Happy Atheist Forum

So alot of scientist seem to be agreeing with Kurzweil and others like him about the future. So according to that whole prediction humans won't truly have a life expectancy anymore and we will all be able to get new bodies Ghost in the Shell style or something like that. If you had the choice to have a body that will most likely be superior in every way to your human body would you do it? The few theist I've asked this question say of course not, they think someone would only do this because they fear death, personally I just think it would be a waste to just die. I don't fear death but I do fear no longer existing. I don't want to cease to think. I'll be first in line the moment it's ideal to get a body designed to be superior to our standard biological ones. What about you guys? Would you be willing to make the switch? If not, then why?

So replace what is natural and good with what is tainted with too much tech? I hate sissies like this. Death is a part of life. Expect, plan, and accept it. Who wants to really live forever?!? Seriously!?

Quote from: "Big Mac"So replace what is natural and good with what is tainted with too much tech? I hate sissies like this. Death is a part of life. Expect, plan, and accept it. Who wants to really live forever?!? Seriously!?

I do, I'm not satisfied with a century or so of life, I want to see the end of humanity if there will be one, that or I get bored with existing. What's so good about the human body anyway? If we can eventually build something superior why not? Sounds like a great thing to me anyway. Isn't that the typical answer? Why not?

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Big Mac"So replace what is natural and good with what is tainted with too much tech? I hate sissies like this. Death is a part of life. Expect, plan, and accept it. Who wants to really live forever?!? Seriously!?

I do, I'm not satisfied with a century or so of life, I want to see the end of humanity if there will be one, that or I get bored with existing. What's so good about the human body anyway? If we can eventually build something superior why not? Sounds like a great thing to me anyway. Isn't that the typical answer? Why not?

Better to live a natural life that ends quickly than a protracted one empty of real humanity. I may hate my fellow humans but being alive is pretty amazing.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Big Mac"So replace what is natural and good with what is tainted with too much tech? I hate sissies like this. Death is a part of life. Expect, plan, and accept it. Who wants to really live forever?!? Seriously!?

I do, I'm not satisfied with a century or so of life, I want to see the end of humanity if there will be one, that or I get bored with existing. What's so good about the human body anyway? If we can eventually build something superior why not? Sounds like a great thing to me anyway. Isn't that the typical answer? Why not?

Better to live a natural life that ends quickly than a protracted one empty of real humanity. I may hate my fellow humans but being alive is pretty amazing.

Being synthetically means I won't be human? How do you define alive? Just because a body is artificially created does that mean it can't be alive? (according to the theorists) I'll still be able to feel pain, feel pleasure, have all the emotions I had before, human is human in the head, no?

No, if you were not naturally made like the womb, you are not human. Robots don't have real feelings. I say we treat them like all other tech, to be their for our own beneift.

Quote from: "Big Mac"No, if you were not naturally made like the womb, you are not human. Robots don't have real feelings. I say we treat them like all other tech, to be their for our own benefit.

I disagree, if a being is sentient and develops  emotions and independent thought  and what not right do we have to treat it like an appliance? Doing so would make us just as bad as the man in the sky. That's just cruel.

Learning to live with death is a part of being mortal. If you're immortal, there's no need to learn to live with death.

I'd like to watch the macroevolution of various species, ourselves included, over millennia. I'd like to explore the whole world and when I'm done I'd like to explore the universe. Imagine spending hundreds of years in stasis between star-systems only to awaken at the same physical level you were when you started the journey. Imagine spending millions of years, being the first human (or artificial human) to visit Andromeda or Triangulum. Imagine seeing for yourself if the universe drifts apart or collapses in on itself again.

How is that not incredibly tempting?

Quote from: "Will"Learning to live with death is a part of being mortal. If you're immortal, there's no need to learn to live with death.

I'd like to watch the macroevolution of various species, ourselves included, over millennia. I'd like to explore the whole world and when I'm done I'd like to explore the universe. Imagine spending hundreds of years in stasis between star-systems only to awaken at the same physical level you were when you started the journey. Imagine spending millions of years, being the first human (or artificial human) to visit Andromeda or Triangulum. Imagine seeing for yourself if the universe drifts apart or collapses in on itself again.

How is that not incredibly tempting?

YES! How could anyone not be tempted by this? The very idea that this is possible in OUR lifetime is mind bending and tickles me crazy. I wonder why is being biological so amazing? I don't get it. Aside from the fact of being alive since that technology is very infantile right now when it finally does get here, if you're an atheist, aside from wanting to have offspring why would you want to remain biological?

