Scientific possibility of an afterlife? ...of somesort

tommy2bad

shane9689 wrote: »

i see the argument for time not last infinity in a mathematical sense, but could that just be a flaw in our understanding of mathamatics? because time is a concept that cant not last infinity, as long as there is anything, even nothing, there is time, since time is a concept we created in our minds and not an actual physical thing. Doesn't the passing of time happen regardless of whether there is a universe or not?

No, believe it or not time ceases to exist if matter ceases to exist. Time and Space are one and the same thing. Remove matter and space no longer exists as a concept, neither dose time.
Remember outside of this universe their is no time or space, it's not a vacuum, it's nothing, 0, nill.

Zillah

Red Nissan wrote: »

My own thoughts on that is we are possessed soon after birth and that being is then you or I.

I know some religions like to consider this soon after birth phenomenon as the arrival of a holy spirit of some sort, so the idea is not new by any means.

If there were to be any factor of this, it suggests that a personality could exist out of a host, but this also suggests that a time period is evolved and I have no thoughts on that part.

What a ludicrous species we are where it is possible for an adult to say something like this with a straight face.

Red Nissan

Zillah wrote: »

What a ludicrous species we are where it is possible for an adult to say something like this with a straight face.

I've some personal experience, I don't believe in religion but there are underlining causes that religion likes to take credit for, they were not too far wrong with the old Adam n Eve story except ti was Eve and Adam and they never met or lived in the same time frame, so I believe that religion has greater knowledge than it knows what to do with or even understands itself.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

What a ludicrous species we are where it is possible for an adult to say something like this with a straight face.

I've always thought that if people tried to bear in mind more often that they we're upright apes, that the world would be a lot less silly a place.

sbsquarepants

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, if you do the lottery twice, you'll have a 2 in 8 million chance of winning, not a 1 in 4 million chance

2 in 8 million, is the same as 1 in 4 million??
I think what you're getting at is 1.6 x 1013, but if you've already won then the odds are meaningless

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, believe it or not time ceases to exist if matter ceases to exist. Time and Space are one and the same thing. Remove matter and space no longer exists as a concept, neither dose time.
Remember outside of this universe their is no time or space, it's not a vacuum, it's nothing, 0, nill.

I could be wrong but time and space are not quite the same thing, as I understand it (I'm no physicist btw!), they are both components of the same thing (spacetime). Again, I could be totally wrong but I don't think matter is necessary for it to exist, I can see how time is kind of meaningless in the absence of matter, but space?? Why would space require matter? Surely matter requires space, but not the other way round?

Brian Shanahan

Red Nissan wrote: »

I've some personal experience,

Again, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. I fully expect that your "experience" is something along the lines of sleep paralysis or unwitting drug intake.

I don't believe in religion but there are underlining causes that religion likes to take credit for, they were not too far wrong with the old Adam n Eve story except ti was Eve and Adam and they never met or lived in the same time frame,

That would be like predicting that England will beat Cameroon in the next world cup, and upon seeing both teams go out in the first round, declaring "I wasn't too far wrong". There is not one single detail of the Adam and Eve story that is correct, and the fact that it is the second of two contradictory origin myths only makes it worse.

so I believe that religion has greater knowledge than it knows what to do with or even understands itself.

The more I see of religion, the more it is obvious that any knowledge it contains that is useful was first developed in some other context, and then stolen by religion to make itself look good.

MaxWig

robindch wrote: »

I've always thought that if people tried to bear in mind more often that they we're upright apes, that the world would be a lot less silly a place.

I think that's the part that people have most problems with though.

We will never 'just be animals' in our own eyes.

smacl

Zillah wrote: »

Data doesn't move, it is copied. You copy/paste a brain, you don't cut/paste - unless you shoot yourself in the head immediately afterwards but that doesn't seem productive. You create a digital copy of your brain, nothing more. Potentially that copy could experience sentience if your virtual environment if well designed, but you don't 'go' there.

The teleport machines in Simak's Way Station come to mind. Make a copy of the person, conciousness and all, transmit details to new location, reconstruct, and then dump the original in a vat of acid.

