is by default the preferred one.Whether you can visualize it isn't a decisive factor here—there are others who can (for future reference, there is the WP:Graphics Lab). Now, it is a simple yes-or-no question: are you willing to try to find a compromise we can both be happy with? TompaDompa (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing people with other opinions and assessments as treating [their] positions as objective facts and others' as subjective opinions, thanks. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly characterized the opinions and assessments of others as being incorrect or untrue, as opposed to expressing simple disagreement. If what you meant was in fact that you simply disagree, I apologize for the misunderstanding and humbly ask that you more clearly distinguish between expressing disagreement and challenging the veracity of statements in the future.Now, you still have not answered the question: are you willing to try to find a compromise we can both be happy with? TompaDompa (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply expressed disagreement. If you ask me not to explain why I disagree then I certainly won't do that – explanations are important. I'm not going to create some other image and may not be able to anyway. See above for why the image is well-suited and good enough as is and arguably better than a mere rehash of the left icon. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But seeing as I don't think that the current image is good enough, the next step really depends on whether you are willing to work with me to try to find a solution we can both be happy with. That doesn't have to mean creating any additional images on your part. I am willing to work towards a compromise, but it takes two to tango and I can't work with you if you won't work with me. So the question remains: are you willing to try to find a compromise we can both be happy with? TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind upload4.svg
I can't know what the lack of a response here means, but I'm guessing "no". So here's what I'm going to do: there are two editors who prefer File:Mind upload.svg—Phlsph7 and me—and one editor who prefers File:Mind upload2.png—you. That does not constitute WP:Consensus, but the closest thing we have to one favours the former. In the spirit of collaboration, however, I will not restore that particular image but instead use a new one along the lines I suggested earlier—using a brain symbol inside the silhouetted head and a pixelated version of the same brain symbol on the screen—as that would seem to be the least controversial option out of all the suggestions that have been put forth thus far. Specifically, I will replace File:Mind upload2.png with File:Mind upload4.svg (both here and at the Mind uploading article). I trust that you will not revert this but instead discuss the matter here at the talk page if you think there is room for additional improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks worse, is less clear, does not include the AI / avatar aspect which you apparently didn't know of and learned about via the prior image, and there's no reason to replace the other better-looking image. So I hope other editors will weigh in. I don't know why you insist on replacing a sufficient image, there are many other things to do. Add also I don't know why you wish to replace it with a less illustrative unclearer one – in this case, the brain icon looks similar to the left brain icon but the left brain icon is the symbol for the organic brain while the right is for the uploaded brain so these should be displayed differently and not just the same icon with pixelation. Others users: it would be good to comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the previous version makes the AI / avatar aspect clear in the first place (nor do I think that's an aspect that necessarily needs to be represented visually). As for which image looks better, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree—I personally think mixing art styles between the flat and diagrammatic vector graphics of the silhouetted head, electrodes, computer, and left brain symbol on the one hand and the AI art style of the right brain symbol on the other is very visually unappealing (and if we are going to use a consistent art style I also think the former is way more visually appealing than the latter). As for why I want to replace the image, I'm guessing it's for the same reason you wanted to replace the version that was there before yours—I don't think the alternative is satisfactory. As I've said before I think being on a computer screen is sufficient to make it clear that the right brain is the digitized/uploaded brain, and I would have thought that pixelation should be sufficient to satisfy you (even if not as your preferred outcome) in your position that the left brain icon is the symbol for the organic brain while the right is for the uploaded brain so these should be displayed differently given your response when I suggested it repeatedly above (The image on the right is like a pixelated version of the left image – it's a digitized version of it and looks better and is more illustrative than what you have in mind which I probably can't visualize anyway. and See above for why the image is well-suited and good enough as is and arguably better than a mere rehash of the left icon.), but I'm certainly open to some other way to represent the digitization of the brain that is different both from pixelation and the completely different art style in File:Mind_upload2.png. Do you have any particular suggestions about other approaches? TompaDompa (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