On another note, can you imagine how intelligent you would be after all of those years? Not to mention incredibly wise, we'd be like walking beacons of every accomplishment ever done by man to an exact detail. When you have a synthetic brain I'm sure it will be vastly more efficient than a organic one when it comes to retaining and accessing data .


Does no one else have an opinion? This stuff is being predicted by a lot of people (not just Kurzweil and the weilites but other people that happen to be many scientist) to be very real and available in the next 15-30 years and the technology that is supposed to do it is already around in infantile forms.

Actually, I suspect when we start rebuilding ourselves we'll be doing it using organic technologies. The mechanical thing might be en vogue for a bit, but looking like a Borg really doesn't seem like the final incarnation of human self-improvement. If I had to guess, I'd say we're going to be similar to how we appear now, just with little tweaks here and there to make us better: eyes that can take in the entire spectrum of light and energy and can see anywhere from millions of miles away down to atoms, senses of taste, smell, hearing and feeling that incorporate a higher quality and efficiency, a brain that can work much faster, run trillions of computations, is incredibly intuitive, and can remember everything perfectly, maybe even senses that we're not even aware of yet.

And yeah, I'd be very happy to live for eternity, always improving myself, always learning... maybe even initiating abiogenesis elsewhere.

Quote from: "Will"Actually, I suspect when we start rebuilding ourselves we'll be doing it using organic technologies. The mechanical thing might be en vogue for a bit, but looking like a Borg really doesn't seem like the final incarnation of human self-improvement. If I had to guess, I'd say we're going to be similar to how we appear now, just with little tweaks here and there to make us better: eyes that can take in the entire spectrum of light and energy and can see anywhere from millions of miles away down to atoms, senses of taste, smell, hearing and feeling that incorporate a higher quality and efficiency, a brain that can work much faster, run trillions of computations, is incredibly intuitive, and can remember everything perfectly, maybe even senses that we're not even aware of yet.

And yeah, I'd be very happy to live for eternity, always improving myself, always learning... maybe even initiating abiogenesis elsewhere.

Ha ha! indeed, I don't think anyone wants to look like a borg. I always thought it would be something akin to ghost in the shell where they are still in many ways organic but just synthetic and not so much incredibly mechanical.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"YES! How could anyone not be tempted by this? The very idea that this is possible in OUR lifetime is mind bending and tickles me crazy. I wonder why is being biological so amazing? I don't get it. Aside from the fact of being alive since that technology is very infantile right now when it finally does get here, if you're an atheist, aside from wanting to have offspring why would you want to remain biological?

Because it's natural and pure. This is disgusting and I hope any facility doing this research burns down. We already have a population problem as it is without increasing a life-span to the point of nigh infinite. If I met any android people I'd attack their artificial parts out for the greater good. Non-human freaks.

What if they decide you're obsolete and try to conquer you? No one person should be too powerful like that.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Because it's natural and pure.

Like cancer, flesh-eating bacteria or hemlock?

Quote from: "Big Mac"This is disgusting and I hope any facility doing this research burns down. We already have a population problem as it is without increasing a life-span to the point of nigh infinite. If I met any android people I'd attack their artificial parts out for the greater good. Non-human freaks.

I'm already bionic. I was born with a coarctation of the aorta (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11069), so a very gifted surgeon put in a dacron tube. Watch out, I might just conqour you! Muhahahahaha!!!  

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Big Mac"Because it's natural and pure.

Like cancer, flesh-eating bacteria or hemlock?

Quote from: "Big Mac"This is disgusting and I hope any facility doing this research burns down. We already have a population problem as it is without increasing a life-span to the point of nigh infinite. If I met any android people I'd attack their artificial parts out for the greater good. Non-human freaks.

I'm already bionic. I was born with a coarctation of the aorta (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11069), so a very gifted surgeon put in a dacron tube. Watch out, I might just conqour you! Muhahahahaha!!!  

I don't know what all that faggy science talk is but prepare to be assaulted, broseph!!! I watched the Terminator....Austrians are going to kill off humanity!!!

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"YES! How could anyone not be tempted by this? The very idea that this is possible in OUR lifetime is mind bending and tickles me crazy. I wonder why is being biological so amazing? I don't get it. Aside from the fact of being alive since that technology is very infantile right now when it finally does get here, if you're an atheist, aside from wanting to have offspring why would you want to remain biological?