A rather disconcerting way to travel

Akrasia

Zillah wrote: »

Just a few thoughts on points raised:

Time might be infinite but the matter and energy of the universe isn't. The universe is expanding and going cold all the time. Once heat death occurs nothing changes ever again, and everything gets so far away from everything else that galaxies don't exist anymore. A few billion years is by no means infinite, and it is in fact a very short time when you consider the ludicrously improbable chain of events that would be required to recreate a human brain in its exact configuration.

Even if that were not the case it does not mean that everything that can potentially happen would happen. The universe could go on infinitely and never see you or anything like you again. Even if we assume it could do so: It's a very deep rabbit-hole. If you will get perfect copies of yourself then you will get inaccurate copies as well. The you where you remember being Hitler. The you where you were a serial killer. The you where you were abandoned as a child. the you where you grew up in Mexico. Are any of these any less of an afterlife than the one you imagine? Do any of them matter? There is no reason to believe there would be any continuity of consciousness.

There's nothing fundamentally different to machine intelligence compared to human intelligence, beyond current limitations. We are nothing more than an adaptive set of behaviours, behaviours that could be copied or approximated easily in a sufficiently advanced virtual environment. You could posit that a machine, however complex, could only ever emulate consciousness rather than truly experience it - but then again: we assume that other human beings are experiencing consciousness as we do simply because of their outward appearance of it, why not the same for a machine? It would be rather small minded to assume the fact that our brain-computers are wet makes all the difference.

Finally: You can't 'upload' your brain anywhere. Data doesn't move, it is copied. You copy/paste a brain, you don't cut/paste - unless you shoot yourself in the head immediately afterwards but that doesn't seem productive. You create a digital copy of your brain, nothing more. Potentially that copy could experience sentience if your virtual environment if well designed, but you don't 'go' there.

When Captain Picard went onto the transporter, the machine killed Picard on one side, sent the exact instructions for how to rebuild him on the other end with the exact same set of 'states' as before. As far as the new Picard is concerned, he is the same person. The old Picard doesn't care that it's dead cause it's dead.

Yeah, that doesn't really bother me. Wierdly enough. I die every day. The foetus I once was is long gone, replaced with a newborn, replaced with a child, replaced with a teenager, replaced with a young adult etc etc.

I am connected to all the past selves by my memories and emotions and relationships. If I had a condition similar to Alzheimers, where my natural brain was deteriorating and I was given the choice where I could copy my brain and upload it to a virtual machine but the cost was that during the copying process, my original brain gets destroyed. Ultimately, It would not be 'me' who wakes up and regains consciousness, but if I Metamorphosised into a new state of existence complete with my memories from before, I would be ok with that.

robindch

MaxWig wrote: »

We will never 'just be animals' in our own eyes.

That's probably quite true for people who are told to believe -- and who probably do -- that they're made in the image of their deity.

Red Nissan

robindch wrote: »

I've always thought that if people tried to bear in mind more often that they we're upright apes, that the world would be a lot less silly a place.

You are perhaps correct. However, many of the upright apes still living in trees are endangered species are in danger of extinction.

Facts are those of us who have climbed down from the trees, have done so for two reasons, we are just following the crowd or we are leading it.

GarIT

Red Nissan wrote: »

I've some personal experience, I don't believe in religion but there are underlining causes that religion likes to take credit for, they were not too far wrong with the old Adam n Eve story except ti was Eve and Adam and they never met or lived in the same time frame, so I believe that religion has greater knowledge than it knows what to do with or even understands itself.

You should read some things by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Through history the supernatural has always been attributed to be the cause of anything we don't understand and is always eventually proven wrong.

aidan24326

Akrasia wrote: »

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to suggest that they did. I meant that souls don't exist, but our advancing technology could some day allow us to preserve our consciousness in an artificial brain

I doubt that will ever be possible. Our consciousness emerges from underlying biochemical and physiological processes and I don't see how you could transfer that exact state or recreate exactly the same conditions inside a machine that is based on different hardware and different chemistry. An intelligent and possibly even 'conscious' entity could emerge but it would be impossible to say that it was 'you' inside the machine, rather than a very sophisticated piece of software doing a good job of sounding like you.

