75 replies to this topic

[Oliver_R]

I watched a film by the Immortality Institute just now and in one section someone said in the future we would all make lots of backup copies of ourself - but in a sense , what would be the point? OK, the world would continue to benefit from our knowledge and experience, but with no continutity with our own mind, they would be just like identical twins, not actually us at all. The same with upload to a computer -- how would we make sure there was still just one "me", with a continuity of awareness and feeling of self?

[forever freedom]

We can't be currently sure. No one knows what will happen once we start toying with uploading. We can only guess, and my guess is that "shared awareness" can be possible, since our minds will be much more powerful. This means that there could be two or more "us" walking around in the world, and every information processed by one of the copies is processed by all of the copies. So if one of them died, all that would happen is that one source of information would stop, but we would still be there as the other "us", and being able to replace the one that died with another one.


The problem is that this would only work if information could travel from one to another instantly, but we haven't yet found a way to do that unfortunately...



But this all is just my take on how uploading and having different copies of oneself could be like.

Edited by sam988, 29 June 2008 - 02:44 AM.

[Oliver_R]

Thanks, that's an interesting way of looking at it.

[nanostuff]

We can't be currently sure.

Yes we can, we could have been sure 50 years ago. Information is information regardless where it resides. Transferring bits is no longer a mystery.

Consciousness "continuity", no such thing. The sooner you get over the deception the better you will be for it.

[platypus]

We can't be currently sure.

Yes we can, we could have been sure 50 years ago. Information is information regardless where it resides.

So is there information in noise for example?

[nanostuff]

We can't be currently sure.

Yes we can, we could have been sure 50 years ago. Information is information regardless where it resides.

So is there information in noise for example?

Yes there is. At the very least the information that there is noise. Not sure what this has to do with it, but there you go.

[Luna]

I still doubt "information is information no matter where it is" approach, if you were to replicate a person, he stands next to you and the replica stands there, not the same.
Yet, I do believe if you connect the person to special nerve circuits and let him share two bodys with full functionality and 2 cores (brain, machine), then disconnect one, yeah it will be the same.

But then again, nobody knows.
Oh btw, I don't believe as much as people here seem to do in quantum philosophy for this type of things (especially not other universe cause of quantum or quantum computers solving problems by splitting to other universes, so)

[elwalvador]

Hundreds of thousands of chemical reactions are taking place in the brain every nanosecond. The brain is continously changing, so in a very real sense we are all changing into different people every nanosecond. Assuming we could plug a USB cable into a person's head, and started uploading all the data in order to get a "copy", we would end up with a copy that was slightly different than what was in the brain before uploading .

Imagine trying to copy a song from an MP3 player, but the song you are trying to upload is countinously changing, so even as the upload process is taking place the song is changing and by the time uploading is complete, the song you have on the computer is slightly different than what is in the mp3 player. So it wouldn't be an exact copy, and the song on the computer would sound different than the one in the mp3 player. Therefore, in terms of copying brains, the newly created copies would be uniquely different independent beings. They would be very similar to each other in the beggining, but not exact copies, and they would countinue to differentiate over time.

Edited by elwalvador, 20 July 2008 - 04:30 PM.

[elwalvador]

Consciousness "continuity", no such thing. The sooner you get over the deception the better you will be for it.

Please explain.

[Cyberbrain]

The mind is a process like a program. The median on which it exists doesn't matter as long as the original program structure remains the same.

[vyntager]

The mind is a process like a program. The median on which it exists doesn't matter as long as the original program structure remains the same.

Like running a Linux program on Windows. Or a program made to run on a FPGA on a x86 processor.

Or more appropriately, make a functional screen projecting pictures out of RAM. No matter how intelligently you use a medium, sometimes there are things you just can't do with it.

Is it the real, implemented structure, the abstract algorithm behind the implementation, the output of the program, a combination of these, or something else that matters ?

[Cyberbrain]

With out the exact science of how the mind works and how uploading would work, the question " still you or just a copy?" is rhetorical.

[nanostuff]

Consciousness "continuity", no such thing. The sooner you get over the deception the better you will be for it.

Please explain.

Happy to, but Kostas beat me to it Maybe I should check the forum more often than I do.