Because it's natural and pure. This is disgusting and I hope any facility doing this research burns down. We already have a population problem as it is without increasing a life-span to the point of nigh infinite. If I met any android people I'd attack their artificial parts out for the greater good. Non-human freaks.

What if they decide you're obsolete and try to conquer you? No one person should be too powerful like that.

I disagree, i'll be making the change along with plenty of other people. I don't have any desire to go out conquering people and what do you mean by natural and pure? When it comes down to it your still just molecules, you will just be arranged far more efficiently. While overpopulation is a problem I'm sure a population of people walking around thousands of times more efficient than a basic person will easily  be able to solve the over population problem which is about supply, not space. Nanotechnology will solve that issue on it's own.


You can go around ripping people's organs out if you want, well you can try, said android will be superhuman by today's idea of a human and will probably break you to pieces, if somehow you manage to become some sort of demented android hunter i'm sure you will just end up in jail. Discrimination is discrimination?

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"YES! How could anyone not be tempted by this? The very idea that this is possible in OUR lifetime is mind bending and tickles me crazy. I wonder why is being biological so amazing? I don't get it. Aside from the fact of being alive since that technology is very infantile right now when it finally does get here, if you're an atheist, aside from wanting to have offspring why would you want to remain biological?

Because it's natural and pure. This is disgusting and I hope any facility doing this research burns down. We already have a population problem as it is without increasing a life-span to the point of nigh infinite. If I met any android people I'd attack their artificial parts out for the greater good. Non-human freaks.

What if they decide you're obsolete and try to conquer you? No one person should be too powerful like that.

I disagree, i'll be making the change along with plenty of other people. I don't have any desire to go out conquering people and what do you mean by natural and pure? When it comes down to it your still just molecules, you will just be arranged far more efficiently. While overpopulation is a problem I'm sure a population of people walking around thousands of times more efficient than a basic person will easily  be able to solve the over population problem which is about supply, not space. Nanotechnology will solve that issue on it's own.


You can go around ripping people's organs out if you want, well you can try, said android will be superhuman by today's idea of a human and will probably break you to pieces, if somehow you manage to become some sort of demented android hunter i'm sure you will just end up in jail. Discrimination is discrimination?

Sarah Conner is a hero to our cause...she's so damn sexy when she was disassembling the M4 in T2.....I put that scene in slow mo when I watch it.

Sarah Conner doesn't kill androids, she kills robots.

how exactly would you transfer from an organic brain to an artificial brain? How do I know that process wouldn't kill me and simply create an exactly artificial copy brain with all my memories and personality? I could die and not even my friends and loved ones would be able to tell the difference.

Quote from: "Loffler"how exactly would you transfer from an organic brain to an artificial brain? How do I know that process wouldn't kill me and simply create an exactly artificial copy brain with all my memories and personality?

Here's a real noodle cooker: is there a difference? Let's say it's a perfect copy in every way, all the memories, all the emotions, all the feelings, opinions, biases, loves and hates, is that not you?

BTW, I'd be willing to make a few copies of myself. I've always wanted to be in a barbershop quartette of Wills.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Loffler"how exactly would you transfer from an organic brain to an artificial brain? How do I know that process wouldn't kill me and simply create an exactly artificial copy brain with all my memories and personality?

Here's a real noodle cooker: is there a difference? Let's say it's a perfect copy in every way, all the memories, all the emotions, all the feelings, opinions, biases, loves and hates, is that not you?

BTW, I'd be willing to make a few copies of myself. I've always wanted to be in a barbershop quartette of Wills.

Ok well let's take that to the next level: the doctors performing the "upload process" of moving you into your new synthetic brain make a mistake. You wake up, and your synthetic copy wakes up! The doctors say "Woops. Our mistake. Just kill yourself, you don't need this old version anymore." Do you do it?

Quote from: "Loffler"Ok well let's take that to the next level: the doctors performing the "upload process" of moving you into your new synthetic brain make a mistake. You wake up, and your synthetic copy wakes up! The doctors say "Woops. Our mistake. Just kill yourself, you don't need this old version anymore." Do you do it?

I'm not sure what the motivation for killing would be here. Why would you kill the other person that you were copied from? In my opinion self is an illusion of consciousness. If the upload process worked, I think there would be two people with their own personal illusions of self.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Loffler"Ok well let's take that to the next level: the doctors performing the "upload process" of moving you into your new synthetic brain make a mistake. You wake up, and your synthetic copy wakes up! The doctors say "Woops. Our mistake. Just kill yourself, you don't need this old version anymore." Do you do it?