Our conscious awareness is inextricably tied to the physical hardware that gives rise to it and it's absurd to think that 'I' or 'you' could experience consciousness inside a computer system given the vast amount of conditions that are necessary to make us thinking feeling entities in the first place.

GarIT

aidan24326 wrote: »

I doubt that will ever be possible. Our consciousness emerges from underlying biochemical and physiological processes and I don't see how you could transfer that exact state or recreate exactly the same conditions inside a machine that is based on different hardware and different chemistry. An intelligent and possibly even 'conscious' entity could emerge but it would be impossible to say that it was 'you' inside the machine, rather than a very sophisticated piece of software doing a good job of sounding like you.

Our conscious awareness is inextricably tied to the physical hardware that gives rise to it and it's absurd to think that 'I' or 'you' could experience consciousness inside a computer system given the vast amount of conditions that are necessary to make us thinking feeling entities in the first place.

In a way though it is like transferring your old tapes onto a DVD. It would be insanely complicated, but theoretically it is possible. As in, in theory if a perfect copy of a brain was made it would have the same memories, thoughts (until chaos theory happens) etc. It would never be 'you' but a good copy is theoretically possible.

MaxWig

robindch wrote: »

That's probably quite true for people who are told to believe -- and who probably do -- that they're made in the image of their deity.

I'm not sure that it's easy for anyone.

Our 'creatureliness' tends to be avoided/hidden/covered up/made taboo.

Toilet activities/Sexual activities etc.

MaxWig

GarIT wrote: »

You should read some things by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Through history the supernatural has always been attributed to be the cause of anything we don't understand and is always eventually proven wrong.

Sounds like the description of a hypotheses.

lorenzo87

We die, we rot.. That's it!
If you believe in God or anything else in that line I think you are deluded myself.
It is a nice thought that there may be an after life or a God... But I don't believe in fairies.

Red Nissan

lorenzo87 wrote: »

We die, we rot.. That's it!
If you believe in God or anything else in that line I think you are deluded myself.
It is a nice thought that there may be an after life or a God... But I don't believe in fairies.

You don't actually have to believe, imo, religions have completely messed things up, I do believe we were given instructions and genetically modified on our long journey to here, it's more than the combination of potential, we got pushed to where we are.

By whom? For what reason? For whom? So many questions.

smacl

GarIT wrote: »

In a way though it is like transferring your old tapes onto a DVD. It would be insanely complicated, but theoretically it is possible. As in, in theory if a perfect copy of a brain was made it would have the same memories, thoughts (until chaos theory happens) etc. It would never be 'you' but a good copy is theoretically possible.

Hmmm, doubt it will ever happen to you or I. More likely we invent an AI that can back itself up and hence become immortal, and then declare ourselves obsolete.

aidan24326

GarIT wrote: »

In a way though it is like transferring your old tapes onto a DVD. It would be insanely complicated, but theoretically it is possible. As in, in theory if a perfect copy of a brain was made it would have the same memories, thoughts (until chaos theory happens) etc. It would never be 'you' but a good copy is theoretically possible.

Is it even possible though? Theoretically maybe, but requiring technology very far ahead of anything we have and probably well ahead of anything we've even dreamed of yet.

This isn't simply a computing problem, it would require a machine vastly superior to anything we'd call a computer nowadays.

GarIT

aidan24326 wrote: »

Is it even possible though? Theoretically maybe, but requiring technology very far ahead of anything we have and probably well ahead of anything we've even dreamed of yet.

This isn't simply a computing problem, it would require a machine vastly superior to anything we'd call a computer nowadays.

In theory, assuming you had an infinitely powerful computer and difficulty/time taken to get everything set up wasn't an issue it would be possible. That's only in theory, I have no idea if it will ever be piratical to do it.

shane9689

lorenzo87 wrote: »

We die, we rot.. That's it!
If you believe in God or anything else in that line I think you are deluded myself.
It is a nice thought that there may be an after life or a God... But I don't believe in fairies.

