Print

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

[alexandertnt]

To get around the whole "copy" thing there are plans for piecewise replacement designs. The basic idea would be that we replace your brain one chunk at a time, possibly even keeping you conscious during the replacement procedure (which they already do for some other types of brain surgery). That should hopefully remove any doubts about you ending up as a "copy" instead of your original self in a new medium, since the stream of your consciousness would be uninterrupted.

This is an interesting idea I had not considered. I'm not entirely sure what the result of a complete replacement piece by piece would result in, for example, what would happen if we put the old pieces in a new body over time? This raises some ideas about consciousness I am not sure how to go about interpreting.

I wonder what the difference would be between replacing 99.999% of your brain versus 0.0001% or 50%?

[Arx]

...

So it's like my thread, but less dead?

Huh. Okay. Go with that, I guess.

And without organised religion, which is to say, without me quoting the Bible non-stop.

Edit: and others, of course. It's just that that's what I notice.

[scrdest]

People aren't information, so much as processes. You can record the information required to run a process, but unless you are actually running it, there's no person happening. If you copy someone's mental processes and then instantiate them in two different places, you now have two people. There's no supernatural connection between the two, but they do share the same cause and effect relationship as you-before-sleep has with you-after-sleep. Which brings up another interesting thought: Did you know that most of your brain turns off for around 8 hours a day, only to be restarted by your suprachiasmatic nuclei? If having your mentality process turned off and back on again later is the same thing as death, then you die every time you fall asleep. I don't feel that that is death in any meaningful sense, and see no reason to treat any other stop and restart event differently. Real, actual death is when something happens where your mind stops and then never starts back up again.

That is probably the best way to consider that. You can't simply do a drag&drop of consciousness, because that's like terminating a game on one computer, running it on another and wondering why you aren't dropped in the exact same place and state you were in the first computer.

You could copy the savegame, but if, for some reason, the original computer exhibits buggy behavior because some hardware, identical to specs, has an errant dust speck on it or something, then even still the copy is not the original. Hence the requirement for continuity of self.

Piecewise replacement would work, but it does depend on the size of the pieces. You have to be able to smoothly maintain the process, so you'd have to add a replacement while keeping the original piece, re-route the connection from the original's input to go to replacement's input without signal loss, then and only then, once the original is deprecated for computing, remove it; then repeat the process for the whole thing.

There is some leeway, of course, since a lot of the brain is not essential for personality maintenance. And the main issue is signal loss; a sleeping, cryofrozen patient would likely be relatively easier to work with as a substantial section of the replacement parts would be idling.

I'd disagree on the part about your brain being turned off during sleep - if that was the case, you'd have to plug yourself into a respirator every time you go to sleep, for once. In fact, I recall that total activity-wise, a sleeping brain exhibits more, not less activity than an awake one, but can't get a citation for that ATM.

And on that note, it's not even that it DOESN'T turn on again - it's that it CANNOT. There is a saying among medical staff that you're not dead until you're dead and warm - that's because full-on death occurs when you get irreversible damage - to extend my original metaphor, savegame corruption - as brain cells are destroyed and connections are lost.

[Grek]

Is continuity of self really that important? Those sorts of low level "bugs" are probably getting overwhelmed in significance by diet, weather and random chance influencing hormone production and other biochemical stuff. You might think differently in a different medium, but the same is provably true about thinking differently while hungry.

And I did say "most of your brain" not all of it. I mean, I don't really consider the reticular formation (the part in the brainstem that controls to lungs, heart, your posture, swallowing, periodic blinking and a couple other automatic processes) to be essential to the self. Essential to proper bodily function, yes, but if you translated me over to a robot body, I'd expect that robot body to have its own organ for regulating whatever the local analogue of breathing is and for my brainstem to mostly be left behind. But it is part of the brain.

I think we're talking about two different definitions of death, though. Yours would be what I'd call biological death - the body is dead, its processes stopped in such a way that they cannot repair themselves and will continue to decay from here on out if nothing is done. I'm talking about a death of self, where that particular person is gone from the universe, never to be instantiated again. The former is only bad because it leads to the latter in most cases.

PS: Go sign up for cryopreservation, folks!

[Sebastian2203]

About the cry-sleep ... Its kinda interesting and mysterious.

Imagine future, where people go to cryo-chambers to be waken up few months/years later.
Now imagine you NEVER wake them up... Are they dead? Now if you wait 1 000 000 years and blow up that cryo-chamber they ARE dead?

But if you instead wake them up.. do you revive them?

I have low knowledge about this sort of conscience stuff, but I guess as someone else stated when you go to sleep you really are some sort of dead...

EDIT: Now another thing I thought about... What if we are all clones in our own bio regenerating way...
Our body replaces all of its cells after 7-10 years, right? So what if right now, the ""soul"" which lived in me 7 years ago was not me, but I share its memory with it? And I will ""die"" .. Actually thats stupid but I am just posting it here to share my ( maybe incorrect and badly orientated views )

[scrdest]

About the cry-sleep ... Its kinda interesting and mysterious.

