Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PanH]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The whole identity/continuity/consciousness question is something I've thought about a lot for at least 10 years.  I used to be in the camp that believed a copy of me is not me, and it was all about maintaining stream of consciousness.  I find myself kind of drifting away from that recently. 

First, the arguments about how we naturally evolve over time or go through rapid changes and are never the same person we were in the past have really sunk in.  I think that's one aspect of the subject that just takes a lot of time and experience to fully process.  That's where me 10 years ago would have re-asserted "but that's why it's the continuity that matters and not the consistency".  I still think there's something to that, but I don't necessarily think a break in continuity is the same as death anymore.  It's something undesirable, but... it's... actually really difficult to describe my position on it, anymore.  I think there are multiple facets to identity.  It's not a binary thing, where you're either dead or not.  Loss of one facet isn't loss of the whole.

I see two major types of identity that are related and interact, but are not quite the same.  There's what you experience as your identity, which I'm increasingly recognizing as incredibly flawed, and your objective identity as could be described by an separate observer.  Experiential identity hardly needs any description.  It's what most of the discussion here has been about.  All I'll say is that it's a messy patchwork thing.  A frankenstein collection of mostly incomplete moments, notions, and falsehoods that is constantly evolving, often adjusting to match whatever our ego's current styles of thought and perception happen to be.  One of my biggest influences in truly understanding this was a single sequence of panels from the fantastic graphic novel Asterios Polyp.

Heraclite : "you don't bathe twice in the same river" (I don't know if it's the exact quote in english, but the spirit's the same). Because both of you and the world will evolve, and be different.
Or more easily understandable : Alice in Wonderland. The discussion with the caterpillar (as if, as I've been transformed recently, am I still me ?).
I tend to agree on that point, we evolve, etc, and aren't what we were.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So... where is identity in this?  You can say that it's in the moment.  Our collective experiences and innate tendencies combine to make us who we are right now.  But how much of us is really here right now, and how much of you is locked up in constant reflection and processing of the past, altering your perception of yourself and past/present/future realities, or cultivating future identities?  How can our identity be in the moment, when part of us is always examining other moments?

I don't mean to belittle that part of us, either.  I think it's really important.  It just isn't enough to completely define a person.  It seems to me like our cognitive processes are more central to our experiential identities than our memories or the hardware.

And that sort of brings me to the other major type of identity, which is a very strange alliance between my natural western enculturation in egoism and my loosely informed eastern spiritual influences.  The best way I can describe it is that the other part of our identity is a memetic entity.  We're an idea in action. 

The best thing I've been able to liken our identities to is the weather.  There are a lot of general consistencies, that are still subject to large degrees of variation and change, but the details are never the same.  If your life was made into a map, there'd be other similarities.  There would be The Weather as a very general term, indicating things like rain, sunshine, etc as univerals (your most prominent personality features that remain relatively constant).  The weather in any region also has its own personality (your stages of youth, your goth phase, how you were when you worked at that one job, etc).  And special events, like hurricanes, are generally treated as distinct entities as well (the only time in your life that you got really drunk and weren't at all yourself).  Imagine two strangers from completely different parts of the world talking at an airport about the weather.  They'd be talking about similar features, but in completely different contexts with many notable differences.  This is the same as a person who knew you 15 years ago talking about you with someone who knows you today.

I think I can take a hit to the identity that I experience in order to keep my memetic identity alive.  I'd be ok with being copied, which would keep me alive "in spirit".  Sort of like a piece of software, which is an analogy I think I've seen in this thread already.  When you're copied, you're not creating You 2.0.  I think we can all agree that Doom 3 was nothing like Doom 2, but fortunately Doom 2 is still alive in spirit.  After being ported to new platforms and engine upgraded and built-upon in many ways, it's still Doom 2.  The game lives on.  If those things didn't happen, it would be dead.  Similarly, I would still consider myself alive so long as my memetic identity is able to manifest in the world with individual agency.  Complete survival of this specific manifestation of myself would be the most preferable thing, but I wouldn't consider loss of it to be a complete loss of myself.

I think you're based too much on what we don't know that what we know.
We don't know how the perception of past events is based, so it's not really what defines us ? What if it's exactly all we're thinking ? What if our thoughts are the reflexion of past events ? And therefore our only intelligence based upon experience.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My thoughts on the matter: We are nothing more than organic computers in charge of organic machines. Our brains are efficient for what they have (in terms of power/space used for data capacity and processing), but are still computers, albeit organic. Indeed, I find it fairly easy to draw parallels here, nerve impulses are binary, on or off, like the electrical pulses that allow a computer to exist. Different neurotransmitters are different programs, release of neurotransmitter X causes nerve impulse pattern X to fire, like running an executable in a computer prompts the circuits to fire. Our brains are ordered with mostly separate data processing (frontal lobe), input centers (visual cortex), output centers (motor cortex), data storage systems (memory). Our bodies are, quite similarly to the brain/computer part, also fairly easy to draw parallels to machines with, pumps for hearts, cameras for eyes, etc.