As he suggested, if a process pauses and is resumed later, it's the same process by all conceivable measure. And once again, where it is resumed is irrelevant.

Edited by nanostuff, 12 August 2008 - 06:31 AM.

[platypus]

The mind is a process like a program. The median on which it exists doesn't matter as long as the original program structure remains the same.

Where's the empirical evidence for that? For all we know consciousness is a property of certain configurations of matter, and not others.

[Dmitri]

I watched a film by the Immortality Institute just now and in one section someone said in the future we would all make lots of backup copies of ourself - but in a sense , what would be the point? OK, the world would continue to benefit from our knowledge and experience, but with no continutity with our own mind, they would be just like identical twins, not actually us at all. The same with upload to a computer -- how would we make sure there was still just one "me", with a continuity of awareness and feeling of self?

I believe it will merely be a copy, so it's not true immortality. Like you mentioned Twins could be called natural clones, and despite being very similar in personality they both have different thoughts they both have a sense of self they are not the same person, so I don't think copying your mind into a computer will make that program you. It would only be immortality if they actually figured out a way to transfer your consciousness into the computer or another carbon based body; although it sounds way too sci-fi to the point that it sounds silly even writing about it.

[RighteousReason]

(cross-posting)

I knew this would inevitably come up- now to smash it to miserable smithereens

To use Eliezer's thought exercise... imagine replacing one neuron at a time (or if you are really picky, use a lower scale) with a totally functionally equivalent non-biological component (doing so with the understanding that you replace all the atoms and molecules in your body constantly, so nothing fundamentally different or special is occuring). If you imagine doing it over a long period of time, you would continue thinking, remembering, and behaving as your usual conscious self after any given neuron is replaced. Use the process of induction here- once you have replaced all of the neurons, you are still exactly the same, yet totally digital. Now compress the time component so that everything happens in one instant. There you have it- you have uploaded from a biological to a computational substrate, without losing anything whatsoever.

So taking your argument to the logical conclusion, you would be saying that anytime we lose a particular atom or molecule that we *totally die*, because to replace just one atom with a different one would be a "copy", and thus not technically 'you'. There is your absurdity my friend.

Believe me- there is nothing supernatural about that lump of carbon between your ears (although I can certainly understand calling it magical or mystical in a purely romantic, non-literal sense).

"But I am not an object. I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a John K Clark-ish way. At the present time only one chunk of matter in the universe behaves that way; someday that could change."
-- John K Clark

from Eliezer Yudkowsky at OvercomingBias.com

(cross-posted)

I was referring more so to uploading and things of that nature, rather then replacing your brain with artificial neurons, which would in no way seperate the body from the mind.

In regards to that comment though, I do not see how replacing all the neurons in your brain makes it digital in any way.... artificial yes, but how is it digital? You just have a brain that is not made of biological components

Well, once you have all that stuff replaced with artificial components, you could stick a wireless reciever in your head and just run everything from a giant remote server somewhere.

I don't know if you have ever used something like SSH, but basically its like opening a command prompt on your home computer from a remote computer. You can use that remote shell to interface with your home operating system, but you can export whatever code you are running to a remote location.

Though I do agree with your basic point that this kind of stuff is too shocking to approach rationally for most people.

See Future Shock Levels.

If I saved/uploaded a copy of my complete mental self, it wouldn't change a thing for me. I cannot stress this enough. My copy basically becomes a new person over time. It's just another person wondering the Earth, not too unlike a twin, which are nearly exact clones at birth, but then become different people over time as they grow up. There is no continued life for me if I'm slammed by a bus and my copy continues. And frankly, that's all I care about -- my continued existence, not a copy's.

I, me, my

"But I am not an object. I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a John K Clark-ish way. At the present time only one chunk of matter in the universe behaves that way; someday that could change."
-- John K Clark

although I can't say I don't share your "yuck" reaction, this is a fundamental philosophical hurdle.

suppose your full brain state was backed up upon each molecular operation. when you get hit by a bus and revived, how would that not be you?

see below about zombies before posting an objection, if you have one.. otherwise, do you agree?

As for the zombies, see this: http://www.overcomin...04/zombies.html

I think this is your particular fundamental philosophical hurdle.