I'm not sure what the motivation for killing would be here. Why would you kill the other person that you were copied from?

I didn't say kill the "other person" I said "kill yourself." You wake up and you're the old fleshy version. And you see to your right a robot that acts exactly like you.

Singularians talk about "uploading" to a cybernetic brain so casually, when in fact what that would involve is exactly what I describe above: you're not uploaded, a copy of you is made and the original destroyed.

Well I have to look up "singularian". Do you have a link? But I still don't understand what would motivate killing either the original or the copy in the case of two copies?

Quote from: "AlP"Well I have to look up "singularian". Do you have a link? But I still don't understand what would motivate killing either the original or the copy in the case of two copies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

People talk about cybernetic brain uploading as a means of living forever. They want to transfer their consciousness to an artificial superbrain -- to move it out of their current body and into a synthetic, potentially immortal body. Once you've been transmitted out of the old brain, what's the point in keeping the old brain?

And my response to that reasoning is: because it is impossible to tell if the transfer was successful.

I have the same problem with teleportation. As far as I'm concerned, Captain Kirk died on the pilot episode, replaced with copy after copy.

Okay I think I understand. My view is that in every moment we are "Star Trek" teleported through time. I think that what is left is what remains. I think self might be an idea left over from dualism.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "AlP"Well I have to look up "singularian". Do you have a link? But I still don't understand what would motivate killing either the original or the copy in the case of two copies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

People talk about cybernetic brain uploading as a means of living forever. They want to transfer their consciousness to an artificial superbrain -- to move it out of their current body and into a synthetic, potentially immortal body. Once you've been transmitted out of the old brain, what's the point in keeping the old brain?

And my response to that reasoning is: because it is impossible to tell if the transfer was successful.

I have the same problem with teleportation. As far as I'm concerned, Captain Kirk died on the pilot episode, replaced with copy after copy.

Well think about it like this. If the transfer was successful, why would the organic body wake up consciously then?  If that's the case then it would be clear the process didn't work and it is indeed just a copy.  Also, what makes you so sure that will even be an issue? When we cut and past a file it's clear it's being moved, when we drag a file to another folder it's clear it's being moved, There is a stark difference and if this does become an issue there is no reason we won't be able to solve it, I got a better idea, just to make sure, what if someone was first to log into the internet, then they were to converse, make it clear they are uploaded and download into the body? If the human body doesn't wake up and begin acting like normal it should indicate you're no longer there. People will indeed be interfacing into the internet like it's a second universe or something, no reason they can't upload themselves to it.

Quote from: "AlP"Okay I think I understand. My view is that in every moment we are "Star Trek" teleported through time. I think that what is left is what remains. I think self might be an idea left over from dualism.

I can sympathize with this view. When this issue bothers me I try to think, on the other hand, we have an entirely new body ever 6-7 years. There's not an atom in my body that was in my body 7 years ago. So is that old self gone, replaced piecemeal by someone who inherited the memories and personality of the old self? This is sometimes called the Washington's Ax problem (after the old joke about the museum that had washington's ax on display, except that due to its age they had to replace the handle and the bit).

But that still doesn't make me comfortable with being teleported or uploaded. I only have one consciousness at any given moment, even though we don't understand why or how. I don't have any way of knowing if it will be the last thing I ever see -- and that no one will know I died because a new me replaces the dead me. Even if it killed me, the teleportation would look successful.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "AlP"Well I have to look up "singularian". Do you have a link? But I still don't understand what would motivate killing either the original or the copy in the case of two copies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

People talk about cybernetic brain uploading as a means of living forever. They want to transfer their consciousness to an artificial superbrain -- to move it out of their current body and into a synthetic, potentially immortal body. Once you've been transmitted out of the old brain, what's the point in keeping the old brain?

And my response to that reasoning is: because it is impossible to tell if the transfer was successful.

I have the same problem with teleportation. As far as I'm concerned, Captain Kirk died on the pilot episode, replaced with copy after copy.

Well think about it like this. If the transfer was successful, why would the organic body wake up consciously then?  If that's the case then it would be clear the process didn't work and it is indeed just a copy.  Also, what makes you so sure that will even be an issue? When we cut and past a file it's clear it's being moved, when we drag a file to another folder it's clear it's being moved, There is a stark difference and if this does become an issue there is no reason we won't be able to solve it, I got a better idea, just to make sure, what if someone was first to log into the internet, then they were to converse, make it clear they are uploaded and download into the body? If the human body doesn't wake up and begin acting like normal it should indicate you're no longer there. People will indeed be interfacing into the internet like it's a second universe or something, no reason they can't upload themselves to it.