Imagine future, where people go to cryo-chambers to be waken up few months/years later.
Now imagine you NEVER wake them up... Are they dead? Now if you wait 1 000 000 years and blow up that cryo-chamber they ARE dead?

But if you instead wake them up.. do you revive them?

I have low knowledge about this sort of conscience stuff, but I guess as someone else stated when you go to sleep you really are some sort of dead...

EDIT: Now another thing I thought about... What if we are all clones in our own bio regenerating way...
Our body replaces all of its cells after 7-10 years, right? So what if right now, the ""soul"" which lived in me 7 years ago was not me, but I share its memory with it? And I will ""die"" .. Actually thats stupid but I am just posting it here to share my ( maybe incorrect and badly orientated views )

Trick question - they are and aren't dead, depending on the definition you mean. They are dead, but in a way that does not terminate the personality, as they are stored in such conditions that prevent the cell death, so once they are unfrozen it's a matter of flipping the switch back on, whereas a 'full' death means you can flip the switch all you want but its no use, as the wiring is broken.

Post-edit part is completely meaningless, as a clone is defined as an organism identical, genetically, to the parent organism, which anyone fulfills in regard to themselves for obvious reasons. And the period given is the time it takes for total replacement of a set of tissues; that means you may change your skin 27 times, your bone cells 4 times, your blood cells 1136 times and your nervous cells 1 time in that time period.

[LordBucket]

Consciousness is "awareness." By one view, "you" are the sum totality of your awareness. If you experience a thought, or a sensation, or vision, or feeling...these things collectively that you are aware of is your consciousnses.

To view it another way, "you" are a network of various components that are contributing to a collective experience. A heart. A brain. A body. There may well also be non classically-"physical" components as well. "Spirit" or "soul" if you will. But, the above interpretation of consciousness doesn't doesn't on the existence of these difficult-to-verify components.

These various components are presumably interchangeable. It is possible to physically transplant a heart. It may well soon be possible to transplant a brain. The "'you" is not just the brain or the heart. It's the network of the components of which "you" are composed. Consciousness is awareness, and if the network that is you were to change from experiencing one body to experiencing another, the whole of the network would be changed as a result. Like if you shine light through a red translucency vs a blue translucency. The result is different even if the light is the same.  Things like personality are not exclusively the result of the neural network that is your brain. Body chemistry is a significant factor. If you were to change from a male body to a female body, for example, hormones and chemistry would change. The body/tool that you use to interface with the world and with others would change. The way that others would treat you would change. Many things would change, and all of these would be part of the collective "experience" that you are aware of...and that is your awareness, and your awareness is you.

A brain could probably be made to exist and function without a heart or body. But the "collective experience" of exclusively a neural network in a brain would be significantly different from the collective experience of a brain plus a heart plus a body. And non-trivially. Imagine the effects on your personality of going through puberty. Seeing an attractive girl. Stubbing your toe. Being held. Feeling adrenaline. All of these are part of the experience of which you are aware. If they were absent, both your experience and your behavior would be very different. It would change you. An uploaded brain on a computer would probably function perfectly well, the neural connections and their relationships could be replicated electronically, etc. But the experience of self had by that network would be very different from that of of the same network plus a heart, a body and a soul.

If we accept the premise of "non physical" components of self, whether we call them spirit, or soul, or atman, it seems reasonable to suggest that this components can transfer, just like we can transplant a heart. If a foreign consciousness were to combine with a host, we might call that possession. If it were to combine with a newly formed child body, we might call that incarnation. And if it were to have many experiences from body to body, we might call that re-incarnation.

[That Wolf]

So consciousness is unchanging?

...

So it's like my thread, but less dead?

Huh. Okay. Go with that, I guess.

I liked your thread, I just thought this one could be just another side of the d20.
I whored your rules also.


I dont think you could drop your consciousness into anything, memorys however could be placed in something, so by all outward apearances it would be 'you' but it wouldnt be your conscioussness, shit I could even go as far as to say it would exibit a conscious but it wouldnt be 'yours' of course you could most probably be connected to it and you would feel like one consciousness.

So one day could I email you my memorys to experience? That would be a mind fuck

[MrWiggles]

ptw
---
is the movie, Ground Hog day correct?

[scrdest]

Consciousness is "awareness." By one view, "you" are the sum totality of your awareness. If you experience a thought, or a sensation, or vision, or feeling...these things collectively that you are aware of is your consciousnses.

To view it another way, "you" are a network of various components that are contributing to a collective experience. A heart. A brain. A body. There may well also be non classically-"physical" components as well. "Spirit" or "soul" if you will. But, the above interpretation of consciousness doesn't doesn't on the existence of these difficult-to-verify components.