[RighteousReason]

Turns out this is a settled issue.

[Luna]

I highly doubt it is you if you die and then cloned or replicated from DNA.

You believe quantum mind a little bit too much, or something similar in concept.

[RighteousReason]

I highly doubt it is you if you die and then cloned or replicated from DNA.

You believe quantum mind a little bit too much, or something similar in concept.

Haha... if you were talking to me, then no no no. I definitely don't believe your memory can be retrieved from DNA. Nor do I believe in any quantum mind stuff.

[Nova]

I highly doubt it is you if you die and then cloned or replicated from DNA.

You believe quantum mind a little bit too much, or something similar in concept.

Haha... if you were talking to me, then no no no. I definitely don't believe your memory can be retrieved from DNA. Nor do I believe in any quantum mind stuff.

Baby birds of a cuckoo grow and depart on the south, finding road - it is the instinct which has been written down on DNA.

The man sees beauty of the woman, and the woman cannot see beauty of other woman - it is the man's instinct which has been written down on DNA

To write down memory in DNA probably. It is not necessary!
It is better to copy it on the computer, by means of the biomolecular computer.

Edited by Nova, 16 October 2008 - 04:28 PM.

[Brafarality]

Consciousness "continuity", no such thing. The sooner you get over the deception the better you will be for it.

Susan Blackmore thinks like this, but she is skeptical of calling everything illusory.

Why is it deception?
Personally, I believe the philosopher zombie is as compellingly difficult to deal with as Fermi's Paradox.

The post by Eliezer Yudkowski in overcomingbias.com was mildly interesting, but wholly unconvincing and in no way a flawless refutation of zombies.
It was more of an ad hominem attack against believers, calling those who fall for zombie arguments a 'lay audience' among other things.
What of Chalmers, Chopra, Stapp, and countless others?
Are they lay?
But, her method of persuasion is unsurprising: most 'skeptics' resort to personal attacks, slander, libel, mockery, and the like. Similarly, they often call anything that opposes their viewpoint as a deception or a falsehood.

While the uplifting, exciting trailblazers enlighten us, the skeptics play dirty and constantly low-blow and attempt to discredit via personal attacks dissenters, and rarely do they directly refute propositions and theories.
They generally mud sling.

I think Michael Schermer is a reasonably intelligent guy, but he thinks he is like a super genius who sees beyond the greatest minds in history. He snickers at Einstein and Newton, guffaws at information fields and the quantum mind, but offers nothing in return-
totally devoid of all creativity, imagination and innovation is this poor soul.
In the end, he may be remembered as a bulldog journalist who made some progress in discrediting truly fraudulent mediums and psychics. That appears to be it. Nothing more to offer humanity or the universe.
No novel advances in science, no great works of art.
But, I am sure he has deluded himself into thinking he is a greater genius than Shakespeare.

This thread must be re-awakened!

Edited by paulthekind, 13 November 2008 - 04:48 PM.

[RighteousReason]

It was more of an ad hominem attack against believers. While the uplifting, exciting trailblazers enlighten us, the skeptics play dirty and constantly low-blow and attempt to discredit via personal attacks dissenters, and rarely do they directly refute propositions and theories.
They generally mud sling.

That is completely absurd. Did you actually read Eliezer Yudkowsky's posts?

http://www.overcomin...04/zombies.html

also,
http://www.overcomin...mbie-movie.html

GENERAL FRED: These zombies... are different. They're... philosophical zombies.

CAPTAIN MUDD: Are they filled with rage, causing them to bite people?

COLONEL TODD: Do they lose all capacity for reason?

GENERAL FRED: No. They behave... exactly like we do... except that they're not conscious.

(Silence grips the table.)

COLONEL TODD: Dear God.

GENERAL FRED moves over to a computerized display.

GENERAL FRED: This is New York City, two weeks ago.

The display shows crowds bustling through the streets, people eating in restaurants, a garbage truck hauling away trash.

GENERAL FRED: This... is New York City... now.

The display changes, showing a crowded subway train, a group of students laughing in a park, and a couple holding hands in the sunlight.

COLONEL TODD: It's worse than I imagined.

This really is a completely settled issue. Zombie-ism is silly, magical, and entirely non-sensical.