I think that's a huge misconception. We're not computers, and not even near. The brain isn't binary (although working on impulses). The "data/memory" is more of constant process than a storage. There is no parallel between a computer and a brain. All the pseudo comparison are void. Saying that a computer is 10^x more powerful than a brain is stupid. It's just a completely different domain. Why compare a calculation to a past event (a concept a computer can't grasp), or the movement of a cell.
It's like you were trying to code a game in DNA (though, I guess someone will do that one day). If we are near computers, it's near quantum computers, because that would eventually lead to non-binary signals.

I think there's a general underestimation of the living, as that's something we're fairly used to. But we don't even know why we live (as every living thing), how we do even the most basics things. The understanding of the living is still very low.
I think there's communication possible between the "computing" and the "living", but they're not the same. And that's why I think we can't make a "computing" brain.

[cerapa]

I arent the least bit attached to continuity. I am only concerned with goals.

If an entity shares my memories, but has different goals, then it is not me.
If an entity does not share my memories, thought processes, or emotions, but has the same goals, then it is me.

This is great in that it covers amnesia, brain damage(as long as there isnt a significant change in goals), cloning(both are "me") and hilariously means that I would even consider groups of people as "me", even if the individuals dont have my goals, but as long as the group does. Gives me an aversion to drugs too, because serious addictions would pretty much result in my conversion into someone completely different. And cant die as long as something even vaguely like me exists or will exist.


I think it would be interesting to see how people would interact with perfect clones. If you had perfect clones running around, any decisions(votes for example) would be reflected by the others, meaning that you would get group behavior from the thoughts of an individual. Except that is already happening, with political parties and other groups being formed by like-minded people, who react similarly to events. Doesnt even have to be an official group, since thousand of individuals doing the same miniscule thing is basically the business model being used by kickstarter and DF.

[alway]

Oh my god that magnetism thing is so cool. I'd only be afraid of physical pain from touching powerful magnets.

I'm seeing the future and I want to be part of it.

Yeah, it's pretty cool. Aside from the whole back-alley-surgeon bit, the potential nerve and tissue death bit, the risk of rejection requiring immediate hospitalization to have it removed, ect.... Or in general, not something advisable without an actual surgeon and doctor; and they wouldn't do it, as they could lose their medical license over it. Or at least that's how it is for now. If it were safe and easy, yeah, I think over half the college students in engineering and computing majors would have them already.

Piercers can't do it? That's disappointing.

I think the safest way would be to make a little sphere of [insert material that has low rejection risk] that the magnet bit goes in.

It isn't organic. No rejection risk. Infections risks though. Technically, it's like a piercing, with the exception that the metallic bit is mainly under the skin as oposed to on the skin. But I wouldn't recommend it, and i'm a bit doubtful over the feeling. There must be a pretty strong field if you want that the vibrations will be perceived as such, and I don't think you can see them "naturely", not talking about what we already perceive of electromagnetic fields, and natural vibrations.
I think the main effect is actually the belief of being able to perceive electromagnetic fields.

Typically, rare earth metals such as Neodymium are used for the magnets being implanted, as their stronger magnetic force compared to metals like iron allows you to have an implant the size of a grain of rice, rather than a giant magnet which would be required for a less powerful, iron magnet. Such metals, however, are mildly toxic. From what I've read, the typical procedure is, in fact, to coat them in a layer of material with low rejection risk. However, if this material cracks or otherwise ruptures, the implant will need to be surgically removed, and quickly.

You obviously don't see the field, you feel it. The reason they are put into the fingers is because the fingers have some of the densest concentrations of nerve endings of any part of the body. Thus, the idea is to shove it in right up next to a bunch of nerves. Since the magnets are the very powerful rare earth metal magnets, their size and strength allows for a rather strong pull, poking the nerves around it and triggering the sensation. If you've ever played with a rare earth magnet, you'll know they aren't exactly your average bar magnet. If you have a pair, each with a bit more mass than a quarter, they can attract one another from several feet apart, slamming together with enough force to shatter both magnets in a shower of sparks and shrapnel (I did that once, it was rather unexpected). So with one of those in your fingers huddled up next to a bunch of nerves, yeah, I would bet you could feel it when you get near magnetic fields.

Yes, and that's why I said that's what we're the closest from.
Although, on the "weak-ai". For optic nerve, it's well, quite simple. It is already harder for an arm : muscle, nerves are replaced, and will be a bit different (no tiredness, lots of differents parameters).
But what happens, when instead of connecting an artificial arm to you, you connect a computer, or the internet to you ? We don't have template to work on that, nor whatever to base our experience on. You can't code something that'll say : that impulse mean the "brain" wants to do that precise action on the computer. Firstly, because that's something that hasn't been done. Second, because the possibilities brought by a connection brain-computer are mostly infinite. We would have to learn to move and use that computer as we have to learn how to walk when we're a baby.