Most people on this thread are having scientific debates so whats with the remark? open scientific debate like this encourages progress, closed minded "end of discussion" retort like yours mirrors that of organised religion, so unless you're open for debating this topic, i don't even understand why you commented here. This is the atheist forum, i'm pretty sure most people on this forum are well aware of the human condition without being too deluded. We are merely posing questions out of curiosity, not ignorance.

Akrasia

aidan24326 wrote: »

Is it even possible though? Theoretically maybe, but requiring technology very far ahead of anything we have and probably well ahead of anything we've even dreamed of yet.

This isn't simply a computing problem, it would require a machine vastly superior to anything we'd call a computer nowadays.

It's certainly possible. The brain and associated nervous system weighs about 3-5 lbs. The brain assembles itself during the development of the foetus using instructions encoded in DNA using organic materials that are ubiquitous on earth. There is currently a multi billi9on euro project to create the first complete simulation of the human brain https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/brain-simulation-platform1 Our understanding is only going to increase with research and investments in new technology.
We can either reverse engineer the individual components of the brain to improve our computer technology, or we can alter the genetic instructions to create organic components to a new class of organic computer, or we can incorporate organic methods and components into electronic computer systems.

We are already capable of building interfaces between the brain and silicone technology. We are in the early stages of developing electronic eyes, robotic hands, electronic hearts etc. These are very very early stages of development, but the more learn, the more we are able to design machines that both incorporate biological systems, and also replicate the function of these systems. I imagine that a future android/cyborg will either have organic matter incorporated as part of the computing process, or we will have developed such an idepth understanding of how organic computation works that we have been able to replicate these structures using advanced electronics

Zillah

Akrasia wrote: »

When Captain Picard went onto the transporter, the machine killed Picard on one side, sent the exact instructions for how to rebuild him on the other end with the exact same set of 'states' as before. As far as the new Picard is concerned, he is the same person. The old Picard doesn't care that it's dead cause it's dead.

Yeah, that doesn't really bother me. Wierdly enough. I die every day. The foetus I once was is long gone, replaced with a newborn, replaced with a child, replaced with a teenager, replaced with a young adult etc etc.

I am connected to all the past selves by my memories and emotions and relationships. If I had a condition similar to Alzheimers, where my natural brain was deteriorating and I was given the choice where I could copy my brain and upload it to a virtual machine but the cost was that during the copying process, my original brain gets destroyed. Ultimately, It would not be 'me' who wakes up and regains consciousness, but if I Metamorphosised into a new state of existence complete with my memories from before, I would be ok with that.

Y'know the way every generation or two things move on to the point where stuff so strange has happened that they would find it outlandishly bizarre? Like, try explaining a USB stick to an Ancient Greek, or Facebook to a Victorian.

I think one of the real "whoah" changes that will happen eventually is the abolition of the notion of the uniqueness of self. As you say: My brain has been replaced several times over since I was born - the same atoms are not there any more, but I still feel like me. If I make a virtual copy of my brain I will simultaneously find myself sitting there as if nothing changes, and another me will wake up in a virtual environment with no less of a claim to continuity of consciousness from the original Zillah. So I would be perfectly happy to achieve near-perpetual life in digital form. The computer me is no less me than me. There will be a disappointed Zillah that is stuck in a dying body, and another Zillah that looks back at the lame bio-Zillah and thinks "Glad I'm not him!" Both are me's.

Now, on a totally nerdy tangent: In Star Trek the transporters are actually a matter stream. Each particle is specifically coded and reassembled exactly as it was. So you are, actually, the same person. You were definitely dead though, as thoroughly as if you were immersed in acid, but then brought back to life.

lorenzo87

shane9689 wrote: »

Most people on this thread are having scientific debates so whats with the remark? open scientific debate like this encourages progress, closed minded "end of discussion" retort like yours mirrors that of organised religion, so unless you're open for debating this topic, i don't even understand why you commented here. This is the atheist forum, i'm pretty sure most people on this forum are well aware of the human condition without being too deluded. We are merely posing questions out of curiosity, not ignorance.