I don't think you're understanding. The copy/transfer of me would pass ANY test you give it, because it has all my memories, personality, everything. But there is no difference in a transfer and a copy from the receiving end. If you leave the original alive, it's a copy. If you destroy the original, it's a transfer.

Let's combine analogies. Someone invents a teleporter. You want to try it out. So you step into the teleporter in New York to be teleported to Munich. But there's a power surge in the middle of the procedure, and you're still in New York. Then the office gets a phonecall from Munich that says "Sir, the target has arrived in Munich." You have arrived in Munich, but you're also still in New York. There are two of you now! "No biggie," says the teleportation operator. "We're back online. Just step back into the pod so it can disintegrate you. That should complete the procedure."

Would you do it?

{QUOTE]
Well think about it like this. If the transfer was successful, why would the organic body wake up consciously then?  If that's the case then it would be clear the process didn't work and it is indeed just a copy.  Also, what makes you so sure that will even be an issue? When we cut and past a file it's clear it's being moved, when we drag a file to another folder it's clear it's being moved, There is a stark difference and if this does become an issue there is no reason we won't be able to solve it, I got a better idea, just to make sure, what if someone was first to log into the internet, then they were to converse, make it clear they are uploaded and download into the body? If the human body doesn't wake up and begin acting like normal it should indicate you're no longer there. People will indeed be interfacing into the internet like it's a second universe or something, no reason they can't upload themselves to it.[/quote]
I don't think you're understanding. The copy/transfer of me would pass ANY test you give it, because it has all my memories, personality, everything. But there is no difference in a transfer and a copy from the receiving end. If you leave the original alive, it's a copy. If you destroy the original, it's a transfer.

Let's combine analogies. Someone invents a teleporter. You want to try it out. So you step into the teleporter in New York to be teleported to Munich. But there's a power surge in the middle of the procedure, and you're still in New York. Then the office gets a phonecall from Munich that says "Sir, the target has arrived in Munich." You have arrived in Munich, but you're also still in New York. There are two of you now! "No biggie," says the teleportation operator. "We're back online. Just step back into the pod so it can disintegrate you. That should complete the procedure."

Would you do it?[/quote]

Of course not but do you think they would so causally do that simply because one is a copy? If this happens we will have to cross that bridge when we get there but what is this theory of yours based on?

Quote from: "Loffler"I can sympathize with this view. When this issue bothers me I try to think, on the other hand, we have an entirely new body ever 6-7 years. There's not an atom in my body that was in my body 7 years ago. So is that old self gone, replaced piecemeal by someone who inherited the memories and personality of the old self? This is sometimes called the Washington's Ax problem (after the old joke about the museum that had washington's ax on display, except that due to its age they had to replace the handle and the bit).

This issue of self doesn't bother me =). I find it rather liberating to let it go.

Quote from: "Loffler"But that still doesn't make me comfortable with being teleported or uploaded. I only have one consciousness at any given moment, even though we don't understand why or how. I don't have any way of knowing if it will be the last thing I ever see -- and that no one will know I died because a new me replaces the dead me. Even if it killed me, the teleportation would look successful.

Well this technology doesn't exist of course and we can only speculate about how it might work. My assumption is that it would involve making a copy of one's mind into an artificial body. I don't see why this would result in the death of the biological person. The issues seem that they would be more related to there being two people with (initially) the same mind. Lets say the person performed a crime before being cloned. After cloning, which should be held accountable? Say prior to cloning, the person owns some property. Afterwards, who is the owner?

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Loffler"I can sympathize with this view. When this issue bothers me I try to think, on the other hand, we have an entirely new body ever 6-7 years. There's not an atom in my body that was in my body 7 years ago. So is that old self gone, replaced piecemeal by someone who inherited the memories and personality of the old self? This is sometimes called the Washington's Ax problem (after the old joke about the museum that had washington's ax on display, except that due to its age they had to replace the handle and the bit).

This issue of self doesn't bother me =). I find it rather liberating to let it go.

Quote from: "Loffler"But that still doesn't make me comfortable with being teleported or uploaded. I only have one consciousness at any given moment, even though we don't understand why or how. I don't have any way of knowing if it will be the last thing I ever see -- and that no one will know I died because a new me replaces the dead me. Even if it killed me, the teleportation would look successful.