The "weak ai" are something that already exists in our brain. We don't think : send that impulse, then that one, etc, nor we think : move that muscle, then that one : we think : move [at least in our higher state of consciousness]. So, I don't even think we need them. At most, a converter impulse-something readable by computer, being electrical (current computers), or quantum.

Most likely, it will bootstrap on previous systems, in a similar manner to how our brain and body themselves evolved. And we don't really need a template, so long as the control scheme is relatively simple. For a more complex interface, you start out with it being simple, than gradually introduce more complexity as the user adapts to it. The whole point is to make it easier than learning how to walk; if it takes years, there's not much point to it in regards to enhancement. Days, or up to a week, sure, but not months or years. The weak-ai are already in our brain; but they aren't nearly as good as that which we can create; which is, again, why it takes months or years to learn to do things like walking. Having pre-built systems, as with the prosthetic eye, allows the device to interface with the brain much more effectively. Thus using it would become more akin to learning how to use the Emotiv Headset (which also uses such weak-ai interpreters), rather than learning how to walk.

[Soadreqm]

My thoughts on the matter: We are nothing more than organic computers in charge of organic machines.

I think that's a huge misconception. We're not computers, and not even near.

That kind of depends on your definition of "computer". Human brains are obviously not put together anything like computers. The whole thing is basically a collection of hardware drivers whose evolutionary purpose is to manage the operations of the body so it can breed better. Making all the muscles move in sync so the animal can swim rather than just flail, responding to stimuli like light and missing limbs, stuff like that. Then some animals, responding to more complex stimuli in increasingly sophisticated ways, apparently developed the ability to write poetry and argue about politics. Nothing like the carefully engineered, centralised approach to computers, with distinct parts made to do one thing near-instantly and without error, capable of performing any task as long as you can present it in terms of a handful of byte operations.

On the other hand, humans are quite capable of computing, i.e. solving mathematical problems. A human mind can (in theory) do anything that a computer can. It'll take considerably more time, and you'll need to write the calculations down so you don't forget them, but if you had eternity to spare, you could run Dwarf Fortress in your brain.

Really, I prefer thinking of computers as an artificial addition to brains. Humans kind of suck at performing billions of byte operations per second, much like they suck at flying, so we have a machine do it for us. We're already implanting computers into ourselves, at a societal level.

[penguinofhonor]

Typically, rare earth metals such as Neodymium are used for the magnets being implanted, as their stronger magnetic force compared to metals like iron allows you to have an implant the size of a grain of rice, rather than a giant magnet which would be required for a less powerful, iron magnet. Such metals, however, are mildly toxic. From what I've read, the typical procedure is, in fact, to coat them in a layer of material with low rejection risk. However, if this material cracks or otherwise ruptures, the implant will need to be surgically removed, and quickly.

You obviously don't see the field, you feel it. The reason they are put into the fingers is because the fingers have some of the densest concentrations of nerve endings of any part of the body. Thus, the idea is to shove it in right up next to a bunch of nerves. Since the magnets are the very powerful rare earth metal magnets, their size and strength allows for a rather strong pull, poking the nerves around it and triggering the sensation. If you've ever played with a rare earth magnet, you'll know they aren't exactly your average bar magnet. If you have a pair, each with a bit more mass than a quarter, they can attract one another from several feet apart, slamming together with enough force to shatter both magnets in a shower of sparks and shrapnel (I did that once, it was rather unexpected). So with one of those in your fingers huddled up next to a bunch of nerves, yeah, I would bet you could feel it when you get near magnetic fields.

That's pretty intense. A grain of rice almost feels like overkill. I guess I don't really know how much internal tugging your body can handle.

[Thecard]

Yeah, humans overall don't work like computers.  Thinking is much different than computing.
Some parts, however, do.  The little pieces, you know?  You think "I want to pick up that cup" and your hand picks it up for you.  You don't have to think "Move my hand over, wrap around the cup, squeeze, lift..." your body knows.  It's like our thoughts are the only thing that aren't automated.

Kinda makes me think of the body like a mech suit for the brain.  Albeit a pink and fleshy mech suit.
(That would make the worst kind of animated TV show, wouldn't it?)

[Fenrir]

Kinda makes me think of the body like a mech suit for the brain.  Albeit a pink and fleshy mech suit.
(That would make the worst kind of animated TV show, wouldn't it?)

And every TV show ever was Flesh Suit Gundam.