Fair point Shane, apologies.

sbsquarepants

It's a funny old world, the parts that make us up are billions of years old at least, but we still replace them completely every 5 or 6 years with "new" ones. You couldn't make this shít up!:D

Call Me Jimmy

nagirrac wrote: »

What you are describing is generally known as the theory of Eternal Return. Put simply this states that time is not liner but cyclical and that everything that occurs will continue to repeat itself in cycles for eternity. It was specifically this idea that led Nietzsche to his philosophy that existence is ultimately pointless and absurd, as we are just destined to repeat the same lives over and over for eternity. A somewhat horrendous thought if you think about it, even if there are specific life events that one might consider well worth it

How is that horrendous given that right now your life would be one of these repeats, It would be repeating but we would have no memory of the last (or next) ones so it's still the same as if you only had one go.

shane9689

Zillah wrote: »

Y'know the way every generation or two things move on to the point where stuff so strange has happened that they would find it outlandishly bizarre? Like, try explaining a USB stick to an Ancient Greek, or Facebook to a Victorian.

I think one of the real "whoah" changes that will happen eventually is the abolition of the notion of the uniqueness of self. As you say: My brain has been replaced several times over since I was born - the same atoms are not there any more, but I still feel like me. If I make a virtual copy of my brain I will simultaneously find myself sitting there as if nothing changes, and another me will wake up in a virtual environment with no less of a claim to continuity of consciousness from the original Zillah. So I would be perfectly happy to achieve near-perpetual life in digital form. The computer me is no less me than me. There will be a disappointed Zillah that is stuck in a dying body, and another Zillah that looks back at the lame bio-Zillah and thinks "Glad I'm not him!" Both are me's.
/QUOTE]

But then you consciously are the same person then? i mean, if that was to happen, your conscious would still be in the dying body....sounds more like cloning rather than the transfer of consciousness ? i mean orginal zilla is still dying orginal zilla, so you havent really put him anywhere, but rather just made a copy of him?

shane9689

another point of interest....could you connect consciousness from different brains?

Zillah

shane9689 wrote: »

Zillah wrote: »

Y'know the way every generation or two things move on to the point where stuff so strange has happened that they would find it outlandishly bizarre? Like, try explaining a USB stick to an Ancient Greek, or Facebook to a Victorian.

I think one of the real "whoah" changes that will happen eventually is the abolition of the notion of the uniqueness of self. As you say: My brain has been replaced several times over since I was born - the same atoms are not there any more, but I still feel like me. If I make a virtual copy of my brain I will simultaneously find myself sitting there as if nothing changes, and another me will wake up in a virtual environment with no less of a claim to continuity of consciousness from the original Zillah. So I would be perfectly happy to achieve near-perpetual life in digital form. The computer me is no less me than me. There will be a disappointed Zillah that is stuck in a dying body, and another Zillah that looks back at the lame bio-Zillah and thinks "Glad I'm not him!" Both are me's.

But then you consciously are the same person then? i mean, if that was to happen, your conscious would still be in the dying body....sounds more like cloning rather than the transfer of consciousness ? i mean orginal zilla is still dying orginal zilla, so you havent really put him anywhere, but rather just made a copy of him?

You are right, there is no 'transfer'. Zillah 1 doesn't go anywhere, I'm still trapped in a dying body. Zillah 2, which you can call a 'copy' if you like, is alive and well in a virtual environment, and I'm perfectly happy there. If it is a perfect copy and the virtualisation has been implemented properly then there are two me's, and both are me.

So I am both trapped in a dying body, disappointed at having been the one to stay behind, and I wake up successfully in a new virtual form. One is original, one is a copy, but both are now fully fledged me's.

Subjectivity of the self is a bit of an acid moment.

shane9689

what if you connected the two consciousness together? would it be like talking to yourself in your head?

Red Nissan

Zillah wrote: »

You are right, there is no 'transfer'. Zillah 1 doesn't go anywhere, I'm still trapped in a dying body. .

Consider this: You are lying on an operating theatre trolly, you are put to sleep, a pump is attached to you and your heart is stopped. You are dead.

