r/PantheonShow • u/filmguy_1987 • 3d ago
Discussion The thing Pantheon never explained: before you can upload a mind, a machine has to learn the brain's language first. That just happened. Spoiler
Been thinking about this since finishing Season 2.
Pantheon does a brilliant job with what happens after UI becomes possible. What it skips over is the actual prerequisite. Before David Kim's consciousness can exist in a digital system, before any kind of meaningful brain-machine communication can happen, you need devices that can speak to the brain in a signal it actually recognises as its own rather than as electrical noise from a foreign object.
Last week Northwestern University published research in Nature Nanotechnology showing they printed artificial devices from electronic ink that communicated with living mouse brain cells. The brain tissue responded as if the signal came from another biological neuron.
The device is soft and flexible which matters because rigid silicon implants have always failed over time because the brain treats them as invaders and scars around them. This approach conforms to brain tissue instead of fighting it.
Obviously we are nowhere near anything resembling what happens in Pantheon. But this is the category of problem that needed solving first. A machine learned to say one word in the brain's language.
Curious what this community thinks. Does this move any timelines in your head or does it feel like a completely different domain from what the show depicts?
14
u/LuminousGrue 3d ago
My understanding was the upload scan doesn't interpret the information stored in a scanned brain, so much as read the physical arrangement and structure of the brain and then run a real-time simulation of it - essentially the UI is instanced on an "emulation" of a human brain. That way the system doesn't need to be able to "read" memory, it just has to remember how it was put together.
1
u/jchristsproctologist 2d ago
what do you mean by emulation, in this context? sorry not a native speaker
1
u/LuminousGrue 2d ago
Emulation means using one system to perfectly imitate the behavior of a different system with a different architecture. When you run a SNES emulator on your PC, you are using your PC's operating system to imitate the physical hardware of a Super Nintendo, which it does using software because a PC and a SNES have wildly different physical architecture and hardware.
2
u/bascule 3d ago
Pantheon sort of attempts to address this using concepts from Jeff Hawkins' idea of Hierarchical Temporal Memory (HTM), which you'll see referenced on the computer which is receiving and processing Chanda's upload from the laser.
However, HTM is more of a hypothetical conceptual model of how the mammalian neocortex works than e.g. computational biological modeling software you could use to "run" a brain scan. But I thought it was nice they had something, and as a big fan of Jeff Hawkins it was an interesting little detail to see included. Maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that rather than storing a complete neuron-by-neuron scan of the brain it's postprocessing the brain scan into something higher-level an HTM framework can execute.
I did really enjoy the notion they somewhat abandoned though that "the flaw" was their simulated biological brain tissue breaking down from being overclocked.
2
u/No-Economics-8239 3d ago
Among the things the show skips over is if simulation of consciousness is even possible. This is one of the shows central questions. Is UI a 'real' person, or just a simulation? Does UI just act similar to how people act? Or is it an actual person?
Then we have the scan itself. What is it scanning? Ostensibly it scans thoughts and memories and ideas and personality. But... are those things we can scan? The debate between dualism and physicalism is over the 'hard' question of consciousness. Is our mind all there is to us? Or is there something more that is required? Can consciousness just be an emergant property? Or is the ability to think about thinking, or meta cognition something special? Something extra?
Then we have your question. Assuming we scan our minds in sufficient detail, how do we map that data into a functional person? Can we peer through the data and 'see' their thoughts and memories? Is there enough in what we can physically scan to translate?
And then we have the matrix required in which to 'run' the UI. What would a runtime that could host a simulated person need to do? How much of who and what we are is in our brains? How much is it our biology? Neurotransmitters and hormones and our senses and nervous system, how much of that is required to simulate a person 'properly' or in such a way that friends and loved ones will find them credible? What are you 'seeing' or 'smelling' as a UI? How much of reality do we need to simulate for the UI for it to 'feel' like a person?
You seem to believe this study and others like it represent some important milestone in the mind and machine interface. That we have figured out some important mapping in how our brains and bodies work. And perhaps that is what it represents. But if so, that seems more significant towards cybernetics than delving into the connection between mind and body than mind and... personhood.
Certainly, if a simulated person requires a simulated body to 'feel' like a person and not just a mind in a jar, that will potentially be useful. But this study seems more in line with the Neuralink research that will potentially help provide more durable and longer term integration with a human mind and computer controls (ala Shadowrun datajack) or prosthetics.
4
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
This is a genuinely thoughtful breakdown and you are right on most of it.
The hard problem of consciousness is exactly where Pantheon is most interesting and most hand-wavy simultaneously. the show raises the question of whether UI is a real person and then mostly sidesteps the philosophical mechanism in favour of the human drama, which is probably the right creative choice but leaves the actual question unanswered.