[Levi]

Kinda makes me think of the body like a mech suit for the brain.  Albeit a pink and fleshy mech suit.
(That would make the worst kind of animated TV show, wouldn't it?)

Naw, a great show!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Thecard]

Kinda makes me think of the body like a mech suit for the brain.  Albeit a pink and fleshy mech suit.
(That would make the worst kind of animated TV show, wouldn't it?)

Naw, a great show!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I...
...I...Stand by what I said.  It's horrible.
But it's awesome too, at the same time. 

[PyroDesu]

Really, I prefer thinking of computers as an artificial addition to brains. Humans kind of suck at performing billions of byte operations per second, much like they suck at flying, so we have a machine do it for us. We're already implanting computers into ourselves, at a societal level.

2.2 billion megaFLOPS, to be precise.

I think that's a huge misconception. We're not computers, and not even near. The brain isn't binary (although working on impulses). The "data/memory" is more of constant process than a storage. There is no parallel between a computer and a brain. All the pseudo comparison are void. Saying that a computer is 10^x more powerful than a brain is stupid. It's just a completely different domain. Why compare a calculation to a past event (a concept a computer can't grasp), or the movement of a cell.
It's like you were trying to code a game in DNA (though, I guess someone will do that one day). If we are near computers, it's near quantum computers, because that would eventually lead to non-binary signals.

I think there's a general underestimation of the living, as that's something we're fairly used to. But we don't even know why we live (as every living thing), how we do even the most basics things. The understanding of the living is still very low.
I think there's communication possible between the "computing" and the "living", but they're not the same. And that's why I think we can't make a "computing" brain.

A nerve is either firing into another nerve or it is not. Basic binary. Data/Memory is constant read/write, continually being updated. And we can measure the computing power of an average human brain (2.2 billion megaFLOPS, above, compared to supercomputer K's 8.2 billion megaFLOPS). Our brain may not operate like a computer, but the setup is remarkably similar, to say, our software is completely different, and our hardware only slightly different (neurons forming connections with many other neurons over time, for instance).

See, you're right from an entirely scientific sense. The problem is, if you treat the human body like a computer, it happens to react badly. Mostly because by treating it like a computer, you're constantly thinking about it being a computer, imagining it. the entire body needs periods of rest and relaxation, including the brain. If you can let your brain relax, I've found I can be a more organized, more intelligent, and overall a more social person.

((So that's why I'm not much of a social person!  ))

Computers don't react too well to being constantly run either, but it does take much longer to be noticeable. Defrag, security sweeps, updates and general maintenance are required every so often or the thing starts slowing down, occasional errors pop up, etc. And, if you leave it running long enough, hardware will degrade and become useless, "killing" the computer.

[Fenrir]

Defrag, security sweeps, updates and general maintenance are required every so often or the thing starts slowing down, occasional errors pop up, etc.

Obviously a Windows user.

[PanH]

A nerve is either firing into another nerve or it is not. Basic binary. Data/Memory is constant read/write, continually being updated. And we can measure the computing power of an average human brain (2.2 billion megaFLOPS, above, compared to supercomputer K's 8.2 billion megaFLOPS). Our brain may not operate like a computer, but the setup is remarkably similar, to say, our software is completely different, and our hardware only slightly different (neurons forming connections with many other neurons over time, for instance).

No. An impulse is different based on his voltage, and a wide array of different things. There's reasons we can't reconnect nerves, other than the sheer size.
Not even talking about hormones, and the actual life cycle of cells.
Unlike data, which is a state in computing, memory is a connection in the brain.

[Soadreqm]

A nerve is either firing into another nerve or it is not. Basic binary. Data/Memory is constant read/write, continually being updated. And we can measure the computing power of an average human brain (2.2 billion megaFLOPS, above, compared to supercomputer K's 8.2 billion megaFLOPS). Our brain may not operate like a computer, but the setup is remarkably similar, to say, our software is completely different, and our hardware only slightly different (neurons forming connections with many other neurons over time, for instance).

Um, no. I mean, I'm not sure where you're getting that 2.2 petaFLOPS, but if you look at how fast humans actually do math, it's more "seconds per floating-point operation" than "floating-point operations per second", and even more if you want to double check your results to get some that are right.

While neurons may be binary, I strongly doubt adding is done at that level. While it hasn't been disproved, there isn't really any evidence suggesting that the human brain would do maths with bit adders. Humans are emulating logic with the parts of their brains that usually deal with language. Furthermore, brains have all kinds of chemicals sloshing around, affecting processes left and right. To give some concrete examples, having nicotine, caffeine or opium in your bloodstream affects your thinking, as does getting your body's own hormone-secreting glands surgically removed.

[Eagle_eye]

Perhaps that's the number of operations it would take to emulate a similar behavior on a computer?

[misko27]

So wait, that means we can configure a human brain to be awesome at math and be a machine?