The rest of the operation is carried out, but for this consideration, your repaired heart is put back in an jump started and you wake up maybe a day later ~

But is it your own body? How does one know? And what about whole heart transplants? Who am I now?

shane9689

now i understand the movie Avatar!!!

haha it took this thread for me to figure it out... the movie had a sort of subplot on the idea of the transfer of consciousness and the natives of the planet all shared consciousness with eachother....aswell, the main character would sort of transfer is consciousness into another body which, when i watched it first, i didnt fully comprehend it or accept it...but this put the idea into perspective i suppose. Watch it if you havent...good movie, even just for the effects.

Red Nissan

shane9689 wrote: »

what if you connected the two consciousness together? would it be like talking to yourself in your head?

I'd think it would be more like the Borg Collective. Talking to oneself in one's own head is usually self awareness and almost always creative.

nagirrac

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

How is that horrendous given that right now your life would be one of these repeats, It would be repeating but we would have no memory of the last (or next) ones so it's still the same as if you only had one go.

The concept of it is what is horrendous, not as you say necessarily the experience of it. However, the experience of it could be equally horrendous depending on the circumstances of your life.

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

At the same time, I don't for a moment believe that any part of human conciousness exists outside of the brain, precedes it, or outlives it, and as such would not subscribe to either a dualist or monist position.

By definition, by making the above statement, you are subscribing to monism. Specifically material monism which holds that all mental activities can be reduced to the physical (thus also known as physicalism). All monist and dualist positions have problems, which simply demonstrates we have an incomplete understanding of reality. You can drive large holes through all positions on mind/body based on the available evidence.

The simple layperson's language I try and use is that humans are biological machines, with an incredibly complex neural network brain/nervous system, and information processing "software" that runs on the brain/nervous system. IMO we know a fair bit about the former although there are still huge gaps, a rapidly increasing knowledge base on the brain/nervous system hardware, and fcuk all about the latter. How people whose brains have shut down to the level of the brain stem can recover and have full cognitive ability restored and memories, etc. is completely beyond me.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

How people whose brains have shut down to the level of the brain stem can recover and have full cognitive ability restored and memories, etc. is completely beyond me.

I've zero background in neurology and how the brain works, but would imagine that its state persists at a physical level for a certain amount of time without any electrical activity. It is quite possible to have a physical computer whose state does not decay without power or activity, e.g. Babbage's analytical engine. To my mind, the state of the brain (e.g. the mind) is in all probability entirely intrinsic to the physical / chemical brain until shown to be otherwise. Any notion of a human conciousness that is extrinsic to the brain from my understanding demands a belief in the supernatural, and like anything supernatural demands proof which currently appears to be entirely lacking.

In that sense, I don't believe the label material monist offers anything over and above atheist, which I'll stick to. Now, off to do some taiji to get back in the moment...

Brian Shanahan

Red Nissan wrote: »

You don't actually have to believe, imo, religions have completely messed things up, I do believe we were given instructions and genetically modified on our long journey to here, it's more than the combination of potential, we got pushed to where we are.

By whom? For what reason? For whom? So many questions.

Why all the elaborate implausible scenarios, when we have a mechanism and vector which, both taken together, are far simpler, more likely and more plausible?

Natural selection as the driver, and the various combinations of DNA, RNA and prions are much more satisfying than either "goddidit" or, your preferred option "advancedaliensfromtheplanetBlarggghdidit".

Zubeneschamali

nagirrac wrote: »

if we had the technology to build a human brain with exactly the same neural network as yours for example, and keep it fed and watered with a similar environment to what you are experiencing, it would have identical conscious experience to you.

Yes, but it still wouldn't BE me. If you ran me through a photocopier right now, there would be two identical beings afterwards. Both would have the same memories up to the point one went into the copier.

But only one of them would be me. I could punch him in the eye, and his eye would hurt, not mine. We would be distinct beings.

Similarly, if some combination of atoms in this infinite future recombines to make an exact copy of me that thinks the same as I do, it still won't be me. I'll be long dead.

sbsquarepants

shane9689 wrote: »

another point of interest....could you connect consciousness from different brains?