Unless you have something to offer other than false accusations, move along please...

Edited by Savage, 13 November 2008 - 05:02 PM.

[Brafarality]

Unless you have something to offer other than false accusations, move along please...

I read them all.

Some excerpts:

Though there are other elements to the zombie argument (I'll deal with them below), I think that the intuition of the passive listener is what first seduces people to zombie-ism. In particular, it's what seduces a lay audience to zombie-ism. The core notion is simple and easy to access: The lights are on but no one's home.

-
Discredits believers, implies they are commoners or simpletons. Journalistic persuasion, not scientific rigor.

I know I'm speaking from limited experience, here. But based on my limited experience, the Zombie Argument may be a candidate for the most deranged idea in all of philosophy.

and

But these weirdnesses are pinned down by massive evidence. There's a difference between believing something weird because science has confirmed it overwhelmingly - versus believing a proposition that seems downright deranged, because of a great big complicated philosophical argument centered around unspecified miracles and giant blank spots not even claimed to be understood

Deranged? Miracles? Pathetic.

Two quick examples above. Will paste more when I have a moment!

Wow. The movie post is far and away the worst example of lack-of-usefulness from anything thus far from Yudkowski.

Trying to sway popular opinion with poorly written dialog, yet, at the same time, attacking popular opinion when it does not agree with him.

Edited by paulthekind, 13 November 2008 - 05:42 PM.

[Brafarality]

This really is a completely settled issue. Zombie-ism is silly, magical, and entirely non-sensical.

When? How?

I am not saying this is how you will respond, but here is an imagined 'skeptics' reply:

'Here is a link, but since you obviously believe in magic, this article will not persuade you'

Michael Schermer, the skeptic's spokesperson, does this all the time: ad hominem stuff.

I recall in an interview about information fields him saying: "Did you ever notice how crossword puzzles seem easier to solve later on in the day they were published? Neither have I."

Again...pathetic.

[RighteousReason]

SCIENTIST: The zombie disease eliminates consciousness without changing the brain in any way. We've been trying to understand how the disease is transmitted. Our conclusion is that, since the disease attacks dual properties of ordinary matter, it must, itself, operate outside our universe. We're dealing with an epiphenomenal virus.

GENERAL FRED: Are you sure?

SCIENTIST: As sure as we can be in the total absence of evidence.

Edited by Savage, 13 November 2008 - 06:53 PM.

[RighteousReason]

I think its crazy how people who take this viewpoint that Dennett, Yudkowsky, myself, and others take are labeled "skeptics", "disbelievers", "attacking popular opinion when it does not agree with him", and how Lanier kept referring to it as comparable to religion or religious dogma.

The popular opinion is a very poorly defined, non-sensical philosophical position based on supernatural phenomena! It is accepted dogmatically without any basis in facts, physics, or any evidence at all!

OFFICER 1: You've got to watch out for those clever bastards. They look like humans. They can talk like humans. They're identical to humans on the atomic level. But they're not human.

OFFICER 2: Scumbags.

OFFICER 1: All right, buddy, let's see your qualia.

MAN: I don't have any.

OFFICER 2 suddenly pulls a gun, keeping it trained on the MAN.

OFFICER 2: Aha! A zombie!

The whole thing is absurd, and yes, deranged!

Edited by Savage, 13 November 2008 - 06:53 PM.

[Brafarality]

Hmmm...can't quite explain what chip was on my shoulder a few hours ago (pre-siesta), but I am now of a more level-headed outlook.

Savage- you were only defending them so, thankfully, I never directed anything negative directly at you or I would be uttering profuse contrition at this moment, though indirect remarks compel it from me somewhat nonetheless.

One thing is certain: the matter is absolutely fascinating and I personally am not sure if it is settled one way or the other.
For some, the mere possibility of zombies is proof of epiphenomenal consciousness.
For others, there is no mystery, they are nonsense, and a waste of precious mental space at that.

And, so as not to seem like a thread hijacker, the matter perfectly and pertinently ties into the more sci-fi-ey concept of uploading.

[RighteousReason]

And, so as not to seem like a thread hijacker, the matter perfectly and pertinently ties into the more sci-fi-ey concept of uploading.