Well this technology doesn't exist of course and we can only speculate about how it might work. My assumption is that it would involve making a copy of one's mind into an artificial body. I don't see why this would result in the death of the biological person. The issues seem that they would be more related to there being two people with (initially) the same mind. Lets say the person performed a crime before being cloned. After cloning, which should be held accountable? Say prior to cloning, the person owns some property. Afterwards, who is the owner?

I think he was just using that as analogy, his point seemed to be that how do you know if by obtaining a new body that you aren't doing so and just uploading a copy of your mind into an artificial body and that there is no way to be sure which I think there would be. When you move a file on windows it doesn't delete that file and make a new one in the place you moved it to unless you manually do that yourself.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I think he was just using that as analogy, his point seemed to be that how do you know if by obtaining a new body that you aren't doing so and just uploading a copy of your mind into an artificial body and that there is no way to be sure which I think there would be. When you move a file on windows it doesn't delete that file and make a new one in the place you moved it to unless you manually do that yourself.

I'm not sure if this file moving analogy is quite right. You are correct that if you move a file in Windows within a single volume (hard drive or partition) it does not make a copy of the file and delete the original. But if you move a file from one volume to another, like from a hard drive to a USB stick, that's exactly what it does. It makes a copy and then deletes the original. I think the latter is closer to what transferring a mind into an android would entail. The android "brain" is like a second hard drive.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I think he was just using that as analogy, his point seemed to be that how do you know if by obtaining a new body that you aren't doing so and just uploading a copy of your mind into an artificial body and that there is no way to be sure which I think there would be. When you move a file on windows it doesn't delete that file and make a new one in the place you moved it to unless you manually do that yourself.

I'm not sure if this file moving analogy is quite right. You are correct that if you move a file in Windows within a single volume (hard drive or partition) it does not make a copy of the file and delete the original. But if you move a file from one volume to another, like from a hard drive to a USB stick, that's exactly what it does. It makes a copy and then deletes the original. I think the latter is closer to what transferring a mind into an android would entail. The android "brain" is like a second hard drive.

Indeed, on older HDD you are right but from what I understand that is not the case with a solid state.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Indeed, on older HDD you are right but from what I understand that is not the case with a solid state.

It's exactly the same with solid state. I'm afraid I'm an expert on this. I'm a professional programmer. Sorry =).

You guys still don't see what I'm asking.

If you don't "believe in the self," the why not just kill yourself now, content in the knowledge that there are other people and animals alive, and that's just the same as you being alive?

Whether I believe the self is an illusion or not, I've never successfully experienced the world from the point of view of another person or animal. This is the only consciousness I've got, illusory or not. I'm not passing it through a teleporter or transmitting it to a hard drive because there is no way of differentiating between the real me and a copy of me.

Quote from: "Loffler"If you don't "believe in the self," the why not just kill yourself now, content in the knowledge that there are other people and animals alive, and that's just the same as you being alive?

Or why not not kill myself? Or indeed why do anything in particular? As an ex-nihilist, these questions defeated me. One morning on the bus to work I realized that this concept of self that I had was a denial of reality. I got off the bus and sat on the ground and just couldn't bring myself to do anything for about 20 minutes. What should I do if nothing has meaning or value and indeed even the concepts of meaning and value are paradoxically meaningless? It was at this point I accepted that I was human and humans have evolved to value certain things and find meaning in certain things. We're wrong of course but we have these illusions that permit us to survive. Self is another of these illusions. By understanding that, one does not necessarily cease to be human. I think most people would choose humanity over suicide, because they are human.

Quote from: "Loffler"Whether I believe the self is an illusion or not, I've never successfully experienced the world from the point of view of another person or animal. This is the only consciousness I've got, illusory or not. I'm not passing it through a teleporter or transmitting it to a hard drive because there is no way of differentiating between the real me and a copy of me.

I'm not denying consciousness. That's real. It's part of how our minds work. But the experience of an entity beyond our physical bodies is illusory IMHO. It's just a useful concept. I understand your uneasiness. It's potentially dangerous to copy your mind into an android. But if I was very confident that at least one replica of my mind would persist, I don't see it as any different from the little death I die in every moment. The person writing this post will become something different. It's true being is one instant in a continuous process of change. And it will not survive the post =). But the future entity I become will look back through its memory and see a single unified entity. That's the illusion of self.

Right you are, A|P. I have a firm grasp on Buddhist theology, if it could be called that, and so I understand very well what loffler is going through.