These various components are presumably interchangeable. It is possible to physically transplant a heart. It may well soon be possible to transplant a brain. The "'you" is not just the brain or the heart. It's the network of the components of which "you" are composed. Consciousness is awareness, and if the network that is you were to change from experiencing one body to experiencing another, the whole of the network would be changed as a result. Like if you shine light through a red translucency vs a blue translucency. The result is different even if the light is the same.  Things like personality are not exclusively the result of the neural network that is your brain. Body chemistry is a significant factor. If you were to change from a male body to a female body, for example, hormones and chemistry would change. The body/tool that you use to interface with the world and with others would change. The way that others would treat you would change. Many things would change, and all of these would be part of the collective "experience" that you are aware of...and that is your awareness, and your awareness is you.

A brain could probably be made to exist and function without a heart or body. But the "collective experience" of exclusively a neural network in a brain would be significantly different from the collective experience of a brain plus a heart plus a body. And non-trivially. Imagine the effects on your personality of going through puberty. Seeing an attractive girl. Stubbing your toe. Being held. Feeling adrenaline. All of these are part of the experience of which you are aware. If they were absent, both your experience and your behavior would be very different. It would change you. An uploaded brain on a computer would probably function perfectly well, the neural connections and their relationships could be replicated electronically, etc. But the experience of self had by that network would be very different from that of of the same network plus a heart, a body and a soul.

If we accept the premise of "non physical" components of self, whether we call them spirit, or soul, or atman, it seems reasonable to suggest that this components can transfer, just like we can transplant a heart. If a foreign consciousness were to combine with a host, we might call that possession. If it were to combine with a newly formed child body, we might call that incarnation. And if it were to have many experiences from body to body, we might call that re-incarnation.

But by the same metric, putting on a pair of sunglasses is a significant modification of your experience and behavior - no longer are you blinded by the sun and cover your eyes. It is obvious that you are modifying your experience, thus modifying your future self, but so does literally everything else you do. And your argument literally leads to conclusion that putting on a pair of sunglasses is killing your consciousness as it was every time you do it.

'Body chemistry', hormones and all is quite well understood, and the effects it has are specifically caused by their interaction WITH THE BRAIN. It doesn't work by magic; all endocrinology is half organic chemistry, half RECEPTORS ERRYWHERE ERMAGHERD LERN HE.

If, as you assert, consciousness == personality, you literally die every time you go to sleep. What wakes up is qualitatively different from what fell asleep, and there is no continuity between the two.

The fact that a brain-inna-jar would feel different than brain-inna-skull is kind of a 'duh' observation; and even still, if you were to put the brain in said jar, hook up a wireless transmitter to a body with an interface instead of a brain you could easily fool someone they are just a brain in that body; no sensory organ can work if you sever a sensory nerve between it and the CNS. That is rather trivial to test, if you just have no ethics whatsoever and a spare human being.

[MrWiggles]

You guys should go read Eclipses Phase. The Ego been digitalized, and they can switch out of bodies rather freely. if they need to travel to nother planet, they email themselves.

[Graknorke]

"Continuity of self" isn't a thing that actually exists. But I'm too tired right now to go into depth on it. Ultimately it leads to replacing brains and disassemble-and-reassemble teleportation absolutely a-okay.

If anyone cares enough then I could justify it properly later but right now it doesn't look like it's that unpopular opinion in the thread.

[Sergarr]

Why even bother with disassembling

just copy the stuff into the distant computer and be done with it

[WillowLuman]

While I don't find much overly wrong with the argument at the moment, I would like to point out that sleep isn't unconsciousness. Your brain doesn't switch off when you go to sleep, nor does conscious thought or experience just cease for several hours. People dream. So, linking it to death because "both is the cessation of consciousness" is a bit weak. "There is no continuity between the two" would imply that not one single memory or trait is shared between morning you and night you.

[LordBucket]

putting on a pair of sunglasses is a significant modification of your experience

Remove the word "significant" and I would agree with that statement.

your argument literally leads to conclusion that putting on a pair of sunglasses is killing your consciousness as it was every time you do it.

"Killing?" How is it "killing?" Do you cease to exist when you put on sunglasses? Your experience is altered, yes, but I don't think "killed" is a suitable way to describe that alteration. If you paint a car, replace the interior and change the engine, somebody might reasonably say that it's "a totally different car now." But is that the same as demolishing it?

If, as you assert, consciousness == personality

No, consciousness is awareness. Personality is merely one of the things a conscious entity may be aware of. Or possibly a result of certain systems interacting with each other, depending on how you look at it.

A tree is a single entity. So is a forest, even though it is composed of trees. If you cut down one tree, the forest is different, but is it a different forest? Or if we're to use the standard example, a ship is composed of many parts. A plank of wood is a single thing. A sail is a single thing. A deck made of planks is a single thing. A ship made of planks and decks and sails is a single thing. If you replace the sails on a ship, does that make it a different ship? If you replace the decks, is it a different ship? If over the years you replace piece by piece, plank by plank until the entire ship is composed of pieces that were not part of the original ship, is it a different ship?

If you say that it is a different ship, at what point of change did it become a different ship? If you scrape a knee, and the skin grows back, are you a different human being? If no, then why would putting on sunglasses make you a different human being?

If you say that it is still the same ship, then presumably none of the pieces of the ship "are" what makes the ship, the ship. Why think that your brain is all that makes you, you?