And you are right that I overclaimed the connection to Pantheon specifically. the cybernetics and prosthetics comparison to Neuralink territory is the honest framing. this research is about building hardware that can interface with biological neural tissue durably and with biologically compatible signals. that is meaningful for neuroprosthetics and potentially for brain-computer interfaces in the shadowrun datajack sense you described. it is not a step toward simulating a person.
the questions you are raising about what a runtime for a simulated consciousness would even need to do, the role of embodiment, neurotransmitters, hormones, the full biological context of being a person rather than just a brain, those are the questions where the gap between what this research represents and what Pantheon depicts becomes basically unbridgeable with current understanding.
Appreciate you laying it out this clearly. it is a better conversation than the original post deserved.
2
u/No-Economics-8239 3d ago
I've actually appreciated the show starting from the UI perspective rather than AGI as a jumping off space to explore the idea space. It speed runs the typical problems we have around when a computer program might become 'complex' enough to deserve consideration as a program. It jumps straight to David as an already existing person and then offers us the question of 'what' the UI represents.
We have Maddie convinced it is her father. And her mother convinced it is not. And by the second season, they both come to understand and appreciate the perspective of the other. Which I found a thoughtful exploration of the complexity of the ideas.
What is the 'deserved' exploration of these ideas? I've been excited and terrified about the prospects of artificial intelligence since the Turing Test and Wintermute and SHODAN. And now we have the term being co-opted again by LLM and the Turing Test passed but are we any closer to understanding what artificial intelligence is or how to measure or recognize it?
I've been ready to jack into the Matrix for decades and I'm hopeful of seeing it potentially realized in my life time. But I remain uncertain if I would be confident enough in the technology and those who provide it to allow two way access to my mind. Ghost in the Shell offers plenty of advantages and pitfalls.
As to UI, we already have services that leverage machine learning and LLM to 'deep fake' a simulated deceased loved one by scanning in their words and videos. Many of us wouldn't consider that to be sufficient for UI consciousness. And yet some do and pay for it today.
Dropping my brain in the deep freeze and 'waiting' for digital resurrection seems like a fools errand to me. Even if successful and the if it convinces others that it is now me, the me that it represents remains dead. I see no bridge of continuation of consciousness for 'me' even if the end result is actually conscious.
1
u/radicalbulldog 3d ago
The philosophical quandary of consciousness is that it is only self evident to objects experiencing it.
Humans know we are conscious because it is self evident in our own lives, thus we can have a shared understanding of what that idea feels like.
Unfortunately, many humans believe that consciousness is only achieved if WE can recognize it in the same way we see it in other humans. This is the question Maddie grapples with in S1, is her dad even a conscious entity. Secondarily, is that entity actually her dad or simply a copy. By the end, both questions are rendered moot, because ultimately, the answer to that question is experiential not one of objective fact.
Clearly, David is conscious, that consciousness simply isn’t recognized until a human like Maddie can experience it and therefore automatically justify it.
Pigs can recognize themselves in a mirror, but that simply isn’t enough for us to deem them conscious beings in the same way humans are. Same with dolphins or Orcas. We know these animals have the capacity to recognize themselves, therefore they are inherently aware they are not human beings. However, knowing that these animals have a shared experience in the same way we do, isn’t enough to justify giving them the same rights we would give someone severally mentally handicapped. A dolphin could have significantly more awareness of their reality and brain capacity then someone who is developmentally delayed and non-verbal, but because we can not understand what that conscious reality looks like, we dismiss it as something that does not even exist.
The reason why this show is able to avoid that core philosophical debate is because David can communicate in the same way a human can. David can connect with a human and his consciousness, same with Mist, becomes self evident to the people that interact with him.
Example, an Alien with supreme understanding of the universe could look at our experiential reality the same way we look at pigs, because they may deem our level of consciousness far below their experiential standard.
1
u/Miki3022 3d ago
could you share the paper title in Nature Nanotechnology? I’m really curious about it. Thank you!
2
1
u/atalantafugiens 2d ago
I think we are nowhere near close to even conceptualizing consciousness. Even if we manage to build the interface, how does it compute, read or write, how does a personality form, how would one even transfer this or make sure it is transferred without loss of data? What are we talking about here, petabytes? it's such an abstract to us still I feel like. But I am glad there is work in this area now because I can totally see it helping physically disabled people which is rad
0
u/MonsterIslandMed 3d ago
Check out Sabi Beanie. We are getting close
0
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
Will do.. Thanks
1
u/MonsterIslandMed 3d ago
Especially because this doesn’t involve any surgery or major equipment. And if we can use ai to decipher thought, we might even be able to apply this with animals 🤔 I’ve heard that researchers have found “language” with whales and porpoises. Imagine us truly knowing what other species are saying 😳 I mean the UI stuff is nuts. But if we can understand thought in a universal language (I’d assume electrical waves/frequencies) that’d be groundbreaking !!!!!
2
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
The non-invasive angle is genuinely one of the most underrated parts of this research.