Loffler, you asked why we shouldn't kill ourselves if we don't really exist. Luckily, there's an answer: There's nothing to kill.

In other words, there is perception, but there is nothing that percieves. The best part about it is that perception doesn't die. Because everything that can be percieved doesn't die either. It's a very strange way of looking at the universe, but if you can wrap your mind around it, you'll find that the universe can be looked at as completely static and eternal as a whole, and phenomena within the universe as simply perceiving a portion of that static and eternal universe through constantly changing boundaries.

In fact, it's perfectly possible to achieve stasis. You can do this by expanding your consciousness to include everything that you observe at any one moment. To the outside observer, this might seem like being completely fluid and constantly changing, but I can personally attest that from the inside, you experience immortality.

Weird shit, huh?  

Did I accidentally become Buddhist? Honestly I know little about it. I think I'm some kind of existentialist. But what do I know? =)

Well, you could say I embrace the existential side of buddhism. I don't go in for enlightenment or all that jazz.

But I will say that it would make a lot of sense, to me at least, if death were a kind of immortality. Life--is the placing of boundaries on the all of existence. What is death but the removal of the same?

I think I'm going to die. Whether or not we build android replacement bodies, this biological one is a going to be worm food =). Actually it'll be burned but I like the worm food metaphor.

Quote from: "AlP"I think I'm going to die. Whether or not we build android replacement bodies, this biological one is a going to be worm food =). Actually it'll be burned but I like the worm food metaphor.

Then as was suggested by others earlier, the best policy might just be to upload several copies of yourself as soon as possible without disposing of the original (you). Just to cover the bases.

Quote from: "Loffler"Then as was suggested by others earlier, the best policy might just be to upload several copies of yourself as soon as possible without disposing of the original (you). Just to cover the bases.

Agreed. However, even if the technology is invented, I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

Quote from: "Loffler"how exactly would you transfer from an organic brain to an artificial brain?

Will posted a link to a story a while back called "Learning to be Me" (full text here:  http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.a ... order.html (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/BORDER/Complete/Border.html) ).  I think it relates to this question/topic.

While I think it would be cool to be able to live until I was ready to die; not sure that forever sounds that great though eventually you'd see everything there is to see and done everything there is to do to the point that everything is boring.

I also don't think it would be very practical to have immortal humans who can also reproduce...where would they all live?  It wouldn't be very practical to make immortal humans who could not reproduce because then if something did kill a lot of them; there would be no way to repopulate.  So, I really don't see how this could work.

Assuming any of this is possible...and it probably is since we already do put artificial parts in humans...we'll just be faced with another situation where the super rich get to be the ones that get the cool technology while the rest of us are ignored.  At least now we can know the overly powerful dictators will eventually die; leaving the possibility for their replacement by someone more kind.

Development in access to technology may be uneven, but there's never been a situation where something that only the rich had didn't eventually be able to be accessed by the poor. Sure the division's still there, but the poor people will get a higher standard of living too. Just not as high as the rich. But eventually, the poor will get that standard of living and the rich will get even higher. So I don't think it's all that bad.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"Development in access to technology may be uneven, but there's never been a situation where something that only the rich had didn't eventually be able to be accessed by the poor. Sure the division's still there, but the poor people will get a higher standard of living too. Just not as high as the rich. But eventually, the poor will get that standard of living and the rich will get even higher. So I don't think it's all that bad.

Unless we figure out how to live on other planets...there isn't enough room for everyone to live forever.  So, it's can't trickle down to the poor.

Quote from: "Whitney"While I think it would be cool to be able to live until I was ready to die; not sure that forever sounds that great though eventually you'd see everything there is to see and done everything there is to do to the point that everything is boring.

Yeah I agree about not wanting to live forever. Without some kind of milestone, one can procrastinate indefinitely. Death is a meaningful milestone. It's also something to measure value against. For example, how important is eating cake compared to dieing? Not very important. If we live forever, why not just eat cake all day =).

Quote from: "Whitney"I also don't think it would be very practical to have immortal humans who can also reproduce...where would they all live?  It wouldn't be very practical to make immortal humans who could not reproduce because then if something did kill a lot of them; there would be no way to repopulate.  So, I really don't see how this could work.

Well you could potentially pack a lot of people into data centers. They wouldn't need to have physical bodies all the time. I'm thinking you would rent one when you wanted to exist outside of a computer =). Also, if you have too many people, you could suspend some of them until conditions change or do some kind of time sharing.