Yes, of course. I think this is the main philosophical hurdle that people have with cryonics, uploading, and reductionism in general.

So imagine my annoyance...

[Brafarality]

And, so as not to seem like a thread hijacker, the matter perfectly and pertinently ties into the more sci-fi-ey concept of uploading.

Yes, of course. I think this is the main philosophical hurdle that people have with cryonics, uploading, and reductionism in general.

So imagine my annoyance...

That they are all still considered sci-fi? Interesting, compelling, but unrealistic?
Or something else I missed?

One thing about the Philosopher's Zombie I appreciate is that it is a thought experiment that is non-quantitative and yet it has become kind of well known in many circles and also has the potential to advance the frontiers of science. Pretty cool.

There is little reliance on philosophy in the post modern age to advance scientific knowledge, of course, and, yet, it may still have a few tales of noble note to be told.
Imagine, a genuine advance in applied science via pure philosophy!
It would be glorious.
It could herald a new age...a simplification of matters.
All the quantification of science today might seem like ptolemaic astronomy tomorrow, overwrought and unnecessary, replaced by a psychic continuum, with a few key advances in consciousness studies and pure philosophy.

I look to those who need bellows to jar themselves out of existential contemplation for our next great age.

[RighteousReason]

And, so as not to seem like a thread hijacker, the matter perfectly and pertinently ties into the more sci-fi-ey concept of uploading.

Yes, of course. I think this is the main philosophical hurdle that people have with cryonics, uploading, and reductionism in general.

So imagine my annoyance...

That they are all still considered sci-fi? Interesting, compelling, but unrealistic?
Or something else I missed?

One thing about the Philosopher's Zombie I appreciate is that it is a thought experiment that is non-quantitative and yet it has become kind of well known in many circles and also has the potential to advance the frontiers of science. Pretty cool.

There is little reliance on philosophy in the post modern age to advance scientific knowledge, of course, and, yet, it may still have a few tales of noble note to be told.
Imagine, a genuine advance in applied science via pure philosophy!
It would be glorious.
It could herald a new age...a simplification of matters.
All the quantification of science today might seem like ptolemaic astronomy tomorrow, overwrought and unnecessary, replaced by a psychic continuum, with a few key advances in consciousness studies and pure philosophy.

I look to those who need bellows to jar themselves out of existential contemplation for our next great age.

That they are all still considered sci-fi? Interesting, compelling, but unrealistic?

Cryonics and uploading are perfectly realistic.

My annoyance is the fact that...

The popular opinion is a very poorly defined, non-sensical philosophical position based on supernatural phenomena! It is accepted dogmatically without any basis in facts, physics, or any evidence at all!

... and everything else said above by me and in the links to Yudkowsky, when this is such a fundamental philosophical hurdle to things that are so important like cryonics, and so philosophically basic like reductionism.

One thing about the Philosopher's Zombie I appreciate is that it is a thought experiment that is non-quantitative and yet it has become kind of well known in many circles and also has the potential to advance the frontiers of science. Pretty cool.

It has no potential to advance the frontiers of science in any way. It offers no testable hypotheses, there is no associated evidence, or anything scientific about it at all. It is a purely philosophical construct exactly like flying spaghetti monsters.

There is little reliance on philosophy in the post modern age to advance scientific knowledge

That's not true. Philosophy is integral in any field of science. Most fields have matured enough that the philosophical problems have been long settled. Other fields are still young enough that philosophy is unsettled to varying degrees, such as in evolution, or artificial intelligence.

Imagine, a genuine advance in applied science via pure philosophy!

That's hilarious because it makes absolutely no sense, and it really further highlightes the absurdity of zombie-ism.

from wikipedia: "Science"

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work...

You get nowhere with "pure philosophy" in science.

For you cannot make a true map of a city by sitting in your bedroom with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper according to impulse. You must walk through the city and draw lines on paper that correspond to what you see. If, seeing the city unclearly, you think that you can shift a line just a little to the right, just a little to the left, according to your caprice, this is just the same mistake.

--Eliezer Yudkowsky, Twelve Virtues of Rationality

Edited by Savage, 14 November 2008 - 12:17 AM.