Flexible printed substrate that conforms to tissue rather than being drilled in changes the accessibility of the whole technology completely. no surgery, no rigid implant, no scar formation timeline. that opens up applications that were never on the table with neuralink style approaches.
The animal communication point is fascinating and you are not the first researcher to think about it in this direction. the whale and dolphin language work is real, there are serious efforts to use AI to decode cetacean communication at a level that goes beyond simple pattern matching. if you can combine that with hardware that can interface with biological neural tissue non-invasively you are in genuinely new territory.
The universal electrical language idea is compelling but probably messier in practice. the actual signals vary enormously across species, different ion channels, different membrane properties, different firing patterns. but the underlying logic of spike timing encoding information is conserved pretty broadly across biology which is the interesting part.
Yhe thought decoding piece is where it gets philosophically wild. decoding language from external acoustic signals is one problem. decoding the internal representations that generate thought before they become language is a completely different and much harder one. but the direction is not crazy
1
-11
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
Made a short documentary on the science behind this if anyone wants to understand the actual mechanism.
11
u/The_Fink_Ployd 3d ago
The ai visuals make it an immediate “nope” for me, dawg.
Try emulating Anton Petrov if you want to make educational content, he is simply the absolute best at it. No ai visuals over on his channel, just mind blowing discoveries and investigations into science.
-4
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
Fair criticism honestly and I get it, the AI visuals thing is a legitimate concern and Anton Petrov is genuinely great at what he does.
To clarify though the visuals in this are a mix of CGI animation and AI, not purely AI generated footage given the constraints of time. The scientific content itself is directly sourced from the actual peer reviewed paper which you can read here: nature.com/articles/s41565-026-02149-6
The research is real. the paper is by Hersam, Sangwan, Raman and the team at Northwestern, published in Nature Nanotechnology in April 2026.
The specific findings are that aerosol jet printed MoS2 nanosheet memristors produced spike waveforms matching physiological timescales and successfully stimulated Purkinje neurons in mouse cerebellar slices stable over more than a million cycles. That is directly from the abstract, not from any AI generated summary.
The visualisation style is a creative choice and I understand if it is not your thing. the science underneath it is not in dispute though, it is sitting in one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the world with full source data available in the supplementary materials.
Nonetheless, appreciate the Anton Petrov recommendation genuinely, he sets a high bar and that is the right bar to aim for.
9
u/Careful-Writing7634 3d ago
That paper is on machine and brain interfaces, not whole brain simulations. In Pantheon, they don't actually model the consciousness. The scanning laser is destructive because it captures all the physical features of the brain and just simulates the biology, trusting that everything will just work out in their physics models.
It's just sci fi magic. Memresistor technology is a really fascinating part of bioe but I don't think it's as relevant to Pantheon. Definitely more of a cyberpunk thing.
2
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
That is a fair distinction actually. Pantheon's UI is not about brain-machine interfacing in any conventional sense. the destructive scan and simulation model is a completely different premise, it is not about communicating with biological tissue at all.
The connection I was drawing is looser than I made it sound. more that this research represents the broader project of machines learning to interact with biological neural tissue in a language it recognises, which is one small piece of a very large and mostly unsolved puzzle that fiction like Pantheon gestures toward.
But you are correct that calling it directly relevant to Pantheon specifically is a stretch. it is much more honest to say it is adjacent to the general territory the show is interested in rather than a building block of the actual mechanism the show depicts.
The cyberpunk framing is probably more accurate. appreciate the correction. :}
1
u/Careful-Writing7634 3d ago
A better comparison would be that fly brain simulation people were hyping up a lottle while ago, which I actually made a post about since I've done a little bit of fly brain research.
1
u/filmguy_1987 3d ago
the fly brain stuff was fascinating because it was the first complete connectome mapped and then partially simulated, which is at least in the same conceptual neighbourhood as the destructive scan and simulate approach in the show. still orders of magnitude away from human scale but the logic is similar.
1
u/Careful-Writing7634 3d ago
Yeah, I go more into detail about it and the shortfalls of what it does not do in my post. Mostly, it only models a few sensory pathways, making unrealistic assumptions about the basal firing rate, and it doesn't actually model any behavior.
14
u/BluEch0 3d ago
This is less relevant in pantheon precisely because the brain is destroyed in the upload process. If they had this ability to interface biology and technology, they wouldn’t irreversibly upload a mind, they’d just interface with digital systems directly without killing themselves.
The show posits that humans had enough theoretical knowledge to capture a dynamic brain state and computationally extrapolate the simulation once fully digitized. There is no direct biology-technology interface so the tech you speak of so is not necessary for the creation of UIs, though it’s possible it could have been a side endeavor that went nowhere.
You do also have to recognize that like all art, pantheon was a product of its time. Technology-biology interfaces were not and still aren’t truly real when the show aired, it wasn’t in the common scifi zeitgeist as I remember, and the real tech (and especially the soft material form factor) is pretty cutting edge it seems too.