You should read some stuff by Ray Kurzweil, he's a fascinating guy who ponders and predicts this kind of thing. He's also not just a sci fi writer or anything like that, he's a bona fide computer genius (I think he's a creative director for google or something like that at the moment). Look up "the singularity is coming" and "live long enough to live forever" If his vision of the future is even close to being right it will be amazing! He ponders uploading ourselves into the net, either just for pleasure (a la total recall) or to "live" there permanently free of pain, hunger and physical needs - you want a sports car - sure here have one, have 1000, want to swim over niagarra falls - go ahead it won't hurt! Also things like replicating specific bodies to inhabit the "real" world, want to climb Kilimanjaro, the real one? - be a lot easier if you had wings, or the legs of a mountain goat. Making copies of ourselves and basically setting them free to do their own thing, merging consciousness with other beings to create whole new beings, new species even - it's absolutely fascinating stuff and he reckons it is really close, as in the majority of people alive now will live to see it.

Zubeneschamali

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Making copies of ourselves and basically setting them free to do their own thing, merging consciousness with other beings to create whole new beings, new species even - it's absolutely fascinating stuff and he reckons it is really close, as in the majority of people alive now will live to see it.

If I make a software copy of myself and let it loose in a computer, it makes no actual difference to me at all. If I die, I'm just dead, and this software thingie is still running about in a computer, who cares?

Zillah

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but it still wouldn't BE me. If you ran me through a photocopier right now, there would be two identical beings afterwards. Both would have the same memories up to the point one went into the copier.

But only one of them would be me. I could punch him in the eye, and his eye would hurt, not mine. We would be distinct beings.

Similarly, if some combination of atoms in this infinite future recombines to make an exact copy of me that thinks the same as I do, it still won't be me. I'll be long dead.

I maintain that you'd both be separate you's. You'd find yourself over there in the other body thinking "wait, what? I'm in the wrong body! How did you move me over?" You didn't move, you made a copy, and the copy is no less you than the original, the only difference being that one came 'first', which is only relevant in an arbitrary sort of way.

Zubeneschamali

Zillah wrote: »

I maintain that you'd both be separate you's. You'd find yourself over there in the other body thinking "wait, what? I'm in the wrong body! How did you move me over?" You didn't move, you made a copy, and the copy is no less you than the original, the only difference being that one came 'first', which is only relevant in an arbitrary sort of way.

Well, no, because I'm the copy in this human body, same as now, and you can power off the computer and "kill" the other "me", and I won't even notice. As soon as you create a copy, it isn't me and I don't care about it.

The only way to make one of these copies seem a bit like it's me is the experiment where you replace one of my neurons at a time with a bit of circuitry, until I am all computer and didn't notice.

But I don't even believe that one - If you scan my brain neuron by neuron and build your copy, you get a perfect working copy but the real me is still alive. Now shoot the real me and you just have the copy, but it's clear that you killed me n the process.

Zillah

The other you would look over at you and you'd think "Why is he being such a dick? I wish he'd understand that he's no more me than me."

Now shoot the real me and you just have the copy, but it's clear that you killed me n the process.

Is it? The original you died and that sucks for him, but the copy is still you and everyone else in your life will see no difference, so it's not clear at all.

I think this is mostly a failure of your imagination.

Zubeneschamali

Zillah wrote: »

I think this is mostly a failure of your imagination.

No, it really isn't. I understand that the copy would initially think that it is me. There would be two beings that think they are me.

But the copy would be wrong.

For example, if I say I have a copy of you running on my PC, would you really think it is OK for me to shoot you? No, because you are still you, with the same right to life as ever. Me making an AI copy of you hasn't altered the actual you at all.

Should AIs like this upload of you have some rights and protections? maybe so, maybe not - but it is simply not you as a matter of fact. From the moment it is created it is a separate being with its own independent experience, and no special mystical access to your inner "self".

tommy2bad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it really isn't. I understand that the copy would initially think that it is me. There would be two beings that think they are me.

But the copy would be wrong.

For example, if I say I have a copy of you running on my PC, would you really think it is OK for me to shoot you? No, because you are still you, with the same right to life as ever. Me making an AI copy of you hasn't altered the actual you at all.

Should AIs like this upload of you have some rights and protections? maybe so, maybe not - but it is simply not you as a matter of fact. From the moment it is created it is a separate being with its own independent experience, and no special mystical access to your inner "self".

