Print

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

[Descan]

The way I see it, right now my brain's cells die and are reborn. I am happy with the way my consciousness moves from moment to moment. Therefore, if I can find a way to turn my brain (mind) immortal while keeping that moment-to-moment movement, I.E. slowly replace cells, or hook my brain up to an artificial brain that takes over slowly as my brain cells die naturally, then I'd be happy. There are other ways too, just some examples

Edit: I REALLY HATE HOW THIS FUCKING WEBSITE KEEPS CHANGING MY FONT SIZE FOR NO GOD-DAMN REASON.

[10ebbor10]

True, but it's just a philosophical disctinction. If someone took you car and replaced it by one identical to the molecular level, you wouldn't even notice the difference. For all intent and purpose, it'd be your car.

However, I'd like to point out that you don't really have the hardware/software dichotomy in the brain. The software is largely encoded in the various connections between neurons. Moving a human on a computer would require a brain emulator, which would be... maybe not impossible, but certainly a challenge.

Honestly it's probably easier to just create strong AI optimized for the electronic medium and let them take over from the fleshy human race.

Actually, we're working on the brain thingy.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

Technically, the fact that the chances of you dying are finitely small and not infinitely so means that, no matter what, you'll eventually die. Therefore, you have to alter the chances of you dying to be null. Seeing as this may or may not require you to change the nature of the universe, and the chances of you leaving a universe (a la multiverse) are probably even less easy to change than that (if they are not already null), you'll probably have to change the universe a single universe functions as your "brain". Which is transhumanistic, and therefore on topic.

Am I the only person who feels this discussion is getting out of hand?

[GiglameshDespair]

Probably. The nature of self is a pretty big part of transhumanism.

[Levi]

True, but it's just a philosophical disctinction. If someone took you car and replaced it by one identical to the molecular level, you wouldn't even notice the difference. For all intent and purpose, it'd be your car.

However, I'd like to point out that you don't really have the hardware/software dichotomy in the brain. The software is largely encoded in the various connections between neurons. Moving a human on a computer would require a brain emulator, which would be... maybe not impossible, but certainly a challenge.

Honestly it's probably easier to just create strong AI optimized for the electronic medium and let them take over from the fleshy human race.

Actually, we're working on the brain thingy.

IBM is working on it too.    Honestly getting the brain emulated in place is looking possible pretty soon.  I think the hard part will be figuring out how to get what is in our brain, out of our brain and into the emulator.

[Bauglir]

Unfortunately, spoons are apparently not adequate to the task.

[GiglameshDespair]

That's why i use a fork in making my biocomputers.

[Urist McOriginalname]

Oh i can't wait for the day we get to store and read our brain data!!! But wait, what if ... people be evil?

[GiglameshDespair]

Robohitlers e'erywhere.

[SalmonGod]

Unfortunately, spoons are apparently not adequate to the task.

Sure it is.  I've played Surgeon Simulator 2013.  A plastic spoon is best, because it doesn't cause bleeding.  Give me a fire axe and a plastic spoon.  I'll perform the operation in the back of an ambulance in a high speed chase, while freaking out on hallucinogens.

[Bauglir]

... Plastic! Mein Gott in Himmel! Why did I never think of that. Here I was, using rusty cast-iron! Sir, you've saved probably dozens of lives minutes.

[Helgoland]

I'd recommend a spork. Dangerous crossbreeds work best; they've got more vigor.

[Helgoland]

Nope, but I'm adding to xkcd becoming this generation's Monty Python, as far as nerdy references go.

[LordBucket]

Lordbucket, I'm afraid I disagree with you for the most part.

This is bay12. *shrug*

Your views hold a lot of holes, in my mind (heh.).

I would propose that you be certain you understand my views before you conclude that they have holes.

Why would we need some non-physical force?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Would you rephrase that?

The idea we are generated by our brains has solid evidence.

What evidence? And when you say that "we" are generated by our brains...what is the "we" that you're referring to? Behavior? Because I'm talking about consciousness. So far as I am aware human technology has no way to measure or observe consciousness. Judging the consciousness of an other through observation of their behavior is not reliable. Chatterbot occassionally passes turing tests. Does that mean it's self aware?

We can see it firing before and during actions, as it responds.
When it's damaged our personality and though processes can change.

Ok, but this has little to do with self awareness. If I hit a pool ball I can see it before and during interactions with my pool cue and with other balls as it responds. And if I break the ball in half, the way it will interact with other balls will change. But I don't see anyone suggesting that pool balls are conscious entities.

You are an ongoing process. If that process stops, that 'you' has ended, like quitting a restarting a program. The basic program is the same, but it's a different instance.

You're making blind assertions about something that neither of us are in a position to empirically observe.

A soul isn't necessary to anything there. And what's the qualifications to having one? A level of intelligence? Do dogs? Do insects, cellular automations that they are? Do bacteria? Do viruses, that are arguably not even alive?

If souls exist, then having a soul is the qualification for having a soul.

If you were to stand a convincing actor pretending to be angry next to a person who was genuinely angry, would you, from observing the two of them, be able to determine which was personally experiencing the emotion of anger? If you were to type hello to two different parties over IRC, and one was a human being and the other was a computer script...and they both responded to your typing with "hi" would you be able to know which was the computer and which was the human?

I know of no means by which a third party can observe the conscious awareness of another. I am unable to answer whether dogs, insects or even humans are self aware. I am only aware of my own consciousness.

[alway]

If you were to stand a convincing actor pretending to be angry next to a person who was genuinely angry, would you, from observing the two of them, be able to determine which was personally experiencing the emotion of anger? If you were to type hello to two different parties over IRC, and one was a human being and the other was a computer script...and they both responded to your typing with "hi" would you be able to know which was the computer and which was the human?

I would posit that it doesn't matter for any case in which there are not expectations of action in which there is a deficit. I don't want or expect to ever meet you in person in a case in which your internet-personality is involved. LordBucket could be an alternate person, or even an AI; it makes no difference to me. The difference you are stating only comes as a result of a deficit of expected action. In the case of the script, it would be the ability to communicate effectively as a human would and/or meet in person. In the case of the actor, it would be the taking off of the pretense. If, for example, the actor continued to act just as a legitimately angry person would, both before and after, they would be an angry person, and such would be described as such by all people. Including stating that they were, in fact, angry. In fact, a sufficiently good 'actor' would tell themselves they were angry, even on the subconscious level. A sufficiently good actor would cease acting.

I am only aware of my own consciousness.

Which makes your last statement a lie. You can not, in fact, be aware of your own consciousness, since that too could be a lie just as much as you telling me about it could be a lie. Therein lies the fundamental flaw with the p-zombies argument; you yourself are an observer capable of being lied to. You may 'know' and 'feel' you aren't a p-zombie; but that's exactly what a p-zombie would 'know' and 'feel' internally. The brain makes sure of that. You, nor I, nor anyone else can determine they are not, themselves, a p-zombie; rendering the entire exercise one of nonsensical mental masturbation.