They could reproduce by simply cloning themselves. You could fork a person into two initially identical people. You could also back them up regularly so that only a limited amount of their time can die.

Quote from: "Whitney"Assuming any of this is possible...and it probably is since we already do put artificial parts in humans...we'll just be faced with another situation where the super rich get to be the ones that get the cool technology while the rest of us are ignored.  At least now we can know the overly powerful dictators will eventually die; leaving the possibility for their replacement by someone more kind.

That's a good point.

Why the hurry?  There's no need to perform an instantaneous transfer from an organic body to an inorganic one.  Begin with brain augmentation with inorganics and, as the organic bits of the brain die over hundreds of years, slowly replace them with inorganic bits.  All of this would take place on a microscopic scale, a few cells at a time over long periods of time.  Then there would be no sudden duplication and annihilation, only a shift in what your old cells are being replaced (or not replaced, as the case may be) with.  

So, would I do that - yep.

Kylyssa, you rock.


...but I rock harder.  

Kylyssa's thoughts are the same as my own, like it or not the brain is not equatable to the serial processing our computers do. The brain is not clocked, it isn't serial, it's asynchronous and neural. This means that, given the size of the neural net, completely disparate signals can take place within the brain, multiple neurons can fire with varying clock rates, and not every portion need be active or inactive at all times. We are the gestalt products of group action within our brains, and therefore the brain can be replaced piecemeal without killing or copying ourselves.

This also means that the startrek transporter analogies are not accurate either. People earlier commented that they see no problems with being copied, that every moment we're alive we are destroyed and replaced with a copy, but this denies the facts of neurophysiology. At any given time multiple neurons are firing, each out of sync with each other, and this group movement is the best answer we have right now for the medium of consciousness. Even if you invoke the stuttered nature of inter-neuron communication, the fact that not all neurons exist in the same state at the same time does not change the fluidity of the group movement.

A better analogy would be that of a river. You can take a cup of water from it and the river still exists, you can pour water into it, and the river is still the same river. You cannot perceive gaps in the flow of the river, it's continuous because every molecule in it does not travel at the same speed or exist in the same linear position. The river exists as a group effect of its individual atoms, just like the mind exists as a group effect of all the impulses within the brain.

Ragarth, I noted this in another thread, but it seems that Stanford Scientists have created a chip with an architecture that functions in exactly the same way that brain matter does, and were even able to program the brain's sine wave structure into it.

More info, here:
NeuroGrid Chip (http://stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/documents/Overview.pdf)

Quote from: "Renegnicat"Ragarth, I noted this in another thread, but it seems that Stanford Scientists have created a chip with an architecture that functions in exactly the same way that brain matter does, and were even able to program the brain's sine wave structure into it.

More info, here:
NeuroGrid Chip (http://stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/documents/Overview.pdf)

Thanks for the link, I'm always interested in reading these things. I actually believe I read a paper on this particular project, a large scale neural net project that began showing self-activation, correct? Or is that another one?

Hmm... I'm not sure, but I don't think so. From what I understand of the Neurogrid chip, it's not a neural net. Basically, a neural net is a collection of interconnected micro-computers, but the architecture is still that of a single on-off switch.(vastly simplified remark, this.)

The neurogrid, on the other hand, I believe is a completely different fork from the von Neumann architecture. But it's not self aware yet. XD The current neurogrid chip replicates the amount of neurons found in a worms brain. By 2010, we'll be able to manufacture a neurogrid that can replicate a mouse's brain.

This is why I think we'll have androids in the next 15-30 years. Because the environment of brain matter has allready been replicated in this chips. It's just a matter of scale.

I'll probably buy a real-doll or something and implant it in her.  

I worked as a research assistant on a project where we were designing asynchronous CPUs, i.e. CPUs without a clock. It wasn't intended as a way of getting closer to the way the brain works. We were actually looking into whether they might be more efficient and use less power that way. It didn't =).

I'm not sure why a brain being asynchronous would prevent it from being copied? It's more complicated than simply copying a collection of bits from point A to point B but conceptually at least I think you can look at the state of a brain at a particular instant in time. I think at the scale of the brain quantum oddities don't need to be taken into account. Meaning, it's not the case that you are stuck with only being able to say there is an n% chance of the brain being in this state and an m% chance it's like this. And I bet you don't need to do it particle by particle. Once you know precisely how the nerves and neurons and other bits and pieces work (see how much I know about neuroscience!), you can probably use a simpler model for the "current state of the brain".