The thing is if that 'copy' is exactly the same, a perfect clone how would you tell if you are the original or the copy? Both of you have the same memories so both remember the cloning process, both would think they were the original.
The copy would remember coming of of one side of the copier and unless the sides were marked neither would have anyway of knowing which was the copy.
Even if we have the copy as a back up to reboot the original in the event of a catastrophic failure, heart attack or drowning pick your own end, then are you the copy or the original?

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

To my mind, the state of the brain (e.g. the mind) is in all probability entirely intrinsic to the physical / chemical brain until shown to be otherwise. Any notion of a human conciousness that is extrinsic to the brain from my understanding demands a belief in the supernatural, and like anything supernatural demands proof which currently appears to be entirely lacking.

There is no need to believe in anything supernatural to adopt an alternate position to material monism. I'll leave the various forms of dualism out of the discussion for now as I actually agree those are the most difficult to defend and reconcile with the available evidence.

Other than material monism, you have idealist monism and neutral monism or dual aspect monism. Idealist monism holds that mind is the ultimate reality and physical matter is a specific manifestation of mind. This line of thinking would be compatible with Advaita school of Hinduism. As an aside for those that like to mock religion as based on ignorant ancient peasants, they really should read Vedanta cosmology and philosophy, much of which was written 3,000 years ago.

I don't subscribe to idealism as it has as many problems as materialism, from the opposite perspective. Just as it is impossible to explain certain aspects of mind emerging from physical matter, it is equally impossible to explain physical matter emerging from mind. It could well be that we may never or can never understand certain aspects of mind.

Duals aspect monism holds that there is only one fundamental substance / reality but that all fundamental entities of that reality have both a mental attribute and a physical attribute. There is nothing supernatural (or at least need not be anything supernatural) about this way of thinking as it is very compatible with what we know, for example the most fundamental particles we know of presently have both physical attributes (like mass) and mental or informational attributes (like spin). In religious terms this way of thinking is very compatible with the Visishtadvaita school of Vedanta.

Anyway the real world beckons so I will have to return to this later

smacl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because I'm the copy in this human body, same as now, and you can power off the computer and "kill" the other "me", and I won't even notice. As soon as you create a copy, it isn't me and I don't care about it.

What you're implying here is that subjective reality exists beyond the body, as in my (probably incorrect) understanding nagirrac's argument for monism. How about this fun little scenario;

You lay yourself and your lifeless clone beside one another.
You anaesthetize the current you such that you're unconscious.
You copy your mind into the clone
You increase the dose on anaesthetic, killing the original you
You swap the position of the bodies
You wake up the clone
You don't tell anyone what you've done

The original you died in your sleep, and was not aware of the death
The new you awoke in the same position as the old you still beside the lifeless clone.
Unless you allow for a soul / life force which is external to the body, both subjectively and objectively nothing has happened.

Put another way, subjective awareness could be no more or less than a state of mind, and copying the state copies everything.

Zillah

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it really isn't. I understand that the copy would initially think that it is me. There would be two beings that think they are me.

But the copy would be wrong.

For example, if I say I have a copy of you running on my PC, would you really think it is OK for me to shoot you? No, because you are still you, with the same right to life as ever. Me making an AI copy of you hasn't altered the actual you at all.

Should AIs like this upload of you have some rights and protections? maybe so, maybe not - but it is simply not you as a matter of fact. From the moment it is created it is a separate being with its own independent experience, and no special mystical access to your inner "self".

Your logic is all over the place here.

The copy is as much me as I am. I don't want to be shot.
These two statements are not contradictory.

The versions of me are not a unified being, but we don't have to be for them to count as two me's.

The existence of a copy doesn't have to have any effect on the first me for it to count as me. You're making lots of strange assumptions here.

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

The original you died in your sleep, and was not aware of the death
The new you awoke in the same position as the old you still beside the lifeless clone.
Unless you allow for a soul / life force which is external to the body, both subjectively and objectively nothing has happened.

Put another way, subjective awareness could be no more or less than a state of mind, and copying the state copies everything.

Except that someone/thing must do the copying.
So objectively a lot has changed.